1. Movement and facial attractiveness Edward R. Morrison, Nicola Gregory Centre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK

2. Facial attraction

3. Roberts et al. (2009)

4. Motion capture

5. 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

6. Methods 1. Speed dating (n=48) Mean age 21.4 (SD 2.7) 3 interactions filmed ◦ Attractive partner ◦ Unattractive partner ◦ Same-sex partner

7. Methods Facial tracking

8. Methods

9. Methods 2. Facial motion tracking

10. Methods Centroid movement

11. Methods Centroid movement

12. Results Correlations

13. Results

14. Results

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

16. Results Comparing 3 conditions

17. Discussion Static cues dominant Attractiveness is stable Static cues important but perhaps less so Movement may play a role Attractiveness may change a bit

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

19. Acknowledgments Dr Pete Etchells Dr Robin Kramer Genna Griffiths Amy Russell Liam Satchell