Multiple studies show that people prefer attractive over unattractive faces. But what is an attractive face and why is it preferred? Averageness theory claims that faces are perceived as attractive when their facial configuration approximates the mathematical average facial configuration of the population. Conversely, faces that deviate from this average configuration are perceived as unattractive. The theory predicts that both attractive and mathematically averaged faces should be processed more fluently than unattractive faces, whereas the averaged faces should be processed marginally more fluently than the attractive faces. We compared neurocognitive and behavioral responses to attractive, unattractive, and averaged human faces to test these predictions. We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) and reaction times (RTs) from 48 adults while they discriminated between human and chimpanzee faces. Participants categorized averaged and high attractive faces as “human” faster than low attractive faces. The posterior N170 (150 – 225 ms) face-evoked ERP component was smaller in response to high attractive and averaged faces versus low attractive faces. Single-trial EEG analysis indicated that this reduced ERP response arose from the engagement of fewer neural resources and not from a change in the temporal consistency of how those resources were engaged. These findings provide novel evidence that faces are perceived as attractive when they approximate a facial configuration close to the population average and suggest that processing fluency underlies preferences for attractive faces.