The Visual Process Method: A
New Method to Study
Physical Attractiveness
Manfred Hassebrauck
Otto-Selz-Institut, Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
The visual process method is a computer-aided procedure that allows for the recording
of the viewing sequence, viewing time, and amount of information used with respect to
various face and body parts in judgments of physical attractiveness. A study with 26
male and 44 female participants demonstrated the reliability and validity of the data
gathered with this method. In agreement with evolutionary psychology, features associ-
ated with the mate value of the individual youthfulness, health, sexual maturity for fe-
male targets, and status and dominance for male targets were looked at sooner and
more often. © 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.
KEY WORDS: Physical attractiveness; Evolution; Face; Waist-to-hip ratio
an has tried for centuries to discover the secret of beauty and to identify
the features responsible for physical attractiveness (mostly of the face).
In classical times, attempts were made to define beauty with geomet-
Mric regularity such as the golden section, or with the equal division of
the face based on the magic number seven (Cook and McHenry 1978; Hatfield and
Sprecher 1986; Liggett 1974). Others, such as Aristotle and later Galton (1878) and Treu
(1914), viewed the golden mean a kind of average as a guarantee for beauty.
For a long time, the attempts to objectively determine the basis of physical attrac-
tiveness went without success, and the hope of finding such a basis plunged when a
study by Ford and Beach (1951) examining more than 200 technologically primitive
societies failed to find any universal standard of beauty. Given such a result, sayings
such as  beauty is in the eye of the beholder seem all the more justified. Berscheid
and Walster [Hatfield] (1974: 178), who show in an enlightening overview the
Received September 8, 1997; revised January 6, 1998.
Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Manfred Hassebrauck, Gerhard-Mercator-University
Duisburg, Fachbereich 2-Psychology, 47048 Duisburg, Germany.
Evolution and Human Behavior 19: 111 123 (1998)
© 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 1090-5138/98/$19.00
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S1090-5138(98)00002-6
112 M. Hassebrauk
countless consequences of physical attractiveness, also are forced to pass on the
question of the nature of beauty and state,  it is the total Gestalt which is important.
It is only in the last few years that researchers from a sociobiological or evolu-
tionary psychological background have had success in coming closer to the material
basis of physical attractiveness. According to them (Barber 1995; Buss 1994; Cun-
ningham 1986; Cunningham et al. 1990), beautiful people are those who signal they
have a high mate value. In women, this primarily means youthfulness, health, and sex-
ual maturity. The physical attractiveness of a woman s face thus depends on features that
indicate her youthfulness (for example, in proportion to her face, large, widely
spaced eyes; Jones 1995), her sexual maturity (e.g., proportionally high and narrow
cheek bones), and her health (e.g., smooth, clear skin; Cunningham 1986). A male s
attractiveness, on the other hand, depends on features that indicate that he is able and
willing to provide for his offspring and that he is a winner in intrasexual competition.
Men who signal their high status, show their dominance (for example, with a strong
chin), and, at the same time, appear to be friendly are judged as more attractive than
men who do not exhibit these and similar features (Cunningham, et al. 1990).
For judgments of physical attractiveness of a person s body shape, the waist-
to-hip ratio (WHR), an indicator of the distribution of body fat, has seemed to be of
primary importance (Singh 1993, 1995). Women who come close to a WHR of 0.7
are deemed more attractive than those with a higher WHR. Male bodies with a
WHR of 0.9 are preferred over those with other ratios. The importance of the WHR
for physical attractiveness also can be explained by evolutionary principles. Women
with a WHR of 0.7 signal higher mate value; they have a higher level of circulating
estrogen, become pregnant more easily than women with a higher WHR, and are in
many aspects healthier than other women (for a detailed discussion of the correlates
of female WHR see Singh 1993). Male body fat distribution also is regulated by sex
hormones (in this case, circulating testosterone), and men whose WHR is between
0.8 and 0.9 have better health than those with lower or higher WHRs (for a discus-
sion of male WHR see Singh 1995).
