Exploring distinctiveness, attractiveness and sexual dimorphism in actualized face-spaces

Abstract

The multi-dimensional face-space metaphor has been a powerful explanatory force in face processing. Here, its predictive powers are considered for ratings of attractiveness, distinctiveness and sexual dimorphism using two different actualizations of face-space.One face-space was based on similarity ratings between pairs of faces and the other on facial feature eccentricity, both based on the same set of 200 faces. The two models both gave similar insights into the range of properties tested. Distinctive faces were located further from the center of these multi-dimensional face-spaces than typical faces. Attractiveness of males was linked to averageness within these models whereas for females, averageness had little effect on their attractiveness. Femininity was a better predictor of female face attractiveness, but masculinity showed a curvilinear relationship with the attractiveness of male faces. Together, these findings demonstrate the usefulness of the face-space metaphor in exploring ideas of the distinctiveness, attractiveness and the sexual dimorphism of faces.Exploring distinctiveness, attractiveness and sexual dimorphism in actualized face-spaces.Philosophers, writers and artists have been interested in human faces since ancient times (Wilmer, 2017) and it is still one of the main topics of research in cognitive psychology.Human faces contain a great amount of information including gender, mood, age, ethnicity, attention, and, in particular, the identity of its owner (Bruce & Young, 1986).Faces are encoded on the basis of mental schema which develops through life by exposure (Brennan,

I See Faces! A Review on Face Perception and Attractiveness with a Prosthodontic Peek at Cognitive Psychology

“…Some reported more attractiveness with masculinity, 41,42 while others reported the opposite or no relationship 43–45 . Other researchers reported a nonlinear or (n) curve relationship, at low levels of masculinity, increasing masculinity will lead to increased levels of attractiveness, whereas at high levels of masculinity, increasing masculinity will decrease attractiveness 35,46 . This could be because masculinity is associated with both positive and negative attributes.…”

“…Average faces are perceived as highly attractive, whereas faces that are not average are perceived as less attractive 32–35 . This average theory for attractiveness can be explained by the MDS face‐space metaphor.…”

“…As demonstrated by several authors, morphing faces to produce average features produces a face that is strikingly attractive (Fig 5). 29,32–37 However, it should be noted that this morphed average face does not represent typical faces. It is rare for faces that can vary in many dimensions to be average in all of them as in the morphed, highly attractive face 29 …”

“…Average faces are perceived as highly attractive, whereas faces that are not average are as less attractive. [32][33][34][35] This average theory for attractiveness can be explained by the MDS face-space metaphor. Faces are seen as attractive because of their similarities to the mental schema (facial prototypes).…”

“…[43][44][45] Other researchers reported a nonlinear or (n) curve relationship, at low levels of masculinity, increasing mas-culinity will lead to increased levels of attractiveness, whereas at high levels of masculinity, increasing masculinity will decrease attractiveness. 35,46 This could be because masculinity is associated with both positive and negative attributes. Although masculinity is associated with good attributes such as health, reproductivity, and physical strength, it is also associated with negative attributes such as low cooperativeness, dishonesty, unfaithful and poor quality as parents.…”