1. Something in the way she moves: the role of motion in facial attractiveness Ed Morrison

2. Parotia

3. The sociocultural view Symons (1997) “…physical characteristics are close to the genes, and are distributed undemocratically. If standards of attractiveness can be shown to vary arbitrarily, attractiveness itself is made to seem trivial”

4. “Never judge a book by its cover” People can readily judge attractiveness – judgments at 150ms exposure correlate with normal judgments (Goldstein & Papageorge 1980) What is beautiful is good effect (Dion et al. 1972) – Better careers, personality attributes, marital outcomes Some evidence for a “kernel of truth” in personality attribution

5. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” People agree on attractiveness (Feingold 1992) Meta-analysis r=0.90 (Langlois 1990) Within culturesBetween cultures Sociocultural viewagreementDisagreement Adaptive viewagreement

6. Infants distinguish between attractive and unattractive faces (Langlois et al. 1991) even at 1 week old (Slater et al. 1998) Infants play more with an attractive doll than an unattractive one (Langlois et al. 1991) “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”

7. “Beauty is only skin deep” Attractive people: – fare better in employment (Hosada et al. 2003) – More likely to be acquitted in a trial – Stimulate reward centres in the brain Attractiveness important in partner choice – dating (Walster et al. 1966) – Same-sex alliances (Cash & Derlega 1978) – Sexual behaviour (Rhodes et al. 2005)

8. “Beauty is only skin deep” Are attractive people actually different from unattractive people? Adaptive view: attractive people have higher mate value – Good genes – Physical condition – Youth, fertility

9. Facial attraction

10. Averageness Francis Galton

11. Masculinised Sexual dimorphism Elephant seal Mandrill

12. Sexual dimorphism

13. Facial colour

14. Beyond facial structure Attractiveness is not just a fixed property of the face – Emotional expression (e.g. Otta et al. 1996) – Gaze direction (Kampe et al. 2001) – Other faces (Jones et al. 2007) A big missing ingredient – movement

15. Facial expression Is facial attractiveness stable?

16. Morrison et al. 2013)

17. Movement Static stimuli are limited – real faces are dynamic Movement is known to be important for facial perception – sex, identity, emotion Roberts et al (2009)

18. Movement

19. Movement and courtship Movement is important in animal courtship (birds, 3- spined stickleback, fruit flies, reptiles) Human dance (Brown et al. 2005) – Symmetrical men produced more attractive dances

20. Isolating facial movement Facial tracking

21. Isolating facial movement

25. Female attractiveness Coefficient = 1.02, t 4 =7.08, p<0.001 Intercept error: χ 2 4 =15.9, p=0.004 Slope error: χ 2 4 =3.7, p>0.500

26. Male attractiveness Coefficient = –0.31, t 4 = –1.60, p=0.184 »Morrison et al. (2007)

27. Male movement No cues to attractiveness in male movement? – High agreement on attractiveness Menstrual cycle alters preference for facial dimorphism - Grooming, jewellery, dress - Fantasize about sex - Go out to bars - Prefer deeper male voices

28. Female movement Lap dancers earn more in tips when they are in the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle (Miller et al. 2007) No effect for those on contraceptive pill

29. When women are in the fertile phase, they prefer more masculine walkers Women with a high sociosexuality prefer masculine walkers Female movement http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwal ker.html Provost, Troje, & Quinsey (2008)

30. Proceptivity Increased preference for proceptive movement when fertile »Morrison et al. (2009) Behaviour designed to encourage further interaction in the context of mating

31. How important is movement?

32. Centroid movement

33. How important is movement? Centroid movement

34. Correlations

37. Results Video = a + b 1 (photo) + b 2 (point-light) + e

38. Results Comparing 3 conditions

39. etc

41. Predictions Attractive movementUnattractive movement MasculinisedVery attractiveNot attractive FeminisedQuite attractiveNot attractive Attractive movementUnattractive movement MasculinisedQuite attractiveNot attractive FeminisedVery attractiveQuite attractive

42. Clear preference for feminised female videos No preference for dimorphism in male videos Analogous with work on static faces Morrison et al. 2010

43. Female body shape Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) Body mass index (BMI)

44. Female body shape E.g. Tovee et al. (1999): – BMI: 74% variance – WHR: 2.3% variance

45. Nature and nurture

46. Estimate relative importance of dynamic vs static cues Estimate relative importance of WHR and BMI in photographs, videos, and point-light walkers VideoPhotographPoint-light Static cues  Dynamic cues 

47. Female body movement

48. Study 1: stimuli

49. Zero-order correlations: VideoPhotoMocap Video 0.622**0.720** Photo 0.357 BMI -0.378-0.135-0.555** WHR -0.624**-0.509**-0.387* **p<0.01*p<0.05 Female body movement

50. Regression models – 1. DV = video attractiveness. Overall model significant (adj r 2 = 0.65, p<0.001)  p Photo 0.440.002 Mocap 0.56<0.001 Interaction 0.140.247 Female body movement

51. DVVideoPhotoMocap Overall model r 2 0.38**0.19*0.30** BMI (  -0.170.09-0.44* WHR (  -0.56**-0.51*-0.26 BMIxWHR (  0.14-0.180.14 **p<0.01*p<0.05

52. High heels Associated with sexuality Bad for you – Increases force on knee – Morton’s neuroma in foot nerves – Shortening of Achilles tendon – Bunions – Hard to walk! Theories – Push out buttocks and breasts – Slightly increased leg length (Sorokowski & Pawlowski, 2008)

53. High heels

54. Heels: M = 3.56, SD = 1.21 Flat shoes: M = 2.36, SD = 1.15, F(1,19) = 76.22, p <00001,  p 2 =.80 Classification error rate = 2 8% in flat shoes and 17% in high heels χ 2 (1, N = 120) = 7.06, p =.008. Cramer’s V =.24.

55. High heels Flat shoes M(SD) High heels M(SD)Difference tdf Significance LevelCohen's d Stride duration (s)1.130.051.090.050.041.69110.120.80 Cadence (steps/min)106.45.41110.225.38-3.824.23110.001*-0.71 Stride length (m)1.240.051.20.060.044.39110.001*0.73 Knee flexion/extension Heelstrike (°)-0.395.11-2.986.312.591.628*0.1430.45 Stance max flexion (°)10.035.8215.965.00-5.934.448*0.002*-1.10 Toe-off (°)-4.563.86-2.745.43-1.820.898*0.401-0.39 Swing max flexion (°)62.253.5051.484.4410.778.468*<0.001*2.71 Hip flexion/extension Heelstrike (°)23.753.8029.433.12-5.682.75110.019*-1.64 Toe-off (°)-9.402.12-9.343.76-0.060.07110.945-0.02 Swing max flexion (°)29.393.2325.873.923.520.04110.9710.98 Pelvic rotation (°)3.061.004.161.07-1.13.28110.007*-1.06 Lateral pelvic tilt (°)12.342.7014.572.69-2.234.9011<0.001*-0.83 Shoulder rotation 4.422.494.381.930.04.47110.6380.02 Biomechanics When walking in high-heels women take smaller and more frequent steps, they bend their knees and hips less, and more rotation and tilt occurs at the hip. Morris, White, Morrison & Fisher, 2012

56. High heels Supernormal stimuli

57. Static cuesDynamic cues ShapeColour Texture Current disposition Condition / current health Hormone markers Developmental stability Here and now Good genes The past

58. Conclusions Physical attractiveness in terms is best understood as a product of sexual selection However, attractiveness is more than just physical structure Movement is an important component of attractiveness Other transient aspects of the face (colouration?) Physical attractiveness is more than just the face Attractiveness is more than just the physical

59. Acknowledgments Prof Ian Penton-Voak Dr Andrew Clark Dr Isabel Scott Dr Robbie Cooper Dr Lisa Gralewski Dr Neill Campbell Dr Pete Etchells Dr Paul Morris Dr Jenny White Hannah Bain Louise Pattison Hannah Whyte-Smith Dave Black Wendy Hedger Genna Griffiths Amy Russell Liam Satchell Dr Robin Kramer