Studies in which the identification of the role of certain features or feature
combinations is the goal usually examined objectively measurable stimulus qualities
as predictors of physical attractiveness in a multiple regression. This allows a math-
ematical calculation of the relative importance of the selected parameters. Alterna-
tively, certain features will be experimentally manipulated so that the consequences
of these changes can be analyzed. For example, Cunningham (1986) measured fea-
tures of youthfulness, sexual maturity, and expressiveness in beauty queens and cal-
culated the multiple correlations with physical attractiveness as the criterion. Fea-
tures from all three categories contributed to attractiveness ratings. Singh (1993,
1995) experimentally manipulated body shape and studied the effect of this manipu-
lation on the judgments of physical attractiveness.
Whether people actively look for features that inform them of the mate value of
men and women when judging the physical attractiveness of strangers remains an open
question. Evolutionarily speaking, we can expect that face and body features that signal
mate value not only influence the amount of perceived attractiveness, but also will draw
more attention and will be processed more quickly than other face and body parts.
Visual Process Method 113
The research reported here was aimed at this problem and was designed to an-
swer the following questions: (1) Which information concerning faces and bodies do
people require in making physical attractiveness judgments?; (2) How are face and
body parts related to physical attractiveness?; (3) Do male and female observers use
different strategies in searching for the information required for physical attractive-
ness judgments?; and (4) Do male and female targets elicit different search strate-
gies?. According to evolutionary psychology, we should expect sex differences,
namely, that male and female targets elicit different search strategies. With female
targets, the focus should be on facial features that indicate youthfulness and sexual
maturity. These are the eyes, the mouth, the chin, and the cheeks. A rather small chin
(child-like feature), narrow cheeks (mature adult facial feature), and full lips (indi-
cator of sexual maturity) all can give this kind of information. As for the body, more
information should be drawn from the waist and hips than from other body parts.
Male targets should direct perceivers attention to features signaling power,
dominance, or status. According to the multiple motive hypothesis (Cunningham et
al. 1990), the female s search for the proper mate is characterized by a conflict. On
the one hand, she wants a strong, dominant partner with the resources to compete
successfully against other males. On the other hand, she does not just want a partner
as a protector and provider, but someone who will satisfy her socioemotional needs
as well.  A man who looks too mature and too powerful, then, may not arouse the
woman s warm caregiving feelings and may not elicit as much attraction as a man
who can stimulate nurturant responses (Cunningham et al. 1990: 62). This means
that, in addition to features indicating dominance and status, women also should
look for neonate features, such as relatively large eyes and a small nose, in men.
Males, however, generally do not want to mate with males. They see other males as
competitors for resources and women. Therefore, they should not look for neonate
features in other men, but rather focus on features of status and dominance.
The literature is full of indications that sex differences exist between perceivers
making physical attactiveness judgments. Women not only give lower judgment scores
than men (Gladue and Delaney 1990; Reis et al. 1980), but also differ from men in
the structure of their perceptual categories for physical attractiveness. Ashmore et al.
(1996) had test persons sort photographs of attractive females into three categories
that were to form the basis for a multidimensional scaling. Three dimensions ade-
quately represented the structure of the data, but they were different for male and fe-
male perceivers. Women divided the female targets into the categories cute natural,
trendy, and sexy, whereas men used the dimensions girl-next-door, sexually attractive,
and elegant not intelligent. Women and men also differ in their preferences regard-
ing mens body shapes. Men regard a muscular bulk type as more attractive, whereas
women prefer a leaner type (Fallon and Rozin 1985; Salusso-Deonier et al. 1993).
Questions about which face and body parts men and women pay most attention to,
how these parts are related to physical attractiveness ratings and what kinds of strategies
are used to obtain information about physical attractiveness cannot be answered with
the methods normally used in this field. A multiple regression analysis in which certain
objectively measurable stimulus features are correlated with physical attractiveness
ratings does not tell us whether information about certain body parts is processed
114 M. Hassebrauk
more quickly than information from other parts, nor does it allow us to conclude that
people actively prefer certain kinds of information over other kinds. Analyzing eye
movement with the help of an eye mark recorder also is of no use in this context. While
it can tell us which face and body parts are viewed in which order and for how long,
it still is not possible to judge the importance of these individual parts for physical
attractiveness ratings since the whole process takes only about 100 msec (Locher et
al. 1993), and all information is available in the brain more or less simultaneously
with its presentation. In light of this, I developed an alternative method, the visual
process method which is capable of answering these and similar questions.
