The Influence of Symmetry on Children's Judgments of Facial Attractiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In experiment 1, we examined developmental changes in the influence of symmetry on judgments of attractiveness by showing adults and children pairs of individual faces in which one face was transformed 75% toward perfect symmetry, while the other face was transformed by exaggerating its asymmetries by 75%. Adults and 9-year-olds, but not 5-year-olds, rated the more symmetric faces as more attractive than the less symmetric faces, although the effect was stronger in adults than 9-year-olds. The preference for symmetry was stronger for male than female faces, and stronger for adults' than children's faces. In experiment 2, comparisons of the symmetry of the original male and female faces revealed no measured differences but lower ratings by adults of symmetry in the male faces. Overall, the results suggest that the influence of symmetry on attractiveness judgments emerges after the age of 5 years, and matures after the age of 9 years. The stronger effects for adult viewers may reflect an increase in sensitivity to symmetry as experience with faces increases and/or as the visual system matures. As well, attractiveness may become more salient after puberty, so that honest signals of mate quality, such as symmetry, have a stronger effect for adult viewers, especially when judging adult faces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".