Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 May 7;269(1494):873–880. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.1971

Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics.

David I Perrett 1, Ian S Penton-Voak 1, Anthony C Little 1, Bernard P Tiddeman 1, D Michael Burt 1, Natalie Schmidt 1, Roz Oxley 1, Nicholas Kinloch 1, Louise Barrett 1
PMCID: PMC1690969  PMID: 12028768

Abstract

Mate preferences are shaped by infant experience of parental characteristics in a wide variety of species. Similar processes in humans may lead to physical similarity between parents and mates, yet this possibility has received little attention. The age of parents is one salient physical characteristic that offspring may attend to. The current study used computer-graphic faces to examine how preferences for age in faces were influenced by parental age. We found that women born to 'old' parents (over 30) were less impressed by youth, and more attracted to age cues in male faces than women with 'young' parents (under 30). For men, preferences for female faces were influenced by their mother's age and not their father's age, but only for long-term relationships. These data indicate that judgements of facial attractiveness in humans reflect the learning of parental characteristics.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (266.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bateson P. Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature. 1978 Jun 22;273(5664):659–660. doi: 10.1038/273659a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Belsky J., Steinberg L., Draper P. Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: and evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Dev. 1991 Aug;62(4):647–670. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01558.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruce V., Young A. Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol. 1986 Aug;77(Pt 3):305–327. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burt D. M., Perrett D. I. Perception of age in adult Caucasian male faces: computer graphic manipulation of shape and colour information. Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Feb 22;259(1355):137–143. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Goren C. C., Sarty M., Wu P. Y. Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics. 1975 Oct;56(4):544–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Griffiths R. W., Kunz P. R. Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy. Soc Biol. 1973 Dec;20(4):448–453. doi: 10.1080/19485565.1973.9988075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Halberstadt J., Rhodes G. The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):285–289. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Horn G. Imprinting, learning, and memory. Behav Neurosci. 1986 Dec;100(6):825–832. doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.100.6.825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hurlbert A. Trading faces. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jan;4(1):3–5. doi: 10.1038/82877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Johnson M. H., Dziurawiec S., Ellis H., Morton J. Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition. 1991 Aug;40(1-2):1–19. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90045-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kendrick K. M., Hinton M. R., Atkins K., Haupt M. A., Skinner J. D. Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature. 1998 Sep 17;395(6699):229–230. doi: 10.1038/26129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Langlois J. H., Kalakanis L., Rubenstein A. J., Larson A., Hallam M., Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000 May;126(3):390–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Le Grand R., Mondloch C. J., Maurer D., Brent H. P. Neuroperception. Early visual experience and face processing. Nature. 2001 Apr 19;410(6831):890–890. doi: 10.1038/35073749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Little A. C., Burt D. M., Penton-Voak I. S., Perrett D. I. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jan 7;268(1462):39–44. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Morton J., Johnson M. H. CONSPEC and CONLERN: a two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychol Rev. 1991 Apr;98(2):164–181. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Penn D., Potts W. MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Jul 22;265(1403):1299–1306. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Penton-Voak I. S., Perrett D. I., Castles D. L., Kobayashi T., Burt D. M., Murray L. K., Minamisawa R. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature. 1999 Jun 24;399(6738):741–742. doi: 10.1038/21557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Perrett D. I., Lee K. J., Penton-Voak I., Rowland D., Yoshikawa S., Burt D. M., Henzi S. P., Castles D. L., Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998 Aug 27;394(6696):884–887. doi: 10.1038/29772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Perrett D. I., May K. A., Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994 Mar 17;368(6468):239–242. doi: 10.1038/368239a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Perrett D. I., Oram M. W., Ashbridge E. Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition. 1998 Jul;67(1-2):111–145. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00015-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sackett G. P. Monkeys reared in isolation with pictures as visual input: evidence for an innate releasing mechanism. Science. 1966 Dec 16;154(3755):1468–1473. doi: 10.1126/science.154.3755.1468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Spuhler J. N. Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugen Q. 1968 Jun;15(2):128–140. doi: 10.1080/19485565.1968.9987763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec;3(12):452–460. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01403-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Valentine T. A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1991 May;43(2):161–204. doi: 10.1080/14640749108400966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wilson G. D., Barrett P. T. Parental characteristics and partner choice: some evidence for oedipal imprinting. J Biosoc Sci. 1987 Apr;19(2):157–161. doi: 10.1017/s0021932000016758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zei G., Astolfi P., Jayakar S. D. Correlation between father's age and husband's age: a case of imprinting? J Biosoc Sci. 1981 Oct;13(4):409–418. doi: 10.1017/s0021932000013663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES