Slides Shared Resource

1. Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, and Vaughn (1991) Facial Diversity and Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces 2. Attractiveness Nature vs. Nurture…
of 31
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  • 1. Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, and Vaughn (1991) Facial Diversity and Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces
  • 2. Attractiveness Nature vs. Nurture <ul><li>Pretty is as pretty does. </li></ul><ul><li>Beauty is only skin deep. </li></ul><ul><li>Never judge a book by its cover. </li></ul>
  • 3. Attractiveness Nurture? <ul><li>Are preferences for attractiveness culturally transmitted ? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lengthened necks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bound feet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Painted skin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dyed hair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flattened or enlarged breasts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thin </li></ul></ul>
  • 4. Attractiveness Nurture?
  • 5. Attractiveness Nature? <ul><li>“Beautiful faces and bodies worldwide are generally ones that look youthful, healthy, symmetrical, &quot;average&quot; in the sense that we prefer features– noses, legs, physiques–  that are neither too large nor too small” David G. Myers in Psychology. </li></ul>
  • 6. Attractiveness Nature <ul><li>These images were created by morphing together the features of many women to come up with the &quot;average&quot; face. </li></ul>
  • 7. Study 1
  • 8. Study 1: Aim <ul><li>To replicate their previous results with adult female facial stimuli </li></ul><ul><li>To extend the results to male facial stimuli </li></ul><ul><li>To investigate whether the manner in which male and female faces are presented influences infant preferences </li></ul>
  • 9. Study 1: Sample <ul><li>60-6 month old infants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>53 of them were white </li></ul></ul>
  • 10. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Laboratory experiment </li></ul><ul><li>IV? What was manipulated? </li></ul><ul><li>DV? What was measured? </li></ul>
  • 11. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Each infant saw color slides of 16 adult Caucasian women & 16 Caucasian adult men </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Half of the slides of each sex depicted attractive faces, the other half unattractive faces </li></ul></ul>
  • 12. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Operational definition of attractive : The slides’ faces were rated for attractiveness by at least 40 undergraduate men & women using a 5-point Likert-type scale (rating scale) </li></ul><ul><li>Final faces selected: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facial expression, hair length, hair color were equally distributed across attractiveness conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All male faces clean-shaven </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clothing cues masked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Faces were posed with neutral expressions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul>
  • 13. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Standard visual preference technique </li></ul><ul><li>Infant seated on parent's lap; parent wore occluded glasses. Why? </li></ul><ul><li>A light and a buzzing noise </li></ul><ul><li>A trial began when the infant first looked at one of the slides </li></ul><ul><ul><li>When the infant looked at the center of the screen, the next pair of slides was displayed. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Each trial lasted for 10 s. </li></ul><ul><li>Screen brightness consistent throughout </li></ul>
  • 14. Study 1: Method <ul><li>The stimuli were presented in two sets of 16 slides </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each set divided into 8 trial blocks of 2 slides each </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Control for infant side biases </li></ul><ul><li>Slides paired so that infants viewed only pairs of women or pairs of men </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternating condition , the infants observed alternating pairs of males and females. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grouped condition , infants saw all the women's slides together & all the men's slides together </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infants given 5-10-min break after 8 trials to lessen fatigue </li></ul>
  • 15. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Order of set presentation, order of slide pair presentation within sets (within the constraints of the set), & order of slide pairing randomized across subjects so that a particular slide of an attractive face could be paired with any slide of an unattractive face of the same sex </li></ul>
  • 16. Study 1: Method <ul><li>Direction & duration of looks recorded on the keyboard of a laboratory computer that functioned as an event recorder </li></ul><ul><li>Using the televised image of the infant to observe visual fixation ensured that the experimenter could not see the displayed slides & was therefore blind to the attractiveness level of the slides the infant was observing </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability of the visual-fixation scoring obtained by having each experimenter score randomly selected videotaped sessions periodically throughout data collection </li></ul>
  • 17. Study 1: Results <ul><li>Infants looked longer at the attractive faces than the unattractive faces </li></ul><ul><li>Infant preferences for attractive faces were evident for both adult male & adult female faces </li></ul><ul><li>Condition of presentation was not significant </li></ul><ul><li>Boys looked longer at male faces </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Girls also preferred same sex faces but the finding was not statistically significant </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mother’s attractiveness did not make a difference (Why do this?) </li></ul>
  • 18. Study 2
  • 19. Study 2: Aim <ul><li>To extend the findings to non-white faces </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Infants were shown faces of Black adult women. The faces were rated for attractiveness by both Black and Caucasian adult judges. </li></ul></ul>
  • 20. Study 2 <ul><li>Sample </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40-6 month old infants (36 white) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Black adult female faces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rest of procedure same as study 1 </li></ul></ul>
  • 21. Study 2: Results <ul><li>Infants looked longer at the attractive faces than the unattractive faces </li></ul><ul><li>Mother’s attractiveness did not make a difference </li></ul>
  • 22. Study 3
  • 23. Study 3 <ul><li>Aim </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To extend the findings to infant faces </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sample </li></ul><ul><ul><li>39-6 month old infants (36 white) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 month old baby faces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rest of procedure as in study 1 </li></ul></ul>
  • 24. Study 3: Results <ul><li>Infants looked longer at the attractive faces than the unattractive faces </li></ul>
  • 25. Explanation <ul><li>“ Ethnically diverse faces possess both distinct and similar, perhaps even universal , structural features.” </li></ul><ul><li>Beauty is (in some part) nature NOT nurture </li></ul>
  • 26. Discussion <ul><li>Beautiful faces are prototypical: a n original form serving as a basis or standard for other forms </li></ul><ul><li>Why might prototypical faces be evolutionarily adaptive? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals closer to the mean might be less likely to have genetic mutations ? </li></ul></ul>
  • 27. Averageness <ul><li>An average face has mathematically average trait values for a population </li></ul><ul><li>Faces that are high in averageness are low in distinctiveness and are therefore prototypical </li></ul><ul><li>Several theorists have proposed that average traits reflect developmental stability </li></ul>
  • 28. Prototypical
  • 30. Vocabulary ALERT <ul><li>Cultural transmission </li></ul><ul><li>Statistical significance </li></ul><ul><li>Likert-type scale </li></ul><ul><li>Prototype </li></ul>
  • 31. References <ul><li>Myers, David, & Reviews, Cram101. (2009). Outlines and highlights for psychology by david g myers, isbn . Worth Pub. </li></ul><ul><li>Langlois, J., & et al, (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology , 27 (1), 79-84. </li></ul><ul><li>Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology , (57), 199–226. </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks