Attractive Faces Are Only Average

Scientists and philosophers have searched for centuries for a parsimonious answer to the question of what constitutes beauty. We approached this problem from both an evolutionary and information-processing rationale and predicted that faces representing the average value of the population would be consistently judged as attractive. To evaluate this hypothesis, we digitized samples of male and female faces, mathematically averaged them, and had adults judge the attractiveness of both the individual faces and the computer-generated composite images. Both male (three samples) and female (three samples) composite faces were judged as more attractive than almost all the individual faces comprising the composites. A strong linear trend also revealed that the composite faces became more attractive as more faces were entered. These data showing that attractive faces are only average are consistent with evolutionary pressures that favor characteristics close to the mean of the population and with cognitive processes that favor prototypical category members.

[1]  C. Darwin.  The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[2]  F. Galton.  Composite Portraits, Made by Combining Those of Many Different Persons Into a Single Resultant Figure. , 1879 .

[3]  F. Galton.  Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development , 1883 .

[4]  COMPOSITE PORTRAITURE. , 1886, Science.

[5]  ダーウィン チャールス,et al.  The descent of man and selection in relation to sex , 1907 .

[6]  L. Frank.  The Society for Research in Child Development , 1935 .

[7]  I. Schmalhausen.  Factors of evolution : the theory of stabilizing selection , 1946 .

[8]  Theory of beauty : an introduction to aesthetics , 1952 .

[9]  S. Dornbusch,et al.  Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. , 1961 .

[10]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[11]  C. Darwin.  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , 2019 .

[12]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Albert A. Harrison.  Exposure and popularity , 1969 .

[14]  T. Dobzhansky.  Genetics of the Evolutionary Process , 1970 .

[15]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Pattern recognition and categorization , 1972 .

[16]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  David P. Barash,et al.  Sociobiology and Behavior , 1978 .

[18]  E. Rosch,et al.  Structural bases of typicality effects. , 1976 .

[19]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[20]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[21]  M. Strauss,et al.  Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[22]  D. Symons.  Evolution of human sexuality , 1979 .

[23]  S. Iwawaki,et al.  Cross-Cultural Comparisons in Interpersonal Attraction of Females toward Males. , 1979, The Journal of social psychology.

[24]  Hiram E. Fitzgerald,et al.  Facial feature determinants of perceived infant attractiveness , 1979 .

[25]  L. Farkas.  Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine , 1981 .

[26]  B. Gillen,et al.  Physical Attractiveness , 1981 .

[27]  Psychological aspects of facial form , 1981 .

[28]  Leah L. Light,et al.  Why Attractive People are Harder to Remember , 1981 .

[29]  G. Sorell,et al.  14 – The Role of Physical Attractiveness as a Contributor to Individual Development , 1981 .

[30]  I H Bernstein,et al.  Cross- vs. within-racial judgments of attractiveness , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  G. Dannenbring,et al.  How Different Cultural and Geographic Groups Perceive the Attractiveness of Active and Inactive Feminists , 1983 .

[32]  R. Baron,et al.  Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception , 1983 .

[33]  Stephen M. Maret.  Attractiveness ratings of photographs of Blacks by Cruzans and Americans. , 1983 .

[34]  E. R. Siqueland,et al.  The nature and structure of infant form categories , 1983 .

[35]  Peer and Self Perceptions in Hopi and Afro‐American Third‐ and Sixth‐Graders , 1984 .

[36]  Stephen M. Maret,et al.  Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness: Ratings of Photographs of Whites by Cruzans and Americans , 1985 .

[37]  B. Younger.  The segregation of items into categories by ten-month-old infants. , 1985, Child development.

[38]  C. Samuels,et al.  Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy , 1985 .

[39]  Paul C. Quinn,et al.  On Categorization in Early Infancy. , 1986 .

[40]  M. Cunningham.  Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty , 1986 .

[41]  Lori A. Roggman,et al.  Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? , 1987 .

[42]  B. Younger,et al.  Development of Categorization Skills: Changes in the Nature or Structure of Infant Form Categories?. , 1988 .

[43]  J. Lang.  Infants ' Differential Social Responses to Attractive and Unattractive Faces , 1990 .