In the present research, we took advantage of geometric morphometrics to propose a data-driven method for estimating the individual degree of facial typicality/distinctiveness for cross-cultural (and other cross-group) comparisons. Looking like a stranger in one's home culture may be somewhat stressful. The same facial appearance, however, might become advantageous within an outgroup population. To address this fit between facial appearance and cultural setting, we propose a simple measure of distinctiveness/typicality based on position of an individual along the axis connecting the facial averages of two populations under comparison. The more distant a face is from its ingroup population mean toward the outgroup mean the more distinct it is (vis-à-vis the ingroup) and the more it resembles the outgroup standards. We compared this new measure with an alternative measure based on distance from outgroup mean. The new measure showed stronger association with rated facial distinctiveness than distance from outgroup mean. Subsequently, we manipulated facial stimuli to reflect different levels of ingroup-outgroup distinctiveness and tested them in one of the target cultures. Perceivers were able to successfully distinguish outgroup from ingroup faces in a two-alternative forced-choice task. There was also some evidence that this task was harder when the two faces were closer along the axis connecting the facial averages from the two cultures. Future directions and potential applications of our proposed approach are discussed.

Department of Philosophy and History of Science Charles University Prague Czechia

Department of Psychology Boǧaziçi University Istanbul Turkey

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Adams D. C., Otárola-Castillo E. (2013). geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. DOI

Bartlett J. C., Hurry S., Thorley W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces. PubMed DOI

Bartlett M. S., Tanaka J. W. (1998). “An attractor field model of face representation: effects of typicality and image morphing,” in

Blair I. V., Judd C. M., Chapleau K. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. PubMed DOI

Bookstein F. L. (1989). Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. DOI

Bookstein F. L. (1997). Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. PubMed DOI

Burton A. M., Jenkins R., Hancock P. J., White D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: the power of averages. PubMed DOI

Danel D., Dziedzic-Danel A., Kleisner K. (2016). Does age difference really matter? Facial markers of biological quality and age difference between husband and wife. PubMed DOI

Danel D. P., Fedurek P., Coetzee V., Stephen I. D., Nowak N., Stirrat M., et al. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of population-specific face shape preferences (Homo sapiens). DOI

DeBruine L. M., Jones B. C., Unger L., Little A. C., Feinberg D. R. (2007). Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: attractive faces are not always average. PubMed DOI

Eberhardt J. L., Davies P. G., Purdie-Vaughns V. J., Johnson S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. PubMed DOI

Fink B., Penton-Voak I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. DOI

Galton F. (1879). Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons into a single resultant figure. DOI

Galton F. (1883). DOI

Goethe J. W. (1999).

Hebl M. R., Williams M. J., Sundermann J. M., Kell H. J., Davies P. G. (2012). Selectively friending: racial stereotypicality and social rejection. DOI

Hervé M. (2018).

Hothorn T., Bretz F., Westfall P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. PubMed DOI

Jones A. L. (2018). Beyond average: using face regression to study social perception. DOI

Kahn K. B., Davies P. G. (2011). Differentially dangerous? Phenotypic racial stereotypicality increases implicit bias among ingroup and outgroup members. DOI

Kleisner K. (2007). The formation of the theory of homology in biological sciences. PubMed DOI

Kleisner K., Kočnar T., Rubešová A., Flegr J. (2010). Eye color predicts but does not directly influence perceived dominance in men. DOI

Kleisner K., Kočnar T., Tureček P., Stella D., Akoko R. M., Třebický V., et al. (2017). African and European perception of African female attractiveness. DOI

Klingenberg C. P. (2013). Visualizations in geometric morphometrics: how to read and how to make graphs showing shape changes.

Komori M., Kawamura S., Ishihara S. (2011). Multiple mechanisms in the perception of face gender: effect of sex-irrelevant features. PubMed DOI

Kuznetsova A., Brockhoff P. B., Christensen R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. DOI

Langlois J. H., Roggman L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. DOI

Livingston R. W., Brewer M. B. (2002). What are we really priming? Cue-based versus category-based processing of facial stimuli. PubMed DOI

Maddox K. B. (2004). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. PubMed DOI

Mangiafico S. (2018).

Mitteroecker P., Bookstein F. (2011). Linear discrimination, ordination, and the visualization of selection gradients in modern morphometrics. DOI

Mitteroecker P., Windhager S., Müller G. B., Schaefer K. (2015). The morphometrics of “masculinity” in human faces. PubMed DOI PMC

O’toole A. J., Deffenbacher K. A., Valentin D., Abdi H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect. PubMed DOI

Perrett D. I., May K. A., Yoshikawa S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. PubMed DOI

Rhodes G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. PubMed DOI

Rhodes G., Tremewan T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. DOI

Rohlf F. J. (2015). The tps series of software. Hystrix, the Italian.

Rohlf J. F., Marcus L. F. (1993). A revolution morphometrics. PubMed DOI

Russell E. S. (1916).

Said C. P., Todorov A. (2011). A statistical model of facial attractiveness. PubMed DOI

Sanchez-Pages S., Rodriguez-Ruiz C., Turiegano E. (2014). Facial masculinity: how the choice of measurement method enables to detect its influence on behaviour. PubMed DOI PMC

Sanchez-Pages S., Turiegano E. (2010). Testosterone, facial symmetry and cooperation in the prisoners’ dilemma. PubMed DOI

Sánchez-Pagés S., Turiegano E. (2013). Two studies on the interplay between social preferences and individual biological features. DOI

Saribay S. A., Biten A. F., Meral E. O., Aldan P., Třebický V., Kleisner K. (2018). The Bogazici face database: standardized photographs of Turkish faces with supporting materials. PubMed DOI PMC

Schaefer K., Mitteroecker P., Fink B., Bookstein F. L. (2009). Psychomorphospace—from biology to perception, and back: towards an integrated quantification of facial form variation. DOI

Schlager S. (2017). “Morpho and Rvcg – shape analysis in R,” in

Schneider G., Chicken E., Becvarik R. (2018).

Sofer C., Dotsch R., Oikawa M., Oikawa H., Wigboldus D. H., Todorov A. (2017). For your local eyes only: culture-specific face typicality influences perceptions of trustworthiness. PubMed DOI

Sofer C., Dotsch R., Wigboldus D. H., Todorov A. (2015). What is typical is good: the influence of face typicality on perceived trustworthiness. PubMed DOI

Tanaka J., Giles M., Kremen S., Simon V. (1998). Mapping attractor fields in face space: the atypicality bias in face recognition. PubMed DOI

Tanaka J. W., Corneille O. (2007). Typicality effects in face and object perception: further evidence for the attractor field model. PubMed DOI

Třebický V., Fialová J., Kleisner K., Havlíèek J. (2016). Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PubMed DOI PMC

Tredoux C. (2002). A direct measure of facial similarity and its relation to human similarity perceptions. PubMed DOI

Trujillo L. T., Jankowitsch J. M., Langlois J. H. (2014). Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: a neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. PubMed DOI PMC

Valentine T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. PubMed DOI

Valentine T., Ferrara A. (1991). Typicality in categorization, recognition and identification: evidence from face recognition. DOI

Valentine T., Lewis M. B., Hills P. J. (2016). Face-space: a unifying concept in face recognition research. PubMed DOI

Valenzano D. R., Mennucci A., Tartarelli G., Cellerino A. (2006). Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness. PubMed DOI

Vokey J. R., Read J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. PubMed DOI

Wickham L. H., Morris P. E., Fritz C. O. (2000). Facial distinctiveness: its measurement, distribution and influence on immediate and delayed recognition. PubMed DOI

Windhager S., Bookstein F. L., Mueller H., Zunner E., Kirchengast S., Schaefer K. (2018). Calibrating facial morphs for use as stimuli in biological studies of social perception. PubMed DOI PMC

Zebrowitz L. A., White B., Wieneke K. (2008). Mere exposure and racial prejudice: exposure to other-race faces increases liking for strangers of that race. PubMed DOI PMC

Visual attention to faces during attractiveness and dominance judgements

Facial basis of stereotypes: Judgements of warmth and competence based on cross-group typicality/distinctiveness of faces

Sexual Dimorphism: The Interrelation of Shape and Color

Does the primate face cue personality?

Africans and Europeans differ in their facial perception of dominance and sex-typicality: a multidimensional Bayesian approach

Facial attractiveness and preference of sexual dimorphism: A comparison across five populations

Perception-driven dynamics of mimicry based on attractor field model

How and why patterns of sexual dimorphism in human faces vary across the world

Oxidative stress as a hidden cost of attractiveness in postmenopausal women