“Just another pretty face”: A multidimensional scaling approach to face attractiveness and variability

Findings on both attractiveness and memory for faces suggest that people should perceive more similarity among attractive than among unattractive faces. A multidimensional scaling approach was used to test this hypothesis in two studies. In Study 1, we derived a psychological face space from similarity ratings of attractive and unattractive Caucasian female faces. In Study 2, we derived a face space for attractive and unattractive male faces of Caucasians and non-Caucasians. Both studies confirm that attractive faces are indeed more tightly clustered than unattractive faces in people’s psychological face spaces. These studies provide direct and original support for theoretical assumptions previously made in the face space and face memory literatures.

[1]  B. Monin.  The warm glow heuristic: when liking leads to familiarity. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  C. Judd,et al.  Adjusting researchers' approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions , 2004 .

[3]  Leslie A. Zebrowitz,et al.  Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives , 2001 .

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

[5]  William L. Martens,et al.  Multidimensional Perceptual Unfolding of Spatially Processed Speech I: Deriving Stimulus Space Using INDSCAL , 2000 .

[6]  M. Heesacker,et al.  Likability of targets and distractors in facial recognition. , 1984, The American journal of psychology.

[7]  Heather M. Kleider,et al.  Illusions of face memory: Clarity breeds familiarity. , 2004, Journal of memory and language.

[8]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[9]  A. Dijksterhuis,et al.  On the (mis)categorization of unattractive brides and attractive prostitutes: extending evaluative congruency effects to social category activation. , 2008, Experimental psychology.

[10]  S. Blok,et al.  Fluency in Similarity Judgements , 2005 .

[11]  Olivier Corneille,et al.  Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces , 2005 .

[12]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Face‐space‐R: Towards a unified account of face recognition , 2004 .

[13]  D. Perrett,et al.  Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness , 1994, Nature.

[14]  T. Valentine.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology a Unified Account of the Effects of Distinctiveness, Inversion, and Race in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[15]  T. Busey.  Physical and Psychological Representations of Faces: Evidence From Morphing , 1998 .

[16]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[17]  G. Rhodes.  The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Caricature Effects, Distinctiveness, and Identification: Testing the Face-Space Framework , 2000, Psychological science.