Attractive Faces Are Only Average

By J. Langlois, L. Roggman. 1990

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A Note on Data Biases in Generative Models (2020, methodology): “ assign too high density to regions between data points. This can result in a bias towards averaged data points, which, in the case of aligned face images, might be perceived as more attractive faces [17]. We do not make a statement on how to generally investigate and solve societal biases of ML mod”
Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making (2004, background): “A host of other variables that affect processing fluency shows parallel effects, from figure-ground contrast and pre- sentation duration (e.g., Reber et al., 1998) to the prototypicality of the stimulus (e.g., Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000; Langlois & Roggman, 1990).”
The intrinsic memorability of face photographs. (2013, background): “Other high-level attributes, such as attractiveness, have been argued in both directions to be linked with facial averageness (Langlois & Roggman, 1990) but also uniqueness (Alley & Cunningham, 1991), while untrustworthy faces have been found to be more memorable (Rule et al., 2012).”
Thousands of Voices for HMM-Based Speech Synthesis–Analysis and Application of TTS Systems Built on Various ASR Corpora (2010, background): “In addition to the transformed distance, we hypothesize that there is a psychological reason: Langlois and Roggman have shown that averaged faces look more attractive than individuals in their paper entitled “Attractive Faces are Only Average” [?].”
Beauty as an Emotion: The Exhilarating Prospect of Mastering a Challenging World (2008, background): “Better to start much smaller with mild aesthetic pleasure (e.g., Martindale, 1988; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004), physical attractiveness (e.g., Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Rubenstein, Kalakanis, & Langlois, 1999), or mere preference (e.g., Zajonc, 1968).”
Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder?: Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value (2004, background): “Since assessment must often be calibrated to local parameters (e.g., body fat, skin tone, facial, and height preferences, Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Symons, 1995), I would expect WHR-preference mechanisms to assess the local distribution of female WHR in relation to other correlates of mate value,…”
First Impressions From Faces Among U.S. and Culturally Isolated Tsimane’ People in the Bolivian Rainforest (2012, background): “Because faces closer to the prototype are judged more attractive (Bronstad, Langlois, & Russell, 2008; Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Rhodes, 2006), differences in the prototypical face for American and Tsimane’ judges may suppress agreement in attractiveness ratings.”
Accurate First Impressions Leave a Lasting Impression (2013, unknown): “More accurate impressions should also promote feelings of familiarity, which also promote greater liking (Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011; but see Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007, 2011).”
Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and their Origins (2002, background): “Each of these facial qualities has been positively related to attractiveness ( Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt, 1999; Zebrowitz, Voinescu, & Collins, 1996) and negatively related to a variety of syndromes characterized by intellectual defic”
Age Synthesis and Estimation via Faces: A Survey (2010, background): “Langlois and Roggman [59] support the “Averageness Hypothesis” of attractiveness, which indicates that an average face is the most attractive face.”
Cross-Cultural Variation in Mate Preferences for Averageness, Symmetry, Body Size, and Masculinity (2013, background): “In a first attempt to empirically replicate this observation, Langlois and Roggman (1990) demonstrated that digital composites (i.e., average faces), each made up of 16 or 32 faces of either sex, were judged as more attractive than the individual faces that comprised them.”