Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T13:37:45.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attention and memory benefits for physical attractiveness may mediate prosocial biases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

David Vaughn Becker
David Vaughn Becker*
Affiliation:
Applied Cognitive Science Program, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212. Vaughn.becker@asu.edu http://www.public.asu.edu/~loids
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mating motivations can explain attractiveness benefits, but what proximate mechanisms might serve as efficient causes of these biases? There is growing evidence that visual cues of physical attractiveness capture attention and facilitate memory, enhancing salience in ways that could underlie, for example, preferring one job applicant over another. All of these effects beg deeper questions about the meaning of attractiveness.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e22
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L. & Kenrick, D. T. (2010) I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:804–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Guerin, S. & Maner, J. M. (2005) Concentrating on beauty: Sexual selection and sociospatial memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12:1643–52.Google Scholar
Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M. & Perrett, D. I. (2008) Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior 29:211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D. P. (1993) Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100(2):204–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A. & Vaughn, L. S. (1991) Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology 27:79–84.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C. & DeBruine, L. M. (2011) Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 366(1571):1638–59.Google Scholar
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J. & Neuberg, S. L. (2003) Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:1107–20.Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A. & Yoshikawa, S. (1994) Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature 368:239–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, F. (1996) Carrier females and sender males: An evolutionary hypothesis linking female attractiveness, family resemblance, and paternity confidence. Ethology and Sociobiology 17:211–20.Google Scholar
Samuels, C. A., Butterworth, G., Roberts, T., Graupner, L. & Hole, G. (1994) Facial aesthetics: Babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception 23:823–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed