Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces

Age and Beauty are in the Eye of the Beholder

“…Structural and facial surface features also vary with age through either weight redistribution or growth resulting in stereotyped changes in skull and forehead shape, broadening of the chin, lengthening of the ears and nose, changes in the size of the eyes and surrounding eye region, and retraction of the lips (Albert et al 2007;Bruce and Young 1998;Burt and Perrett 1995;Ebner 2008). Research has also demonstrated that, apart from age, attractiveness tends to correlate most with face averageness and symmetry (Dykiert et al 2012;Valentine et al 2004;Zaidel and Cohen 2005), both of which can be affected by the above structural facial alterations associated with age.…”

“…Studies involving stimulus manipulation and subjective reports have revealed that specific age-sensitive facial features including the eye region are important in judging facial qualities such as age (George and Hole 1995;Rexbye and Povlsen 2007;Valentine et al 2004). Facial stimulus manipulation, while important to research control, can result in distorted face images that introduce salience artifacts that may not accurately capture the natural perceptual processes associated with age and attractiveness.…”

The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces

“…For example, composites (or prototypes) manufactured by averaging the shape and color information from a sample of faces are typically judged more attractive than their constituent faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990;Little & Hancock, 2002;Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt, 1999;Valentine, Darling, & Donnelly, 2004). Furthermore, morphing faces toward a more average configuration also increases their attractiveness (see, e.g., Rhodes, Yoshikawa, et al, 2001;Valentine et al, 2004).…”

“…For example, composites (or prototypes) manufactured by averaging the shape and color information from a sample of faces are typically judged more attractive than their constituent faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990;Little & Hancock, 2002;Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt, 1999;Valentine, Darling, & Donnelly, 2004). Furthermore, morphing faces toward a more average configuration also increases their attractiveness (see, e.g., Rhodes, Yoshikawa, et al, 2001;Valentine et al, 2004). Although some researchers have suggested that preferences for average faces might reflect preferences for attractive nonaverage traits that composite images possess but that are artifacts of the computer graphic methods used in their manufacture (e.g., unnaturally smooth skin texture, Alley & Cunningham, 1991;Benson & Perrett, 1991), increasing the averageness of faces while not altering their skin condition is sufficient to increase attractiveness (Little & Hancock, 2002;O'Toole, Price, Vetter, Bartlett, & Blanz, 1999;Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2001;Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996).…”

“…Although a recent meta-analysis of findings from 18 papers that tested for a positive relationship between facial attractiveness and averageness reported a large effect size (mean effect size 0.52; Rhodes, 2006), only three studies have investigated the role of symmetry in preferences for average faces (Rhodes et al, 1999;Rhodes, Yoshikawa, et al, 2001;Valentine et al, 2004). Such studies are potentially important, however, since average faces are highly symmetric (Alley & Cunningham, 1991) and increasing symmetry in face images increases their attractiveness (Little & Jones, 2003;Perrett et al, 1999;Rhodes et al, 1998; but see also Swaddle & Cuthill, 1995).…”