Why are average faces attractive ?

A. L. Austin observed, in a letter written to Charles Darwin in 1877, that a composite of two faces was strikingly attractive. Mr. Austin placed two different portraits in a stereoscope and noticed that they fused into a single portrait. He wrote: “The faces blend in the most remarkable manner, producing in case of some ladies portraits, in every instance, a decided improvement in beauty” (Galton, 1878, p. 137). Psychologists have been intrigued by this phenomenon, which has been replicated in more formal studies (e.g., Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman, 1994; Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996). The effect is found in male as well as female faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990) and across ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Perrett, May, & Yoshikawa, 1994; Rhodes, Yoshikawa et al., 2001). Identification of the determinants of facial attractiveness has become a central issue in evolutionary psychology. Attractiveness may signal some biological propensity for survival (i.e., “good genes”) and preferences may serve to select an optimal mate. Symmetry may indicate stress-free growth, while averageness may indicate genetic diversity that boosts immunity to disease. Such preferences may serve also to maintain stability in the population. For reviews of the mechanisms of human facial attractiveness, see Kalick, Zebrowitz, Langlois, and Johnson (1998) and Thornhill and Gangestad (1999). Alternatively, preferences in facial attractiveness could be an artifact of a general cognitive mechanism, but nevertheless be propagated through the population (the “perceptual bias” account). Distinctive faces are recognized more easily than are typical faces, but typical faces are classified as a face, rather than a scrambled face, more quickly than distinctive faces (Valentine, 1991). These effects have been interpreted as evidence that faces are represented in a multidimensional face-space (Valentine, 1991, 2001). Further support for this framework comes from the observation that caricatured faces can be recognized more accurately than veridical faces (e.g., Lee & Perrett, 2000). Facial distinctiveness (a converse measure of averageness) is negatively correlated with attractiveness (e.g., Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt, 1999). Such results suggest that there may be a role of general cognitive processing mechanisms that mediate perceived attractiveness of average faces. Two accounts for the attractiveness of composite faces can be identified.1 (1) Composite faces are attractive because they are average in shape (the “averageness hypothesis”; e.g., Langlois & Roggman, 1990). (2) Composite faces are attractive because they are symmetrical (the “symmetry hypothesis”; e.g., Rhodes, Roberts, & Simmons, 1999). These hypotheses are not, of course, mutually exclusive. A third possibility is that composite faces are attractive because they have a smoothed skin texture. However, averageness is attractive even in line drawings of faces that do not include any skin texture (Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996). There have been a number of attempts to differentiate between the roles of the averageness and symmetry in the perception of attractiveness. The role of symmetry has been extensively researched. Symmetrical faces can be produced by combining half of a face split by a vertical midline with its mirror image. Such faces are perfectly symmetrical but are not perceived to be more attractive than the original faces (e.g., Kowner, 1996; Langlois et al., 1994; Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, & Hole, 1994). Therefore, it can be concluded that symCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to T. Valentine, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, England (e-mail: [email protected]). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces