Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 31:10:437.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00437. eCollection 2016.

Perceptual and Social Attributes Underlining Age-Related Preferences for Faces

Affiliations

Perceptual and Social Attributes Underlining Age-Related Preferences for Faces

Hanni S M Kiiski et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Although aesthetic preferences are known to be important in person perception and can play a significant role in everyday social decisions, the effect of the age of the observer on aesthetic preferences for faces of different ages has not yet been fully investigated. In the present study we investigated whether aesthetic preferences change with aging, with an age-related bias in favoring faces from one's own age group. In addition, we examined the role of age on both the perceptual qualities and the social attributes of faces that may influence these aesthetic judgements. Both younger and older adult observers provided ratings to images of younger, middle-aged and older unfamiliar faces. As well as attractiveness, the rating dimensions included other perceptual (distinctiveness, familiarity) and social (competence, trustworthiness and dominance) factors. The results suggested a consistent aesthetic preference for youthful faces across all ages of the observers but, surprisingly, no evidence for an age-related bias in attractiveness ratings. Older adults tended to provide higher ratings of attractiveness, competence and trustworthiness to the unfamiliar faces, consistent with the positivity effect previously reported. We also tested whether perceptual factors such as face familiarity or distinctiveness affected aesthetic ratings. Only ratings of familiarity, but not distinctiveness, were positively associated with the attractiveness of the faces. Moreover, ratings of familiarity decreased with increasing age of the face. With regard to the social characteristics of the faces, we found that the age of the face negatively correlated with ratings of trustworthiness provided by all observers, but with the competence ratings of older observers only. Interestingly, older adults provided higher ratings of perceived competence and trustworthiness to younger than older faces. However, our results also suggest that higher attractiveness ratings, together with older aged faces, led to more positive evaluations of competence. The results are discussed within the context of an age-related decline in the differentiation of faces in memory. Our findings have important implications for a better understanding of age-related perceptual factors and cognitive determinants of social interactions with unfamiliar others across the adult lifespan.

Keywords: aesthetic preferences; aging; attractiveness; character traits; face perception.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Scatterplot showing the correlation between mean attractiveness ratings and (actual) age of face.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Mean ratings (SE) of attractiveness and its perceptual and social attributes provided by the younger and older adults to the younger, middle-aged and older faces. FAM, familiarity rating dimension; DIST, distinctiveness rating dimension; COM, competence rating dimension; DOM, dominance rating dimension; TRUST, trustworthiness rating dimension.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Mean probability of differentiation scores (SE) of younger and older adults to the young, middle-aged and older faces. FAM, familiarity rating dimension; DIST, distinctiveness rating dimension; COM, competence rating dimension; DOM, Dominance rating dimension; TRUST, trustworthiness rating dimension.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aharon I., Etcoff N., Ariely D., Chabris C. F., O’Connor E., Breiter H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 32 537–551. 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00491-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albright L., Kenny D. A., Malloy T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55 387–395. 10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.387 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anastasi J. S., Rhodes M. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12 1043–1047. 10.3758/BF03206441 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Apicella C. L., Little A. C., Marlowe F. W. (2007). Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception 36 1813–1820. 10.1068/p5601 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baltes P. B., Cornelius S. W., Spiro A., Nesselroade J. R., Willis S. L. (1980). Integration versus differentiation of fluid-crystallized intelligence in old age. Dev. Psychol. 16 625–635. 10.1037/0012-1649.16.6.625 - DOI