Variation in Perceived Attractiveness

Abstract

Studies that attempt to define facial attractiveness often do so in terms of structural features of the face (e.g., symmetry, averageness). However, these studies typically use static images of faces that may not be analogous to dynamic faces that are frequently used in other areas of attractiveness research, such as research investigating the impact of attractiveness on social interaction. The current studies investigated similarities and differences in how dynamic and static faces are perceived and evaluated. Study 1 demonstrated that dynamic and static faces are judged by different evaluative standards. Study 2 demonstrated that perceived emotion may be more salient in judging the attractiveness of dynamic faces than in judging the attractiveness of static faces. These findings illustrate the need to more fully explore the differences between dynamic and static faces to facilitate a better understanding of the characteristics underlying perceived attractiveness.

Body Odor Quality Predicts Behavioral Attractiveness in Humans

“…We also found significant correlations between photo and video-rated attractiveness (contra Lander, 2008;Penton-Voak & Chang, 2008;Rubenstein, 2005), and a non-significant tendency towards a correlation between both photo/video-rated attractiveness and BMI.…”

“…Some previous studies (Lander, 2008;Penton-Voak & Chang, 2008;Rubenstein, 2005) have not found a significant correlation between the two, suggesting that dynamic images are judged according to different standards. However, these differences are at least partly due to methodology ) and, if each carries reliable information about male quality, we would expect them to be correlated.…”

“…It is, therefore, difficult to disentangle the effects of behavioral cues and those of the other traits on perceptions of judges. Thus, it is no surprise that ratings of human faces in static and dynamic form are intercorrelated (Riggio, Widaman, Tucker, & Salinas, 1991;Roberts, Saxton et al, 2009), even though some studies have suggested that the level of this correlation is lower than might be expected (Lander, 2008;Penton-Voak & Chang, 2008;Rubenstein, 2005). One solution to this problem is to employ new digital technologies to capture movement independently of shape or other information, by using wire-frame images or standardized models (Brown et al, 2005;Morrison et al, 2007).…”

Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness

“…Moreover, the perception of morphological cues as they are typically perceived (in motion) often changes perceptions. The ability of observers to accurately identify an individual, for example, differs considerably for judgments of static and dynamic stimuli (33,34). In addition, the majority of the previous studies focused solely on evaluative social judgments, such as perceived attractiveness.…”

How Disgust Affects Romantic Attraction: the Influence of Moods on Judgments of Attractiveness

“…This population was determined to be heterogeneous in terms of attractiveness of individual faces by this ANOVA F(2, 49)=269.46, p<.01, η p 2 =.84. The significant result suggests that no one group of target photos was made of photographs that were more attractive as a whole than another group (ensuring that any effects are not a result of a homogenously attractive/non-attractive sample; Rubenstein 2005).…”