Abstract
Although many studies have demonstrated that average faces tend to be attractive, few studies have examined the extent to which symmetry contributes to the attractiveness of average faces. Such studies are potentially important, however, because average faces are highly symmetric and increasing the symmetry of face images increases their attractiveness. Here we demonstrate that increasing averageness of 2-D face shape independently of symmetry is sufficient to increase attractiveness, indicating that preferences for symmetry cannot solely explain the attractiveness of average faces. Additionally, we show that averageness preferences are significantly weaker when the effects of symmetry are controlled for using computer graphic methods than when the effects of symmetry are not controlled for, suggesting that symmetry contributes to the attractiveness of average faces. Importantly, this latter finding was not explained by the greater perceived similarity between versions of faces that varied in averageness, but not symmetry, than between versions of faces that varied in both averageness and symmetry.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alley, T. R., &Cunningham, M. R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average.Psychological Science,2, 123–125.
Benson, P. J., &Perrett, D. I. (1991). Synthesizing continuous-tone caricatures.Image & Vision Computing,9, 123–129.
Cárdenas, R. A., &Harris, L. J. (2006). Symmetrical decorations enhance the attractiveness of faces and abstract designs.Evolution & Human Behavior,27, 1–18.
DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,272, 919–922.
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Unger, L., Little, A. C., & Feinberg, D. R. (in press). Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S., Lundqvist, D., &Wachtmeister, C. A. (2002). An ethological theory of attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.),Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive and social perspectives (pp. 27–153). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Gombrich, E. H. (1984).The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art. London: Phaidon.
Halberstadt, J., &Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of non-face averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces.Psychological Science,11, 285–289.
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Conway, C. A., &Feinberg, D. R. (2006). Integrating gaze direction and expression in preferences for attractive faces.Psychological Science,17, 588–591.
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., Tiddeman, B. P., Penton-Voak, I. S., &Perrett, D. I. (2004). The relationship between shape, symmetry, and visible skin condition in male facial attractiveness.Evolution & Human Behavior,25, 24–30.
Kampe, K. K., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J., &Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of attractiveness and gaze.Nature,413, 589.
Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.
Little, A. C., &Hancock, P. J. B. (2002). The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgements of human male facial attractiveness.British Journal of Psychology,93, 451–464.
Little, A. C., &Jones, B. C. (2003). Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,270, 1759–1763.
Maloney, L. T., &Dal Martello, M. F. (2006). Kin recognition and the perceived facial similarity of children.Journal of Vision,6, 1047–1056.
O’Doherty, J., Winston, J., Critchley, H., Perrett, D. [I.], Burt, D. M., &Dolan, R. J. (2003). Beauty in a smile: The role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness.Neuropsychologia,41, 147–155.
O’Toole, A. J., Price, T., Vetter, T., Bartlett, J. C., &Blanz, V. (1999). 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: The role of “averages” in attractiveness and age.Image & Vision Computing,18, 9–19.
Penton-Voak, I. S., &Perrett, D. I. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Perceived personality and shifting female preferences for male traits across the menstrual cycle.Advances in Animal Behaviour,30, 219–259
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 & Human Behavior,20, 295–307.
Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. R., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.Nature,394, 884–887.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., Schmidt, N., et al. (2002). Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,269, 873–880.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolution of facial attractiveness.Annual Review of Psychology,57, 199–226.
Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., &Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 659–669.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., &Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?Psychological Science,10, 52–58.
Rhodes, G., &Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration and facial attractiveness.Psychological Science,7, 105–110.
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., &Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in nonwestern cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty.Perception,30, 611–625.
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., &McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health?Evolution & Human Behavior,22, 31–46.
Rowland, D. A., &Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and colour.IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications,15, 70–76.
Swaddle, J. P., &Cuthill, I. C. (1995). Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,261, 111–116.
Thornhill, R., &Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance.Human Nature,4, 237–269.
Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., &Perrett, D. I. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research.IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications,21, 42–50.
Valentine, T., Darling, S., &Donnelly, M. (2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 482–487.
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., &Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind.Psychological Science,17, 799–807.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M. & Little, A.C. The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 1273–1277 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192944
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192944