Locating attractiveness in the face space: Faces are more attractive when closer to their group prototype (original) (raw)
References
Blanz, V., & Vetter, T. A. (1999). A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In SIGGRAPH ’99 Computer Graphics Proceedings (pp. 187–194). Boston: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Busey, T. A. (1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing. Psychological Science, 9, 476–483. Article Google Scholar
Byatt, G., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Identification of own-race and otherrace faces: Implications for the representation of race in face space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 735–741. Article Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J.-J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an _n_-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319. Article Google Scholar
Cash, T. F. (1999). The psychosocial consequences of androgenetic alopecia: A review of the research literature. British Journal of Dermatology, 141, 398–405. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Corneille, O., Huart, J., Becquart, E., & Brédart, S. (2004). When memory shifts towards more typical category exemplars: Accentuation effects in the recollection of ethnically ambiguous faces. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 236–250. Article Google Scholar
Corneille, O., Hugenberg, K., & Potter, T. (2007). Applying the attractor field model to social cognition: Perceptual discrimination is facilitated, but memory is impaired for faces displaying evaluatively congruent expressions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 335–352. Article Google Scholar
Corneille, O., Monin, B., & Pleyers, G. (2005). Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs. evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 431–437. Article Google Scholar
Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Multidimensional scaling and individual differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 71–77. Article Google Scholar
Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Huart, J., Corneille, O., & Becquart, E. (2005). Face-based categorization, context-based categorization, and distortions in the recollection of gender ambiguous faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 598–608. Article Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121. Article Google Scholar
Lewis, M. B. (2004). Face-space-R: Towards a unified account of face recognition. Visual Cognition, 11, 29–69. Article Google Scholar
Light, L. L., Hollander, S., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269–276. Article Google Scholar
Martens, W. L., & Zacharov, N. (2000, September). Multidimensional perceptual unfolding of spatially processed speech I: Deriving stimulus space using INDSCAL. Paper presented at the 109th International Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, Los Angeles.
Potter, T., Corneille, O., Ruys, K. I., & Rhodes, G. (2007). “Just another pretty face”: A multidimensional scaling approach to face attractiveness and variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 368–372. Article Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Harwood, K., Yoshikawa, S., Nishitani, M., & McLean, I. G. (2002). The attractiveness of average facial configurations: Cross-cultural evidence and the biology of beauty. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 35–58). Westport, CT: Ablex. Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G., & Nakayama, K. (2003). Fitting the mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychological Science, 14, 558–566. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Lee, K., Palermo, R., Weiss, M., Yoshikawa, S., Clissa, P., et al. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319–340. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex. Google Scholar
Russell, R., Sinha, P., Biederman, I., & Nederhouser, M. (2006). Is pigmentation important for face recognition? Evidence from contrast negation. Perception, 35, 749–759. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Schulte-Rüther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2007). Mirror neuron and theory of mind mechanisms involved in face-to-face interactions: A functional magnetic resonance imaging approach to empathy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1354–1372. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Tanaka, J. W., & Corneille, O. (2007). Typicality effects in face and object perception: Further evidence for the attractor field model. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 619–627. Article Google Scholar
Tanaka, J. [W.], Giles, M., Kremen, S., & Simon, V. (1998). Mapping attractor fields in face space: The atypicality of bias in face recognition. Cognition, 68, 199–220. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161–204. Google Scholar
Vokey, J. R., & Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory & Cognition, 20, 291–302. Article Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806. ArticlePubMed Google Scholar