THE VISUAL PROCESS METHOD
The visual process method (VPM) is a computer program that works with digitized pho-
tographs of people and analyzes the order in which, and the response latency with which,
information about faces and body parts is requested and judged by viewers. At the start
of the program, a blackened screen displays the rough contours of a face on the left-
hand side and the outline of a body on the right (Figure 1A). Single features of the
face (hair, forehead, eyes, nose, cheeks, mouth, chin) and of the body (upper body, waist
and hips, legs) can be uncovered and viewed in the order desired by the viewer.
Participants are instructed to judge the physical attractiveness of a stranger
with the least amount of information needed. By typing in the corresponding letter
on the keyboard, the requested blackened contour is uncovered to reveal the under-
lying photographed face body part. Based on this body part, the participant is asked
to give an attractiveness rating for the target and to indicate if he or she requires further
information. This sequence is repeated until either all facial and body parts have
been uncovered and judged, or until the viewer replies he or she needs no further in-
formation. In this case, all remaining parts are uncovered and the participant is asked
to make a final judgment on the physical attractiveness of the target (Figure 1B).
The program registers the order in which the face and body parts are uncov-
ered, the physical attractiveness ratings based on the information so far available,
and the time it takes to make each decision. This allows one to determine the infor-
mation search strategy used, the processing speed, and the importance of the indi-
vidual face and body parts for the physical attractiveness judgments.
METHODS
Participants and Stimuli
Participants were 70 students (26 male and 44 female, mean age 23.01 years, SD
4.49) with various majors at a German university. They were informed of the exper-
iment in class and participated on a voluntary basis without payment.
The stimuli were photographs of the faces and entire bodies of 10 men and 10
women (same age as the participants) in bathing attire taken mostly at an outdoor
swimming pool. Some targets had to be photographed in the lab due to bad weather.
Visual Process Method 115
FIGURE 1. (A) Starting screen (in the study the screen was in color). Translation of the
instruction in the lower part of the screen: Choose the part of the body or face you need for
your judgment by pressing the corresponding key. The letters highlighted in color for each
part represent those parts still available (e.g.,  M for mouth). (B) Fully uncovered screen.
Translation of the instruction in the lower part of the screen: Now judge the physical
attractiveness of the person shown above based on the uncovered parts. The following values
are possible:  is very unattractive . . .  is very attractive.
116 M. Hassebrauk
However, the backdrop was manipulated to look as much as possible like that of an
outdoor pool so that all targets had similar backgrounds.
Procedure
The experimental room was equipped with computers that controlled the entire proce-
dure. Participants in groups of up to five persons were given information about the study
and all instructions on their screen. They were told the study had to do with judging
physical attractiveness. Photographs of target persons would first be completely cov-
ered by a blackened screen with the outline of a face and body in bathing attire. They
should indicate, in whichever order they wanted, the individual face or body part they
would like to view. This part would then be uncovered to give the viewer an idea of the
target person s looks, and the participant should then make an attractiveness judgment
based on the information. They could then view another body part and make another
judgment (and so on), or, if they felt they had enough information, they could opt to end
the sequence. At the end, participants were asked to make a final judgment of the
target with all parts uncovered. In order to motivate the participants to concentrate
on the subjectively most important face body parts, they were told that the point was
 to judge the attractiveness of the target person with the least possible information.
After uncovering each part, the time participants took to make their judgments
on a scale from 1 (very unattractive) to 9 (very attractive) was registered. The judg-
ment was made by pressing the corresponding number key on the keyboard. Partici-
pants were not informed that their reaction time was being measured.
The order of the 20 targets was varied randomly from person to person. The
viewer was informed before each trial if the next target was male or female.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reliability of Data Assessed with the VPM
Ratings of physical attractiveness. Reliability analyses of physical attractiveness
ratings based on the transposed data matrix and treating the 20 targets as cases and
70 raters as items showed that the internal consistency of the ratings was exception-
ally high (alpha .97). This held true for ratings of both male attractiveness (alpha
.96) and female attractiveness (alpha .96).
Rank orders of face and body parts. Since the goal of the study was not only to deter-
mine the physical attractiveness ratings, but also to observe in which order the indi-
vidual face and body parts were viewed, the reliability for the rank orders (averaged
across the 10 female and 10 male targets) also was computed. The internal consistency
again was very high, with alpha .98 for female targets and .97 for male targets.
