218:
faces over unattractive faces. But 72 hours later they already stare longer at faces judged by adults to be attractive than they do at unattractive faces. This rapid development of an appreciation of facial beauty (as judged by adults) might be explained by the fact that an averaged face made of 32 faces looks almost indistinguishable from any other 32-face averaged face even when they are created from a completely different set of individuals. It is thus possible that an average of only 32 facial exemplars is sufficient to approximate the population mean, and thus produce a prototype that is shared by almost everyone in a community. Kalakanis estimated that newborns see between 5 and 10 faces before they leave hospital in the USA. Thus, after 72 hours, they will have abstracted a prototypical face that is very close to the community's norm. Faces are an important class of visual stimuli for humans, and the perception of "faceness" is a critical part of social responsiveness. Because of the importance of the information conveyed by faces for social interaction, humans should therefore have innate preferences for them as a category, with its associated prototype. This prototype's special attractiveness (over the attractiveness of, for instance, the prototypical "chair") is probably related to the evolutionary importance of the mutant-freeness that the prototypical face represents.
222:
genetic quality in an individual. Developmental stability is the ability of an organism to buffer its development against environmental or genetic disturbances and produce a specific phenotype. If individuals are not of high genetic quality, they may not be able to buffer their development against environmental fluctuations and this would result in asymmetries. Thus symmetry may serve as an honest signal of mate quality in both humans and animals. However
Langlois, Roggman and Musselman found that when faces were divided down the middle two perfectly symmetrical faces could be created from the two halves, a "left face" consisting of the left half of the face and its mirror image, and a "right face" constructed in a similar manner. These two perfectly symmetrical faces could then be compared with the unaltered face. In all cases, except in the most unattractive original faces, the unaltered face was rated as more attractive than either of the perfectly symmetrical faces. Furthermore, when photographs of faces in profile were used (in which there is no symmetry between the front and back of the head) the average of these photographs was consistently judged to be the most attractive. Symmetry is therefore simply a component of an average face without being the primary or dominant contributor to the attractiveness of the composite face.
169:. Hadza people rated the averaged Hadza faces as more attractive than the actual faces in the tribe. While Europeans also rated average Hadza faces as attractive, the Hadza people expressed no preference for average European faces. Apicella attributes this difference to the wider visual experiences of the Europeans, as they had been exposed to both Western and African faces. Thus the indifference of the Hadza towards average European faces could have been the result of lacking the European norm in their visual experience. These results suggest that the rules for extracting attractive faces are culture-independent and innate, but the results of applying the rules depend on the environment and cultural experience.
173:
attractive faces, and that these infants can extract the average from simply drawn faces consisting of only 4 features. Adam
Rubenstein and coworkers showed that already at six months of age, children not only treat average faces the same as they treat attractive faces, but they are also able to extract the central tendency (i.e. the average) from a set of complex, naturalistic faces presented to them (i.e. not just the very simple 4-features faces used by Strauss). Thus the ability to extract the average from a set of realistic facial images operates from an early age, and is therefore almost certainly instinctive.
177:
face were slightly exaggerated the new "exaggerated" (or "caricaturized") face was judged, on average, to be more attractive still. Although the three faces look very similar, the so-called "exaggerated face" looks younger: a slimmer (less wide) face, and larger eyes, than the average face. It also had a narrower lower jaw and smaller nose-to-mouth, and nose-to-chin distances than the average face. Since the same results were obtained using
Japanese subjects and viewers, these findings are probably culture-independent, indicating that people generally find youthful average faces sexually the most attractive.
110:
118:
71:, which he believed could be used to identify 'types' by appearance, which he hoped would aid medical diagnosis, and even criminology through the identification of typical criminal faces. Galton's hypothesis was that certain groups of people may have common facial characteristics. To test the hypothesis, he created photographic composite images of the faces of
146:
211:", or central representative of the category. Thus after seeing several exemplars from a category both adults and infants respond to an averaged representation of those exemplars as if it were familiar. That is, they show evidence of forming mental prototypes, on which they then rely to recognize new instances of the category.
