AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
(Table 4) levels between the groups of participants which
preferred low to high intelligence (introverted to extraverted)
facial composites.
Table 2
T-test for differences in extraversion between 2 groups
according to the preference for the introverted/ extraverted
facial composites
Preferred
male facial
composite
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Introverted
785
10.92
3.739
.621
.535
Extraverted
1118
10.81
3.477
Preferred
female facial
composite
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Introverted
454
10.81
3.676
-.327
.744
Extraverted
1449
10.87
3.560
Table 3
T-test for differences in intelligence between 2 groups according
to their preference for low/high intelligent facial composites in
the split sample
Preferred male
facial composite
(female sample)
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Low intelligence 500
13.67
2.675
.056
.955
High intelligence 649
13.66
2.519
Preferred female
facial composite
(male sample)
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Low intelligence 308
13.87
3.005
-.966
.334
High intelligence 446
14.06
2.450
Table 4
T-test for differences in extraversion between 2 groups
according to their preference for introverted/ extraverted facial
composites in the split sample
Preferred male
facial composite
(female sample)
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Introverted
450
11.02
3.518
1.097
.273
Extraverted
699
10.79
3.589
Preferred female
facial composite
(male sample)
N
Mean
St.
dev.
T
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Introverted
206
10.81
3.702
-.045
.964
Extraverted
548
10.82
3.602
From the results, we can assume that personal characteristics
(specifically, the level of intelligence and extraversion) do not
change attractiveness preferences for high/low intelligence of
introverted/ extraverted facial composites when evaluating faces
of the opposite sex.
5 Discussion
The presented study focused on attractiveness preferences for
male and female faces differing in their levels of extraversion
and intelligence. The objective was to reveal, whether subjects
who prefer highly intelligent faces are also more intelligent
compared to those who preferred faces possessing the facial
features of lower intelligence. Similarly, we tested whether the
subjects who preferred highly extraverted faces are also more
extraverted compared to those who preferred faces possessing
facial features indicating introversion. The findings of our study
did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the levels of
intelligence between the group of subjects who considered the
highly intelligent facial composite to more attractive and the
group of subjects who considered the facial composite with
facial features typical for low intelligence faces to be more
attractive. Also, there was no statistically significant difference
in the levels of extraversion between the group of subjects who
considered extraverted faces more attractive and the group of
subjects who considered introverted faces more attractive. As the
attractiveness preference suggests inter-sexual dynamics, we also
tested our objective on a sample of women (evaluating male
faces) and men (evaluating female face) separately. Neither were
there any statistical differences in the intelligence or extraversion
levels in the groups of subjects that differed in their preference
for intelligent and extraverted faces.
There might be various explanations for the absence of a
similarity between the features of the observer and their
tendency to prefer these features in the face of the composite
evaluated in our research.
Even though several studies have
shown that people tend to mate with partners having similar in
personality traits (Bleda, 1974), social attitudes (Yeong Tan &
Singh, 1995), ethnic backgrounds (Hu et al., 2008), vocal
features (Nass & Brave, 2005) or facial features (Bailenson,
Iyengar, Yee, & Collins, 2008), these preferences have been seen
in existing (and sometimes even long-lasting) couples. It is
possible, that couples may adjust their characteristics in order to
synchronize with their life partner or they tend to maintain a
relationship with such a type of partner and split up with those
who are too different. The similarity hypothesis in terms of
personality/intelligence characteristics, therefore, might only be
applicable after certain duration of “dating” and learning each
other´s character. We also assume that “at first sight” facial
evaluation mainly concentrates on physical features that signal
evolutionary important characteristics such as age, signs of good
health, fertility, the potential for “good genes”, features which
give confidence in paternity (Bovet,
Barthes, Durand, Raymond,
& Alvergne,
2012) and therefore the preferred similarities shared
by the evaluator and evaluated person can be tied primarily to
such features.
Another group of explanations for the results achieved could
come from the limitations of our study that might have interfered
with our data. We did not take into account the sexual
preferences of the evaluators. If we assume that attractiveness
preferences are closely tied (mainly within “at first sight”
attractiveness preferences) to the evaluation of potential sexual
partners, it is possible, that subjects with a homosexual
orientation would not evaluate the presented facial composites as
expected. Also, we may discuss how age affects attractiveness
choices. Those subjects in the fertile period of their lives may
evaluate the faces of possible sexual partners in a different way
to women who are post-menopausal. Similarly, if the evaluator
is already engaged in a relationship (has a partner) or is actively
searching for a partner could affect the way that faces of the
opposite sex are evaluated in terms of their attractiveness.
Several studies have proved (see e.g. Burriss, Welling, & Puts,
2011) that, for example, women looking for a short-term partner
consider different male facial features attractive than when they
are searching for a long-term one. Differences in attractiveness
preferences also depend on more delicate factors, such as the
menstrual cycle (Littlle & Jones, 2012). All these considerations
may be useful topics for further research with the potential to
verify results of this study as well as to clarify the specifics of
the proposed objectives.
Literature:
1.
Apicella, C. L., Little, A. C., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007).
Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of
hunter-gatherers. Perception, 36(12), 1813-1820.
2.
Bailenson, J. N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N.
A. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and candidates
causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 935-961.
3.
Bleda, P. R. (1974). Toward a clarification of the role of
cognitive and affective processes in the similarity attraction
relationship. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 29(3), 368-373.
4.
Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: sources
of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62(4), 645-657.
- 43 -