Visual Process Method 117
Search Depth
The first step analyzed how many parts (i.e., how much information) the viewers
requested in order to be able to judge the physical attractiveness of the targets. We
were especially interested in seeing if male and female observers differed from one
another and if male and female targets were judged differently. Overall, the partici-
pants required M 3.54 parts to feel they could make a subjectively satisfying
judgment. A mixed-model ANOVA (sex of perceiver sex of target) with repeated
measures on the last factor shows that men (M 3.98) looked at more face and body
parts than women (M 3.26), F(1,68) 6.25, p .05. This main effect is further
qualified by an interaction with the sex of the target, F(1, 68) 4.56, p .05.
As can be seen from Figure 2, women looked at fewer parts than men irrespec-
tive of sex of the targets (3.27 and 3.26 for male and female targets, respectively),
whereas men viewed more parts given female targets (M 4.15) than male targets
(M 3.82). This pattern matches the sex differences found in studies on partner
choice (for reviews see Barber 1995; Buss 1994; Feingold 1992; Kenrick 1994), ac-
cording to which men pay more attention to the physical appearance of potential
mates than do women.
Viewing Time
The fact that men place comparatively more importance on the appearance of poten-
tial mates (and therefore more importance on the physical attractiveness of a
woman) also is demonstrated by the amount of time participants needed to arrive at
FIGURE 2. Mean number of parts viewed as a function of sex of perceiver and sex of target.
118 M. Hassebrauk
an attractiveness judgment based on the available information. According to evolu-
tionary psychologists, males should be more likely to spontaneously process infor-
mation about the physical appearance of potential mates than females (Kenrick
1994). In agreement with this assumption, a 2 (sex of viewer) 2 (sex of target)
mixed-model ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor showed a signifi-
cant interaction with respect to viewing time, F(1, 68) 7.01, p .01. (Viewing
time per face or body part was calculated by dividing the total viewing time by num-
ber of parts viewed. All analyses reported here are based on log-transformed values.
Reported means, however, are the times in seconds. Analyses of nontransformed
raw values led to comparable results.)
Means in Figure 3 show the expected pattern. Males processed information on
female attractiveness (M 1.57 s) more quickly than females processed informa-
tion concerning male attractiveness (M 2.02 s). Simple effect analyses on this in-
teraction showed that face and body parts of female targets were processed faster by
male perceivers (M 1.57 s) than by female perceivers (M 2.21 s), F (1, 68)
106.14, p .0001, and that parts of male targets also were processed faster by males
(M 1.70 s) than by females (M 2.02 s), F (1, 68) 42.98, p .001. Female
perceivers processed information about males (M 2.02 s) more quickly than infor-
mation about females (M 2.21 s), F (1, 68) 5.00, p .05. For male viewers, the
opposite was true (although only marginally significant): information on female tar-
gets (M 1.57 s) was processed more quickly than on male targets (M 1.70 s), F
(1, 68) 3.37, p .075.
Altogether the results for viewing time support the idea that, over the course of
evolution, adaptive mechanisms affecting our choice of partner have emerged, al-
lowing men in particular to quickly process information on the physical attractive-
ness of a potential mate.
Importance of Specific Face and Body Parts
Based on evolutionary psychological assumptions, we not only expect men to place
more importance than women on physical attractiveness and to process information
on a woman s appearance faster than women do for men, we also predict that men
and women pay attention to different face and body parts when judging physical
attractiveness. The importance of the specific face and body parts was analyzed in
two ways with the help of the data obtained using the VPM. First, we calculated
how often each part of the 10 male and 10 female targets was viewed by the male
and female participants. Second, the sequential order in which the parts were
observed was analyzed.
Viewing frequencies of face and body parts. As can be seen in Table 1, the eyes
were the most frequently viewed body part, followed by mouth, hair, and upper
body. The chin was viewed the least. A 2 (sex of viewer) 2 (sex of target) multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures on the last factor
and viewing frequency of the 10 face and body parts as dependent variables resulted
Visual Process Method 119
FIGURE 3. Mean viewing time as a function of sex of perceiver and sex of target.
in significant multivariate main effects for the sex of the viewer, Wilks lambda (10,
59) .64, p .01, and sex of the target, Wilks lambda (10, 59) .29, p .001.
