Aesthetics of faces: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of evaluative and descriptive judgment processes

Journal of Psychophysiology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 41-57

  Roye, Anja ^a   Höfel, Lea ^a   Jacobsen, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Attractiveness research; Descriptive judgments; Evaluative judgments; Event related potentials (ERPs); Judgment processes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; ESTHETICS; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FACIES; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; REACTION TIME; STIMULUS;

EID: 65549151162     PISSN: 02698803     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/0269-8803.22.1.41     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alley, T.R., & Cunningham, M.R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychological Science, 2, 123-125.
2. American Electroencephalographic Society. (1991). American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 8, 200-202.
3. Baudouin, J.Y., & Tiberghien, G. (2004). Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychologica, 117, 313-332.
4. Bentin, S., Allison, T., Puce, A., Perez, E., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 551-565.
5. Bentin, S., & Deouell, L.Y. (2000). Structural encoding and identification in face processing: ERP evidence for separate mechanisms. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 35-54.
6. Brattico, E., Jacobsen, T., De Baene, W., Nakai, N., & Tervaniemi, M. (2003). Electrical brain responses to descriptive versus evaluative judgments of music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 155-157.
7. Buss, D.M. (2000). Desires in human mating. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 907, 39-49.
8. Cacioppo, J.T., Crites, S.L., & Gardner, W.L. (1996). Attitudes to the right: Evaluative processing is associated with lateralized late positive event-related brain potentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1205-1219.
9. Cacioppo, J.T., Crites, S.L., Gardner, W.L., & Berntson, G.G. (1994). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categorizations: I. A late positive brain potential that varies as a function of trait negativity and extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 115-125.
10. Crites, S.L., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1996). Electrocortical differentiation of evaluative and nonevaluative categorizations. Psychological Science, 7, 318-321.
11. Crites, S.L., Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L., & Berntson, G.G. (1995). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categorization: II. A late positive brain potential that varies as a function of attitude registration rather than attitude report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 997-1013.
12. Cunningham, M.R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasiexperiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
13. Cunningham, M.R., Roberts, A.R., Barbee, A.P., Druen, P.B., & Wu, C.H. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.
14. Cunningham, W.A., Espinet, S.D., DeYoung, C.G., & Zelazo, P.D. (2005). Attitudes to the right- and left: Frontal ERP asymmetries associated with stimulus valence and processing goals. Neuroimage, 28, 827-834.
15. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
16. Eimer, M. (2000). Event-related brain potentials distinguish processing stages involved in face perception and recognition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 694-705.
17. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233-242.
18. Groner, R., Walder, F., & Groner, M. (1984). Looking at faces: Local and global aspects of scanpaths. In A.G. Gale & F. Johnson (Eds.), Theoretical and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 523-533). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
19. Halit, H., de Haan, M., & Johnson, M.H. (2000). Modulation of event-related potentials by prototypical and atypical faces. Neuroreport, 11, 1871-1875.
20. Hassebrauck, M. (1998). The visual process method: A new method to study physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 111-123.
21. Hinsz, V.B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 223-229.
22. Höfel, L., & Jacobsen, T. (2007a). Electrophysiological indices of processing aesthetics: spontaneous or intentional processes? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 20-31.
23. Höfel, L., & Jacobsen, T. (2007b). Electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics: a result of judgment categorization or judgment report? Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 9-21.
24. Ito, T.A., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2000). Electrophysiological evidence of implicit and explicit categorization processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 660-676.
25. Ito, T.A., Larsen, J.T., Smith, N.K., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.
26. Jacobsen, T. (2004). Individual and group modeling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41-56.
27. Jacobsen, T. (2006). Bridging the arts and the sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155-162.
28. Jacobsen, T., Buchta, K., Kohler, M., & Schröger (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94, 1253-1260.
29. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 95, 755-766.
30. Jacobsen, T., & Höfel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 289-299.
31. Johnston, V.S., Miller, D.R., & Burleson, M.H. (1986). Multiple P300s to emotional stimuli and their theoretical significance. Psychophysiology, 23, 684-694.
32. Johnston, V.S., & Oliver-Rodriguez, J.C. (1997). Facial beauty and the late positive component of event-related potentials. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 188-198.
33. Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36, 723-748.
34. Katz, B.F. (1999). Evolution, the invisible artist. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 101-120.
35. Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
36. Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., & Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5, 214-220.
37. Little, A.C., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S., & Perrett, D.I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 268 (1462), 39-44.
38. Mandler, G., & Shebo, B.J. (1983). Knowing and liking. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 125-144.
39. Maurer, D., Grand, R.L., & Mondloch, C.J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255-260.
40. Mondloch, C.J., Le Grand, R., & Maurer, D. (2002). Configural face processing develops more slowly than featural face processing. Perception, 31, 553-566.
41. Noor, F., & Evans, D.C. (2003). The effect of facial symmetry on perceptions of personality and attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 339-347.
42. Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
43. Oliver-Rodriguez, J.C., Guan, Z., & Johnston, V.S. (1999). Gender differences in late positive components evoked by human faces. Psychophysiology, 36, 176-185.
44. Perrett, D.I., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S., Lee, K.J., Rowland, D.A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295-307.
45. Perrett, D.I., May, K.A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239-242.
46. Pizzagalli, D., Regard, M., & Lehmann, D. (1999). Rapid emotional face processing in the human right and left brain hemispheres: An ERP study. Neuroreport, 10, 2691-2698.
47. Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41, 103-146.
48. Ramachandran, V.S. (2000). The science of art: How the brain responds to beauty. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
49. Ramachandran, V.S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15-51.
50. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J.M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 659-669.
51. Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 1-33). Westport, CT: Ablex.
52. Schupp, H.T., Cuthbert, B.N., Bradley, M.M., Cacioppo, J.T., Ito, T., & Lang, P.J. (2000). Affective picture processing: The late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology, 37, 257-261.
53. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
54. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S.W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237-269.
55. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S.W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452-460.
56. Velichkovsky, B.M., Pomplun, M., & Rieser, H. (1996). Attention and communication: Eye-movement-based research paradigms. InW.H. Zangemeister, S. Stiel, & C. Freksa (Eds.), Visual attention and cognition. Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.
57. Walker-Smith, G.J., Gale, A.G., & Findlay, J.M. (1977). Eye movement strategies involved in face perception. Perception, 6, 313-326.
58. Zaidel, D.W., Aarde, S.M., & Baig, K. (2005). Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces. Brain and Cognition, 57, 261-263.