The present study examines whether the facial proportion forehead length equals nose length equals lower face length (the “1/3-proportion”), which is considered a standard of facial beauty, arouses an innate aesthetic pattern of response. Profile deviations from the profile of Leonardo's famous drawing of Isabella D'Este as well as from other female profiles, which are based on the 1/3-proportion, were generated by increasing or decreasing the nose length. Profile evaluations as beautiful and as sexually appealing showed an inverted U-shaped function of the profile deviations when the profiles were presented upright; however these measures were flattened when the profiles were presented inverted. By contrast, profiles evaluated as interesting exhibited similar flattened curves in the upright and the inverted conditions. Furthermore, evaluations of non-facial stimuli (rectangles) did not behave similarly to evaluations of profiles. These results were interpreted as supporting the Aesthetical Construction theory, which suggests that the evaluations of these profiles are based on a response pattern constructed from innate and learned components.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DürerAlbrecht. (1972). Albrecht Dürer: The human figure (pp. 221, 223). StraussW. L. Ed.). New York: Dover.
2.
BäumlK. H. (1994). Upright versus upside-down faces: How interface attractiveness varies with orientation. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 163–172.
3.
CunninghamM. R.RobertsA. R.WuC.-H.BarbeeA. P., & DruenP. B. (1995). Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.
4.
DagysA. P. (1987). The use of proportions in planning surgical-orthodontic treatment in young adult patients. In FarkasL. G. & MunroI. R. (Eds.), Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine (pp. 83–101). Chicago, IL: C. C. Thomas.
5.
EkmanP. (1971). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In ColeJ. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 207–283). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
6.
EndlerJ. A., & BasoloA. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecological & Evolution, 13, 415–420.
FinkB., & Penton-VoakI. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.
9.
GreenC. D. (1995). All that glitters: A review of psychological research on aesthetics of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937–968.
10.
HanflingO. (1995). Aesthetic qualities. In HanflingO. (Ed.), Philosophical aesthetics: An introduction (pp. 41–73). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
11.
HalberstadtJ., & RhodesG. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.
12.
JonesD. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36, 723–748.
13.
LaysC. (1995). The evaluation of art. In HanflingO. (Ed.), Philosophical aesthetics: An introduction (pp. 349–380). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.AdamJ.RubensteinL.LarsonA.HallamM., & SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
15.
LangloisJ. H., & RoggmanL. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
16.
LangloisJ. H.RoggmanL. A.CaseyR. J.RitterJ. M.Rieser-DannerL. A., & JenkinsV. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype. Developmental Psychology, 23, 363–369.
17.
da VinciLeonardo. (1970). The literary works of Leonardo Da Vinci (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 316, 318). RichterJ. P. (Ed.). New York: Phaidon.
18.
LocherP. J. (1996). Vision spontaneously establishes the percept of pictorial balance. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 17–31.
19.
LocherP. J. (2003). Experimental techniques for investigating the contribution of pictorial balance to the creation and perception of visual displays. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 21, 127–135.
20.
LoewensteinG. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.
21.
MillerG. F., & ToddP. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 190–198.
22.
PerrettD. I.MayK. A., & YoshikawaS. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242.
23.
PowellN., & HumphreysB. (1984). Proportions of the aesthetic face.New York: Thieme-Stratton.
24.
RakoverS. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1–30.
25.
RakoverS. S. (2007). To understand a cat: Methodology and philosophy.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
26.
RakoverS. S., & CahlonB. (2001). Face recognition: Cognitive and computational processes.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
27.
RhodesG.SumichA., & ByattG. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.
28.
RhodesG.YoshikawaS.ClarkA.LeeK.McKayR., & AkamatsuS. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30, 611–625.
29.
RubensteinA. J.LangloisJ. H., & RoggmanL. A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining beauty. In RhodesG. & ZebrowitzL. A. (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 1–33). Westport, CT: Ablex.
30.
ScheidemanG. B.BellW. H.LeganH. L.FinnR. A., & ReischJ. S. (1980) Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. American Journal Orthodontist, 78, 404–420.
31.
ThornhillR., & GangestadS. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 452–460.
32.
WagemansJ. (1995). Detection of visual symmetries. Spatial Vision, 9, 9–32.
33.
ZebrowitzL. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul?New York: Westview Press.
34.
ZebrowitzL. A., & RhodesG. (2002). Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: The multiple whys and wherefores of attractiveness. In RhodesG. & ZebrowitzL. A. (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 261–293). Westport, CT: Ablex.