134:
192 young male and female white faces; each of which was computer scanned and digitized. They then made computer-processed composites of each image, as 2-, 4-, 8-, 16-, and 32-face composites, averaged by pixel. These faces, as well as the component faces, were rated for attractiveness by 300 judges on a 5-point
192:-seeking individuals would therefore be expected to preferentially choose individuals with a minimum of unusual features, or, stated differently, individuals whose characteristics are all close to the mean of the population. These individuals are the least likely to carry harmful mutations. This form of
176:
Despite these findings, David
Perrett and his colleagues found that both men and women considered that a face averaged from a set of attractive faces was more appealing than one averaged from a wide range of women's faces, aged 20–30 years. When the differences between the first face and the second
133:
In 1990, one of the first computer-based photographic attractiveness rating studies was conducted. During this year psychologists
Langlois and Roggman wanted to systematically examine whether mathematical averageness is linked with facial attractiveness. To test this, they selected photographs of
79:
to see if there was a typical facial appearance for each. Galton overlaid multiple images of faces onto a single photographic plate so that each individual face contributed roughly equally to a final composite face. The resultant "averaged" faces did little to allow the a priori identification of
141:
Many studies, using different averaging techniques, including the use of line drawings and face profiles, have shown that this is a general principle: average faces are consistently more attractive than the faces used to generate them. Furthermore, if a female composite (averaged) face made of 32
221:
It has been argued that composite faces are more symmetrical than their original images, and that it is this that accounts for their attractiveness. Symmetry is thought to be preferred because it possibly indicates developmental stability in a changing environment, which would be an indicator of
217:
If prototypes and cognitive averaging are used by infants and adults to organize and consolidate incoming information people may form a common prototype of faces representing the central tendency of the population very early in life. Fifteen minute-old neonates show no preference for attractive
172:
That the preference for the average is biological rather than cultural has been supported by studies on babies, who gaze longer at attractive faces than at unattractive ones. Furthermore, Mark Stauss reported that 10-month-old children respond to average faces in the same way as they respond to
31:
that results from averaging the facial features of people of the same gender and approximately the same age. The majority of averageness studies have focused on photographic overlay studies of human faces, in which images are morphed together. The term "average" is used strictly to denote the
36:. An averaged face is not unremarkable, but is, in fact, quite good looking. Nor is it typical in the sense of common or frequently occurring in the population, though it appears familiar, and is typical in the sense that it is a good example of a face that is representative of the
80:
either criminals or vegetarians, failing Galton's hypothesis. However, unexpectedly Galton observed that the composite image was more attractive than the component faces. Galton published this finding in 1878, and also described his composite photography technique in detail in
142:
different faces is overlain with the face of an extremely attractive female model, the two images often line up closely, indicating that the model's facial configuration is very similar to the composite's. See, for example, the illustration of
Jessica Alba on the right.
188:
Darwin's (1859) theory of natural selection states that advantageous characteristics replace their less advantageous counterparts, to become the dominant characteristics of the population.
756:
Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.),
630:
Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.),
203:
Adults and infants organize and consolidate sensory information into categories (e.g. "trees", "chairs", "dogs", "automobiles", "clouds" etc.). Cognitive averaging of the individual
214:
In addition, prototypes are also often preferred to individual exemplars of the stimuli categories. Thus an average face is probably attractive simply because it is prototypical.
604:
Kalick, S.M.; Zebrowitz, L.A.; Langlois, J.H.; Johnson, R.M. (1998). "Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question".
1036:
Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L.A., San
Giovanni, J.P., Sherak, B. (1995). "Infants' preferences for attractiveness and babyfaceness." In Bardy, B.G., Bootsma, R.J., Guiard, Y. (Eds.)
1548:
185:
The explanation for the averageness phenomenon covers two distinct, but complementary fields of inquiry: cognitive and developmental psychology, and evolutionary biology.
51:, in which sexually-reproducing animals seek mates with primarily average features, because extreme and uncommon features are likely to indicate disadvantageous
837:
729:
272:
98:
This phenomenon is now known as "averageness-effect", that is, high physical attractiveness tends to be indicative of the average traits of the population.
88:
577:
Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, L.A.; Musselman, L.; Acton, S. (1991). "A picture is worth a thousand words: Reply to "On the difficulty of averaging faces".
1542:
157:
This principle transcends culture. For instance, Coren
Apicella and her co-workers from Harvard University created average faces of an isolated
1163:
Whitfield, T.W.; Slatter, P.E. (1979). "The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task".
865:
Apicella, C.L.; Little, A.C.; Marlowe, F.W. (2007). "Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers".
462:
1110:
Rhodes, G.; Hickford, C.; Jeffery, L. (2000). "Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive?".
1536:
1375:
Perrett, D.I.; Burt, D.M.; Penton-Voak, I.S.; Lee, K.J.; Rowland, D.A.; Edwards, R. (1999). "Symmetry and human facial attractiveness".
1512:
561:
978:
Langlois, J.H.; Ritter, J.M.; Roggman, L.A.; Vaughn, L.S. (1991). "Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces".
698:"Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of the attractiveness of female faces"
1564:
396:
775:
Grammer, K.; Fink, B.; Moller, A.P.; Thornhill, R. (2003). "Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty".
415:
Koeslag, J.H. (1990). "Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour".
1083:
Rubenstein, A.J; Kalakanis, L.; Langlois, J.H. (1999). "Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation".
322:
Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, L.A.; Musselman, L. (1994). "What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?".
138:(1 = very unattractive, 5 = very attractive). The 32-composite face was the most visually attractive of all the faces.
841:
733:
292:
1274:
Alley, T.R.; Cunningham, M.R. (1991). "Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average".
1010:
Slater, A.M.; Von Der
Schulenburg, C.; Brown, E.; et al. (1998). "Newborn infants prefer attractive faces".
200:, which explains why, what humans determine to be a beautiful face, is a face that contains no extreme features.
1545:
shows how the average of two faces looks more attractive than either of the faces used in the averaging process.
1264:
Kalakanis L. (1997) "Newborn preferences for attractive faces". Doctoral Thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
1144:
Schmalhausen, I.I. (1949) "Factors of evolution: The theory of stabilizing selection." Philadelphia, Blackiston.
101:
Despite the novelty of these findings, Galton and
Stoddard's observations were forgotten for over a century.
652:
Hoss, R.A., Langlois, J.H. (2003). Infants prefer attractive faces. In O. Pascalis & A. Slater (Eds.),
20:
1464:
Manning, J.T.; Hartley, M.A. (1991). "Symmetry and ornamentation are correlated in the peacock's train".
935:
Perrett, D.I.; May, K.A.; Yoshikawa, S. (1994). "Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness".
231:
122:
68:
1429:
Swaddle, J.P.; Cuthill, I.C. (1994). "Female zebra finches prefer males with symmetric chest plumage".
1438:
944:
507:"Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons in a single resultant figure"
1053:
Strauss, M.S. (1979). "Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants".
1153:
Dobzhansky, T. (1970) "Genetics of the evolutionary process". New York, Columbia University Press.
87:
Similar observations were made in 1886 by Stoddard, who created composite faces of members of the
526:
351:
Langlois, J.H., Musselman, L. (1995). The myths and mysteries of beauty. In D.R. Calhoun (Ed.),
117:
1508:
1357:
1318:
1234:
1127:
960:
882:
819:
557:
458:
432:
1533:
from a wide variety of faces on the University of Glasgow's Face Research Laboratory website
1500:
1473:
1446:
1411:
1384:
1349:
1310:
1283:
1226:
1199:
1172:
1119:
1092:
1062:
1019:
987:
952:
912:
874:
811:
784:
709:
675:
613:
586:
553:
545:
518:
424:
374:
365:
Iyengar, A.; Kulkarni, R.; Vidya, T. (2015). "Koinophilia and human facial attractiveness".
331:
284:
241:
208:
37:
815:
482:
1402:
Morris, M.R.; Casey, K. (1998). "Female swordtail fish prefer symmetrical sexual signal".
204:
158:
33:
1539:
includes example blended faces and discusses why average face shapes are more attractive.
666:
Rhodes, G.; Tremewan, T. (1997). "Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness".
1442:
948:
1287:
1176:
679:
654:
The development of face processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives
590:
335:
288:
109:
64:
1504:
1477:
1388:
1023:
838:"model's facial configuration is very similar to the composite's facial configuration"
428:
1558:
1340:) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness".
730:"average faces are consistently more attractive than the faces used to generate them"
92:
72:
166:
150:
135:
126:
1314:
1491:
Swaddle, J.P. (2003). "Fluctuating asymmetry, animal behaviour, and evolution".
1353:
197:
193:
48:
1203:
1096:
916:
153:
rated averaged Hadza faces as more attractive than single faces from the tribe.
1190:
Martindale, C.; Moore, K. (1988). "Priming, prototypicality, and preference".
1066:
991:
788:
378:
903:
Unnikrishnan, M.K. (2009). "How is the individuality of a face recognized?".
113:
Outline drawings of two young women's faces, and an averaged image of the two
1530:
1123:
617:
44:
1450:
1415:
1322:
1238:
1131:
886:
823:
1361:
964:
436:
511:
The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
162:
76:
52:
550:
Facial Attractiveness - Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives
758:
Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives
714:
697:
632:
Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives
530:
236:
453:
Miller, W.B. (2013). "What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?".
1230:
956:
457:. Boca Raton, Florida.: Universal Publishers. pp. 177, 395–396.
189:
28:
1192:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
522:
506:
455:
In: The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome
145:
878:
802:
Rhodes, G (2006). "The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty".
144:
116:
108:
125:
study found that the facial proportions of celebrities including
266:
264:
262:
260:
258:
256:
1055:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory
1078:
1076:
1040:. pp. 389–392. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
752:
750:
355:, pp. 40-61. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
691:
689:
860:
858:
696:Valentine, T.; Darling, S.; Donnelly, M. (2004).
129:were close to the average of all female profiles.
1217:Bruner, J.S. (1957). "On perceptual readiness".
930:
928:
926:
898:
896:
770:
768:
766:
347:
345:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
1048:
1046:
1005:
1003:
1001:
410:
408:
406:
484:Inquiries in Human Faculty and its Development
82:Inquiries in Human Faculty and its Development
1301:Ridley, M. (1992). "No better than average".
656:pp. 27-38. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
8:
1336:Grammer, K.; Thornhill, R. (1994). "Human (
63:The effect was first described in 1878 by
713:
1255:Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
476:
474:
448:
446:
390:
388:
648:
646:
644:
642:
640:
353:1996 Yearbook of Science and the Future
252:
816:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208
16:Perceived beauty of an 'averaged' face
7:
1038:Studies in perception and action III
271:Langlois, J.H.; Roggman, L. (1990).
67:. He had devised a technique called
273:"Attractive faces are only average"
1288:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00113.x
1177:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
680:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00338.x
591:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00165.x
400:. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
336:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00503.x
289:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x
14:
1493:Advances in the Study of Behavior
1342:Journal of Comparative Psychology
1431:Proceedings of the Royal Society
397:The Evolution of Human Sexuality
47:explanation for averageness is
905:Journal of Theoretical Biology
1:
1505:10.1016/S0065-3454(03)01004-0
1478:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80156-3
1389:10.1016/s1090-5138(99)00014-8
1165:British Journal of Psychology
1024:10.1016/s0163-6383(98)90011-x
429:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80297-8
207:within a category creates a "
1531:Create your own average face
1377:Evolution and Human Behavior
1315:10.1126/science.257.5068.328
777:Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc
89:National Academy of Sciences
32:technical definition of the
1354:10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233
1581:
1204:10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661
1097:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.848
917:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.011
91:and graduating seniors of
1067:10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.618
992:10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79
789:10.1017/s1464793102006085
379:10.1007/s12045-015-0187-2
1565:Physical attractiveness
1124:10.1348/000712600161718
618:10.1111/1467-9280.00002
27:describes the physical
21:physical attractiveness
1451:10.1098/rspb.1994.0172
1416:10.1006/anbe.1997.0580
760:: Westport, CT: Ablex.
634:: Westport, CT: Ablex
154:
149:Transcending culture:
130:
114:
1276:Psychological Science
1251:Bruner, J.S. (1990).
606:Psychological Science
579:Psychological Science
324:Psychological Science
232:Fluctuating asymmetry
148:
123:University of Toronto
120:
112:
69:composite photography
1219:Psychological Review
546:Zebrowitz, Leslie A.
1443:1994RSPSB.258..267S
949:1994Natur.368..239P
804:Annu. Rev. Psychol
715:10.3758/bf03196599
702:Psychon. Bull. Rev
505:Galton, F (1878).
394:Symons, D. (1979)
161:tribe of 1,000 in
155:
131:
115:
1437:(1353): 267–271.
1309:(5068): 327–328.
1012:Infant Behav. Dev
943:(6468): 239–242.
873:(12): 1813–1820.
544:Rhodes, Gillian;
38:category of faces
34:mathematical mean
1572:
1519:
1518:
1488:
1482:
1481:
1472:(6): 1020–1021.
1466:Animal Behaviour
1461:
1455:
1454:
1426:
1420:
1419:
1404:Animal Behaviour
1399:
1393:
1392:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1333:
1327:
1326:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1271:
1265:
1262:
1256:
1249:
1243:
1242:
1231:10.1037/h0043805
1214:
1208:
1207:
1187:
1181:
1180:
1160:
1154:
1151:
1145:
1142:
1136:
1135:
1107:
1101:
1100:
1080:
1071:
1070:
1050:
1041:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1007:
996:
995:
975:
969:
968:
957:10.1038/368239a0
932:
921:
920:
900:
891:
890:
862:
853:
852:
850:
849:
840:. Archived from
834:
828:
827:
799:
793:
792:
772:
761:
754:
745:
744:
742:
741:
732:. Archived from
726:
720:
719:
717:
693:
684:
683:
663:
657:
650:
635:
628:
622:
621:
601:
595:
594:
574:
568:
567:
541:
535:
534:
502:
496:
495:
493:
491:
481:Francis Galton.
478:
469:
468:
464:978-1-61233-2772
450:
441:
440:
412:
401:
392:
383:
382:
362:
356:
349:
340:
339:
319:
304:
303:
301:
300:
291:. Archived from
268:
242:Sexual selection
1580:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1555:
1554:
1543:Averaging faces
1527:
1522:
1515:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1259:
1253:Acts of Meaning
1250:
1246:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1082:
1081:
1074:
1052:
1051:
1044:
1035:
1031:
1009:
1008:
999:
977:
976:
972:
934:
933:
924:
902:
901:
894:
864:
863:
856:
847:
845:
836:
835:
831:
801:
800:
796:
774:
773:
764:
755:
748:
739:
737:
728:
727:
723:
695:
694:
687:
665:
664:
660:
651:
638:
629:
625:
603:
602:
598:
576:
575:
571:
564:
543:
542:
538:
523:10.2307/2841021
504:
503:
499:
489:
487:
480:
479:
472:
465:
452:
451:
444:
414:
413:
404:
393:
386:
364:
363:
359:
350:
343:
321:
320:
307:
298:
296:
270:
269:
254:
250:
228:
183:
159:hunter-gatherer
107:
61:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1578:
1576:
1568:
1567:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:- Beauty Check
1546:
1540:
1534:
1526:
1525:External links
1523:
1521:
1520:
1513:
1483:
1456:
1421:
1394:
1383:(5): 295–307.
1367:
1348:(3): 233–242.
1328:
1293:
1266:
1257:
1244:
1225:(2): 123–152.
1209:
1198:(4): 661–670.
1182:
1155:
1146:
1137:
1112:Br. J. Psychol
1102:
1091:(3): 848–855.
1072:
1061:(6): 618–632.
1042:
1029:
1018:(2): 345–354.
997:
970:
922:
911:(3): 469–474.
892:
854:
829:
794:
783:(3): 385–407.
762:
746:
721:
685:
674:(2): 105–110.
658:
636:
623:
596:
569:
562:
536:
497:
470:
463:
442:
417:J. Theor. Biol
402:
384:
373:(4): 311–319.
357:
341:
330:(4): 214–220.
305:
283:(2): 115–121.
251:
249:
246:
245:
244:
239:
234:
227:
224:
182:
179:
165:, Africa, the
106:
103:
65:Francis Galton
60:
57:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1577:
1566:
1563:
1562:
1560:
1550:
1549:Average Faces
1547:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1516:
1514:9780120045327
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1487:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1460:
1457:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1425:
1422:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1398:
1395:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1332:
1329:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1297:
1294:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1270:
1267:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1213:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1159:
1156:
1150:
1147:
1141:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1033:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1006:
1004:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
985:
981:
974:
971:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
931:
929:
927:
923:
918:
914:
910:
906:
899:
897:
893:
888:
884:
880:
879:10.1068/p5601
876:
872:
868:
861:
859:
855:
844:on 2015-02-04
843:
839:
833:
830:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
798:
795:
790:
786:
782:
778:
771:
769:
767:
763:
759:
753:
751:
747:
736:on 2015-02-04
735:
731:
725:
722:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
692:
690:
686:
681:
677:
673:
669:
662:
659:
655:
649:
647:
645:
643:
641:
637:
633:
627:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
600:
597:
592:
588:
584:
580:
573:
570:
565:
563:1-56750-636-4
559:
555:
551:
547:
540:
537:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
501:
498:
486:
485:
477:
475:
471:
466:
460:
456:
449:
447:
443:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
411:
409:
407:
403:
399:
398:
391:
389:
385:
380:
376:
372:
368:
361:
358:
354:
348:
346:
342:
337:
333:
329:
325:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
306:
295:on 2015-02-04
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
267:
265:
263:
261:
259:
257:
253:
247:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
229:
225:
223:
219:
215:
212:
210:
206:
201:
199:
195:
191:
186:
180:
178:
174:
170:
168:
164:
160:
152:
147:
143:
139:
137:
128:
124:
119:
111:
104:
102:
99:
96:
94:
93:Smith College
90:
85:
83:
78:
74:
70:
66:
58:
56:
54:
50:
46:
41:
39:
35:
30:
26:
22:
1537:Beauty Check
1496:
1492:
1486:
1469:
1465:
1459:
1434:
1430:
1424:
1407:
1403:
1397:
1380:
1376:
1370:
1345:
1341:
1338:Homo sapiens
1337:
1331:
1306:
1302:
1296:
1279:
1275:
1269:
1260:
1252:
1247:
1222:
1218:
1212:
1195:
1191:
1185:
1168:
1164:
1158:
1149:
1140:
1115:
1111:
1105:
1088:
1085:Dev. Psychol
1084:
1058:
1054:
1037:
1032:
1015:
1011:
983:
980:Dev. Psychol
979:
973:
940:
936:
908:
904:
870:
866:
846:. Retrieved
842:the original
832:
807:
803:
797:
780:
776:
757:
738:. Retrieved
734:the original
724:
705:
701:
671:
668:Psychol. Sci
667:
661:
653:
631:
626:
609:
605:
599:
582:
578:
572:
549:
539:
514:
510:
500:
488:. Retrieved
483:
454:
423:(1): 15–35.
420:
416:
395:
370:
366:
360:
352:
327:
323:
297:. Retrieved
293:the original
280:
277:Psychol. Sci
276:
220:
216:
213:
202:
196:is known as
187:
184:
181:Explanations
175:
171:
167:Hadza people
156:
151:Hadza people
140:
136:Likert scale
132:
127:Jessica Alba
100:
97:
86:
81:
62:
45:evolutionary
42:
24:
18:
1499:: 169–205.
1282:: 123–125.
1118:: 125–140.
810:: 199–226.
708:: 482–487.
585:: 354–357.
517:: 132–144.
198:koinophilia
194:mate choice
73:vegetarians
49:koinophilia
43:A possible
25:averageness
867:Perception
848:2014-10-16
740:2014-10-16
299:2014-10-16
248:References
1410:: 33–39.
1171:: 65–75.
986:: 79–84.
490:April 20,
367:Resonance
209:prototype
205:exemplars
77:criminals
53:mutations
23:studies,
1559:Category
1323:17832825
1239:13420288
1132:10717775
887:18283931
824:16318594
612:: 8–13.
548:(2002).
226:See also
163:Tanzania
105:Research
1439:Bibcode
1362:7924253
1303:Science
965:8145822
945:Bibcode
531:2841021
437:2200930
237:Neoteny
59:History
1511:
1360:
1321:
1237:
1130:
963:
937:Nature
885:
822:
560:
529:
461:
435:
29:beauty
554:Ablex
527:JSTOR
1509:ISBN
1358:PMID
1319:PMID
1235:PMID
1128:PMID
961:PMID
883:PMID
820:PMID
558:ISBN
492:2015
459:ISBN
433:PMID
190:Mate
75:and
1501:doi
1474:doi
1447:doi
1435:258
1412:doi
1385:doi
1350:doi
1346:108
1311:doi
1307:257
1284:doi
1227:doi
1200:doi
1173:doi
1120:doi
1093:doi
1063:doi
1020:doi
988:doi
953:doi
941:368
913:doi
909:261
875:doi
812:doi
785:doi
710:doi
676:doi
614:doi
587:doi
519:doi
425:doi
421:144
375:doi
332:doi
285:doi
19:In
1561::
1507:.
1497:32
1495:.
1470:42
1468:.
1445:.
1433:.
1408:55
1406:.
1381:20
1379:.
1356:.
1344:.
1317:.
1305:.
1278:.
1233:.
1223:64
1221:.
1196:14
1194:.
1169:70
1167:.
1126:.
1116:91
1114:.
1089:35
1087:.
1075:^
1057:.
1045:^
1016:21
1014:.
1000:^
984:27
982:.
959:.
951:.
939:.
925:^
907:.
895:^
881:.
871:36
869:.
857:^
818:.
808:57
806:.
781:78
779:.
765:^
749:^
706:11
704:.
700:.
688:^
670:.
639:^
608:.
581:.
556:.
552:.
525:.
513:.
509:.
473:^
445:^
431:.
419:.
405:^
387:^
371:20
369:.
344:^
326:.
308:^
279:.
275:.
255:^
121:A
95:.
84:.
55:.
40:.
1517:.
1503::
1480:.
1476::
1453:.
1449::
1441::
1418:.
1414::
1391:.
1387::
1364:.
1352::
1325:.
1313::
1290:.
1286::
1280:2
1241:.
1229::
1206:.
1202::
1179:.
1175::
1134:.
1122::
1099:.
1095::
1069:.
1065::
1059:5
1026:.
1022::
994:.
990::
967:.
955::
947::
919:.
915::
889:.
877::
851:.
826:.
814::
791:.
787::
743:.
718:.
712::
682:.
678::
672:7
620:.
616::
610:9
593:.
589::
583:2
566:.
533:.
521::
515:8
494:.
467:.
439:.
427::
381:.
377::
338:.
334::
328:5
302:.
287::
281:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
