Rhodes, Yoshikawa, Clark, Lee, McKay + Akamatsu ATTRACTIVENESS, AVG, SYMMETRY, NON-western

Question 1

What was the aim of the experiment?

Answer 1

if symmetry and averageness affects non-western countries the same way it effects western countries

Question 2

What evidence is there suggesting the idea that standards of beauty are cultural artefacts?

Answer 2

1. Langlois et al 2000
   High agreement in facial attractiveness ratings among people form different + same cultures
2. Rubenstein et al, 2001
   Young infants prefer to look at faces that adults find attractive - biological based preferences?
   - symmetric OR avg preferences?

Question 3

What are averageness and symmetry morphology known to reflect?

Answer 3

mate quality

- development stability

Question 4

What is development stability and how does it support averageness and symmetry morphology reflecting mate quality?

Answer 4

1. Moller + Swaddle, 1997
   ability to maintain a stable course of development despite environmental + genetic stressors
   - So those who have preferences for these features = have an reproductive advantage
   ○ The info-processing mechanism that generated them could have evolved by sexual selection

Question 5

What alternative explanation vs evolutionary is there for the preference for symmetrical + average faces?

Answer 5

Endler + Basolo 1998

• By-product of general perceptual or cognitive mechanisms that evolves by natural selection to process info from the environment
• Which respond selectively to average and/or symmetric stimuli

Question 6

What does research into the relationship between attractiveness + averageness suggest?

Answer 6

Most findings = the closer to the average the face is the more attractive it is rated

Question 7

What does research into the relationship between attractiveness + Symmetry suggest?

Answer 7

Perrett et al, 1999; Rhodes et al 1998

• When symmetry is increased experimentally, attractiveness generally increases
• As long as manipulation doesn’t = structural abnormalities

Question 8

What did Jones + Hill 1993 do and what possible explanation is there for their findings?

Answer 8

1. looked at non-western countries relationship between attractiveness w/ symmetry + averageness
   = different findings in each country but age = confounding
   - youthful faces = attractive
   *methodology issue?
   - since no correlation found between measured symmetry + attractiveness for the non-western raters AND western raters

Question 9

What did Knower 1996 find when he examined symmetry with Japanese subjects?

Answer 9

preferred the normal, slightly asymmetric versions

- Except for elderly faces - where symmetry was preferred

Question 10

What is a potential explanation for Knower’s 1996 findings about symmetry and Japanese subjects?

Answer 10

Rhodes et al, 1999
Method used to create symmetry image = structural abnormalities which make the images unattractive despite their symmetry, even to Western raters

Question 11

Whos averaged composites did Chinese + Japanese prefer?

Answer 11

Own-race faces vs most individual faces

- similar findings for western raters

Question 12

What were the aim of E1?

Answer 12

1. examined whether attractiveness correlates negatively with rated distinctiveness, a subjective converse measure of averageness
2. examined whether individual faces could be made more (or less) attractive, by increasing (or decreasing) their averageness

Question 13

What part of Langlois et al’s 1994 conclusion was E1 trying to challenge?

Answer 13

suggested avg composites should be more attractive because of their familiarity - so asking rating of attractiveness to own race = higher ratings?
- So different composites, of their own race, other race etc were given

Question 14

What were the findings of E1?

Answer 14

1. attractiveness also increased when the other-race Caucasian norm was used to manipulate averageness
   - greater lifetime exposure to Chinese faces did not, therefore, generate a stronger preference for Chinese than Caucasian averages
2. low distinctiveness (high averageness) is attractive for Chinese faces and raters, just as it is for Western faces and raters (Rhodes et al 1999b)
3. averaged composites more attractive than their individual component faces
   - component faces w/ 50% above normal lvls = more attractive

Question 15

What did they conclude from E1?

Answer 15

1. attractiveness of avg facial configurations doesn’t not require a high lvl of familiarity with the population from which the component faces are drawn
2. attractiveness and distinctiveness were significantly negatively correlated

Question 16

What were the aims of E2?

Answer 16

○ whether averageness is attractive for Japanese faces and raters
○ whether symmetry is attractive for Japanese faces and raters

Question 17

What was the difference between E1 + E2?

Answer 17

E1 = Chinese who grew up in the west = may have been influenced by western standards of beauty
SO E2 = Japanese ppt who lived in Japan

Question 18

What were the findings of E2?

Answer 18

1. attractiveness increased with averageness for both sexes
2. averageness remains attractive when symmetry is controlled
3. attractiveness and distinctiveness are negatively correlated for Japanese faces and raters, just as they are for Western and Chinese faces and raters
4. like Chinese and Western composites, Japanese composites were more attractive than any of their component faces and also more attractive than the high-average versions of those face

Question 19

In E2, they concluded averageness remains attractive when symmetry is controlled, what does this mean?

Answer 19

although symmetry is attractive, it does not fully account for the attractiveness of average faces.

Question 20

What were some problems with this cross-cultural study?

Answer 20

Cannot be sure there was no influence from wester standards of beauty as they has some exposure to wester culture on symmetry

Question 21

What did Walton + Bower 1993 find about infants and their preferences for faces?

Answer 21

1. preference for avg faces may emerge early in development
2. Newborns (8-78hrs) prefer to look at avg composites of faces they had seen VS composites of faces they had not seen
3. Rubenstein et al (1999)
   - Six-month-old infants preferred to look at avg composite of female faces VS unattractive faces

Question 22

What explanation is there for the preferences an infant develops?

Answer 22

• Experience
• But preference for averageness = biologically based
  ○ Since it relies on info-processing mechanism that evolved by either natural or sexual selection

Question 23

What did Halberstadt + Rhodes 2000 report, suggesting our preference for avg faces is part of a general info-processing mechanism?

Answer 23

• reported that average exemplars are attractive for dogs, birds, and wristwatches
• suggests that humans may have a generic preference for averageness

Question 24

Samuels et al 1994 found no preferences for symmetry in little children, but what could be an explanation for this?

Answer 24

methodological limitations where structural abnormalities were produced
BUT
Little in known about the development of the preferences for symmetry even in developmental studies

Question 25

What evidence is there of preferences being adaptations for identifying high-quality mates?

Answer 25

1. Rhodes et al 2001
   - Facial averageness is a reliable indicator of health
   - Facial distinctiveness (a converse measure of averageness) of 17 year-olds was associated with poor childhood health in males + poor current + adolescent health in females
   * Inconsistent findings between health and facial symmetry

Question 26

What is a possible explanation for why avg faces are attractive?

Answer 26

• They capture the central tendency of a population of faces
  ○ Which means that preferences would vary depending on exposure to the relevant population

Question 27

How does the findings of this study challenge the explanation of familiarity for the preference for avg faces?

Answer 27

E1: no advantage for high-avg images or blends made with own-race over other-race avg + composites

ALT exp for finding:

• avg face not reflecting what is normally seen in population
• need to consider if avg comes from traits of youthfulness + healthiness VS displaying characteristics of a familiar population