Movement and facial attractiveness Edward R. Morrison, Nicola Gregory Centre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK
Facial attraction
Roberts et al. (2009)
Motion capture
Aims To quantify the relative importance of dynamic vs static cues in overall facial attractiveness To explore whether attractiveness (overall, static, and dynamic) can change in different contexts
Methods 1. Speed dating (n=48) Mean age 21.4 (SD 2.7) 3 interactions filmed ◦ Attractive partner ◦ Unattractive partner ◦ Same-sex partner
Methods Facial tracking
Methods
Methods 2. Facial motion tracking
Methods Centroid movement
Methods Centroid movement
Results Correlations
Results
Results
Results Video = a + b 1 (photo) + b 2 (point-light) + e
Results Comparing 3 conditions
Discussion Static cues dominant Attractiveness is stable Static cues important but perhaps less so Movement may play a role Attractiveness may change a bit
Discussion Static cuesDynamic cues ShapeColour Texture Current disposition Condition / current health Hormone markers Developmental stability Here and now Good genes The past
Acknowledgments Dr Pete Etchells Dr Robin Kramer Genna Griffiths Amy Russell Liam Satchell