Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:39:08.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attractiveness bias: A cognitive explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Stevie S. Schein ,
Logan T. Trujillo  and
Judith H. Langlois
Stevie S. Schein
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX [email protected]@austin.utexas.edu
Logan T. Trujillo
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas State University, Austin, TX 78712. [email protected]
Judith H. Langlois
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX [email protected]@austin.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to cognitive averaging theory, preferences for attractive faces result from their similarity to facial prototypes, the categorical central tendencies of a population of faces. Prototypical faces are processed more fluently, resulting in increased positive affect in the viewer.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e43
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruckert, L., Bestelmeyer, P., Latinus, M., Rouger, J., Charest, I., Rousselet, G. A. & Belin, P. (2010) Vocal attractiveness increases by averaging. Current Biology 20(2):116–20.Google Scholar
Griffin, A. M. & Langlois, J. L. (2006) Stereotype directionality and attractiveness: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition 24(2):187–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hekkert, P. & Van Wieringen, P. C. (1990) Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology 81(4):483–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoss, R. A., Ramsey, J. L., Griffin, A. M. & Langlois, J. H. (2005) The role of facial attractiveness and facial masculinity/femininity in sex classification of faces. Perception 34(12):1459–74.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M. & Smoot, M. (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 126(3):390–423.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H. & Roggman, L. A. (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science 1(2):115–21.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A. & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987) Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology 23:363–69.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A. & Musselman, L. (1994) What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science 5(4):214–20.Google Scholar
Leopold, D. A., Bondar, I. V. & Giese, M. A. (2006) Norm-based face encoding by single neurons in the monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature 442:572–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loffler, G., Yourganov, G., Wilkinson, F. & Wilson, H. R. (2005) fMRI evidence for the neural representation of faces. Nature Neuroscience 8(10):1386–90.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. & Moore, K. (1988) Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14(4):661–70.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. L., Murphy, S. T. & Zajonc, R. B. (2000) Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science 11(6):462–66.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. & Keele, S. W. (1968) On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 77(3):353–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, P. J., Stark, C. E. L., & Squire, L. R. (1998). Contrasting cortical activity associated with category memory and recognition memory. Learning & Memory, 5, 420–28.Google Scholar
Reber, R., Winkielman, P. & Schwarz, N. (1998) Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science 9(1):45–48.Google Scholar
Repp, B. H. (1997) The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14(4):419–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, A. J., Kalakanis, L. & Langlois, J. H. (1999) Infant preferences for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation. Developmental Psychology 35(3):848–55.Google Scholar
Strauss, M. S. (1979) Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5(6):618–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Trujillo, L. T., Jankowitsch, J. M. & Langlois, J. H. (2014) Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 14(3):1061–76.Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T. & Catty, S. (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 17(9):799–806.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (2001) Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10(6):224–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowitz, L. A. & Rhodes, G. (2004) Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 28(3):167–85.Google Scholar