Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces

Symmetrical human faces are attractive. Two explanations have been proposed to account for symmetry preferences: (i) the evolutionary advantage view, which posits that symmetry advertises mate quality and (ii) the perceptual bias view, which posits that symmetry preferences are a consequence of greater ease of processing symmetrical images in the visual system. Here, we show that symmetry preferences are greater when face images are upright than when inverted. This is evidence against a simple perceptual bias view, which suggests symmetry preference should be constant across orientation about a vertical axis. We also show that symmetry is preferred even in familiar faces, a finding that is unexpected by perceptual bias views positing that symmetry is only attractive because it represents a familiar prototype of that particular class of stimuli.

[1]  F. Attneave Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  John M. Kennedy,et al.  The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art , 1980 .

[3]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Revisiting the Perception of Upside-Down Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

[4]  P. Hancock,et al.  The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness. , 2002, British journal of psychology.

[5]  D. Perrett,et al.  Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship , 2001 .

[6]  D. Perrett,et al.  Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Randy Thornhill,et al.  Facial attractiveness , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  G K Humphrey,et al.  Bilateral Symmetry Detection: Testing a ‘Callosal’ Hypothesis , 1996, Perception.

[9]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty , 1998 .

[10]  G. Rhodes,et al.  The Attractiveness of Nonface Averages: Implications for an Evolutionary Explanation of the Attractiveness of Average Faces , 2000, Psychological science.

[11]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: symmetry may not always be beautiful , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  R. Thornhill,et al.  The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry , 1997 .

[13]  A. Møller Developmental Stability and Fitness: A Review , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[14]  I. Rock The perception of disoriented figures. , 1974, Scientific American.

[15]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Evolutionary biology: The secrets of faces , 1998, Nature.

[16]  G. Rhodes,et al.  GENERALIZATION OF MERE EXPOSURE EFFECTS TO AVERAGED COMPOSITE FACES , 2001 .

[17]  Ernst Gombrich,et al.  The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art , 1979 .

[18]  J. Langlois,et al.  Attractive Faces Are Only Average , 1990 .

[19]  D. Perrett,et al.  Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. , 1999 .

[20]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Attractiveness of Facial Averageness and Symmetry in Non-Western Cultures: In Search of Biologically Based Standards of Beauty , 2001, Perception.

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

[22]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Human Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Behavior , 1994 .

[23]  K. Grammer,et al.  Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. , 1994, Journal of comparative psychology.

[24]  Leslie A. Zebrowitz,et al.  Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? , 2001, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[25]  L. Mealey,et al.  Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Symmetry, beauty and evolution , 1994, Nature.

[27]  PV.,et al.  Contributions to the Analysis of the Sensations , 1897, Nature.

[28]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Bilateral Symmetry and Sexual Selection: A Meta‐Analysis , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[29]  Rufus A. Johnstone,et al.  Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Human sexual selection and developmental stability. , 1997 .

[32]  M. Enquist,et al.  Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  D. Perrett,et al.  Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  R. Bornstein Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .