Evolutionary and Cognitive Aspects of Beauty (Attractiveness)

Year 2017, Issue: 28, 145 - 158, 30.04.2017

Andrej Démuth Slávka Démuthová

https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.310255

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The subjective nature of aesthetic experience and the different aesthetic evaluation of the same impulses raise the suspicion of many thinkers to see beauty as a matter of a percipient’s individuality, and of beauty’s formation through external historical and cultural influences. Authors impeach this thesis and present the questions, whether it is possible to find cognitive aspects or purposes in aesthetic judgements and in beauty perception, and if it is possible to meaningfully build cognitive aesthetics as a science about the epistemic background of beauty and art. On the example of attraction, the mechanisms of evolutionarily universalistic approach are shown. In this case, an attractiveness evaluation can be understood as an unconscious calculating process where we evaluate sensory inputs without consciously regarding the evaluation algorithms which were acquired in the course of evolution or upbringing. At the same time, authors add the cognitive approach stressing the idea, that the attractiveness of an average object proves that it has a higher degree of correspondence with its prototype. For this reason our ideal of beauty is often conditioned by our education, individual history, and culture. The clarification of functioning of these mechanisms enables to present a model of how both systems work together, and so provides an explanation of why there are objects which we all like and why we are sensitive to very similar impulses, but on the other hand, this could also explain why there is an individual, historical, and cultural interdependence of aesthetic values.

Keywords

Beauty, Attractiveness, Evolution, Cognitive Development

References

• Buri, John R. “Love bytes: Insights on our deepest desire.” Psychology Today. Accessed July 10, 2015, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-bytes/201002/love-first-sight.
• Buss, David M. “Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, no. 1 (1989). 1-49.
• Buss, David M. and Schmitt, David P. “Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating.” Psychological Review 100, no. 2 (1993). 204-232.
• Cunningham, Michael R. “Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female and facial beauty.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 50, no. 5 (1986). 925-935.
• Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• Ellis, Bruce J. “The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women.” In The adapted mind, edited by Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, 267-288. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
• Gangestead, Steven W. and Thornhill, Randy. “Human sexual selection and developmental stability.” In Evolutionary social psychology, edited by Jeff A. Simpson and Douglas T. Kenrick, 169-195. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
• Grammer, Karl and Thornhill, Randy. “Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness.” Journal of Comparative Psychology 108, no. 3, (1994). 233-242.
• Chen, Audrey C.; German, Craig and Zaidel, Dahlia W. “Brain asymmetry and facial attractiveness: Facial beauty is not simply in the eye of the beholder.” Neuropsychology 35, no. 4 (1997). 471-476.
• Kawabata, Hideaki and Zeki, Semir. “Neural correlates of beauty.” Journal of Neurophysiology 91, no. 4 (2004). 1699-1705.
• Laeng, Bruno; Mathisen, Ronny and Johnsen, Jan-Are. “Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61, no. 3 (2007). 371-384.
• Langlois, Judith H. and Roggman, Lori A. “Attractive faces are only average.” Psychological Science 1, no. 2 (1990). 115-121.
• Little, Anthony C.; Penton-Voak, Ian S.; Burt, D. Michael and Perrett, David. I. “Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye color.” Evolution and Human Behavior 24, no 1(2003). 43-51.
• May Cindi “The Cheerleader Effect.” Scientific American, March 12, 2013.
• Perrett, David I. and May, Keith A. “Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness.” Nature 368, no. 6468 (1994). 239-242.
• Perrett, David I. In Your Face – The New Science of Human Attraction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
• Prokop, Marek. “Explanation of Beauty and Eyes-Attractiviness.” Trnava: Trnava University, 2015.
• Rhodes, Gillian; Sumich, Alex and Byatt, Graham. “Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?.” Psychological science 10, no. 1 (1999). 52-58.
• Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.
• Shackelford, Todd K. and Larsen, Randall J. “Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 72, no. 2 (1997). 456-466.
• Shackelford, Todd K. and Larsen, Randall J. “Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 72, no. 2, (1997). 456-466.
• Singh, Devendra and Bronstad, Mathew P. “Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation.“ Proceedings of the Royal Society 268, no. 1469 (2001). 797-801.
• Singh, Devendra and Young, Robert K. “Body Weight, Waist-to-Hip Ratio, Breasts, and Hips: Role in Judgments of Female Attractiveness and Desirability for Relationships.” Ethology and Sociobiology 16, no. 6 (1995). 483-507.
• Singh, Devendra. “Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio.” J Pers Soc Psychol 65, no. 2 (1993). 293-307.
• Singh, Devendra. “Is thin really beautiful and good? Relationship between waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and female attractiveness.” Personality and Individual Differences 16, no. 1 (1994). 123-132.
• Slater, Alan et al. “The role of facial orientation in newborn infants preference for attractive faces.” Developmental Science 3, no. 2 (2000). 181-185.
• Slater, Alan. “Newborn infants prefer attractive faces.” Infant Behavior and Developmental Science 21, no. 2 (2004). 345-354.
• Spehr, Marc; Kelliher, Kevin R.; Li, Xiao-Hong; Boehm, Thomas; Leinders-Zufall, Trese; Zufall, Frank. “Essential role of the main olfactory system in social recognition of major histocompatibility complex peptide ligands.” Journal of Neuroscience 26, no. 7 (2006). 1961-1970.
• Symons, Donald. “Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness.” In Sexual nature, sexual culture, edited by Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton, 80-118. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
• Symons, Donald. The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
• Thornhill, Randy and Moeller, Anders P. “Developmental stability, disease, and medicine.” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 72, no. 4 (1997). 497-548.
• Wedekind, Claus; Seebeck, Thomas; Bettens, Florence and Paepke, Alexander J. “MHC-Dependent Mate Preferences in Humans.” Proceedings of the Royal Society 260, no. 1359 (1995). 245-249.
• Wilson, Glenn D. and Brazendale, Anthony H. “Psychological correlates of sexual attractiveness: An empirical demonstration of denial and fantasy gratification phenomena?.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2, no. 1 (1974). 30-34.
• Wilson, Glenn D. and Brazendale, Anthony H. “Vital Statistics, Perceived Sexual Attractiveness, and Response to Risque Humor.” The Journal of Social Psychology 95, no. 2 (1975). 201-205.