Univariate analyses following the multivariate tests indicated that independent
of the sex of the target, male perceivers viewed the cheeks more often than female
perceivers, F(1, 68) 5.95, p .05, likewise for the legs, F(1, 68). Compared to
male targets, the eyes, F(1, 68) 7.02, p .01, the mouth, F (1, 68) 7.08, p
.01, and the waist and hips, F(1, 68) 11.98, p .001 of female targets were
viewed more frequently. Overall, these results are compatible with an evolutionary
view. The eyes, mouth, and waist and hips are more important in female targets than
Table 1. Mean Frequencies of Face and Body Parts Viewed
Female targets Male targets
Part Male Ss Female Ss Total Male Ss Female Ss Total
Eyes 9.34 9.59 9.50 8.65 9.50 9.18
Mouth 8.23 7.79 7.95 7.53 7.68 7.62
Nose 4.73 4.47 4.57 4.57 4.41 4.47
Chest 5.19 3.36 4.04 5.26 4.04 4.50
Hair 3.46 2.54 2.88 3.88 2.06 2.74
Cheeks 3.19 1.52 2.14 2.88 1.63 2.10
Forehead 1.96 .68 1.15 1.54 1.41 1.46
Waist and hips 2.15 1.45 1.71 .88 .72 .78
Legs 2.30 .86 1.40 1.84 .45 .97
Chin .92 .31 .54 1.15 .84 .96
Note. Values are averaged over 10 female and 10 male targets respectively.
120 M. Hassebrauk
in male targets, as these features convey the youthfulness (eyes and mouth) and the
fertility (waist and hips) of the person being viewed.
Viewing sequence of face and body parts. The sequences (mean rank orders) in
which the individual face and body parts were uncovered are presented in Table 2.
The observation of a typical female face starts at the eyes, falls to the mouth, then
goes to the nose, the upper body, the hair, the cheeks, and finally the waist and hips,
legs, forehead, and chin. The positions in which the specific face and body parts
were uncovered were analyzed with MANOVA (sex of perceiver sex of target)
with repeated measures on the last factor and the 10 face and body parts as depen-
dent measures. (It was possible to uncover a maximum of 10 parts per target. All
parts left uncovered received the rank order of 10.) A significant multivariate main
effect for sex of target emerged, Wilks lambda (10, 59) .04, p .0001, as well as
a significant target sex perceiver sex interaction, Wilks lambda (10, 59) .71, p
.05. Univariate tests following the multivariate tests showed that for female targets,
the eyes, mouth, and waist and hips were viewed significantly earlier than was the
case for male targets (F [1, 68] values were 6.20, p .05; 3.94, p .051; 11.62, p
.001), and that the chin was looked at sooner in male targets than in female targets,
F(1, 68) 4.14, p .05 (Table 2).
Perceiver main effects were found for the eyes, F (1, 68) 5.33, p .05, the
cheeks, F(1, 68) 5.39, p .05, and the legs, F (1, 68) 12.75, p .001. Women
(M 1.81) looked at the eyes sooner than do men, whereas men view the cheeks
(M 7.90 vs. 8.80) and the legs (M 8.72 vs. 9.58) of the targets earlier than
women. Significant interactions between the sex of the viewer and target sex were
found for hair, F(1, 68) 5.04, p .05 and forehead F(1, 68) 5.86, p .05. Sim-
ple effects analyses of these interactions showed that women looked at female tar-
gets hair sooner than that of male targets F(1, 68) 6.86, p .05, but they viewed
the female targets forehead later than that of the males, F(1, 68) 9.66, p .01.
Target sex made no difference for male viewers for these variables, both F 1.
Like the frequencies with which the individual parts were uncovered, the pat-
tern of the viewing order is compatible with an evolutionary perspective. With fe-
Table 2. Mean Ranks of Face and Body Parts Viewed
Female targets Male targets
Part Male Ss Female Ss Total Male Ss Female Ss Total
Eyes 2.35 1.76 1.98 2.97 1.85 2.26
Mouth 4.10 3.96 4.01 4.44 4.11 4.23
Nose 6.64 6.72 6.69 6.75 6.74 6.74
Chest 6.65 7.79 7.37 6.48 7.33 7.01
Hair 7.26 8.09 7.78 7.07 8.54 7.99
Cheeks 7.93 8.93 8.56 7.87 8.82 8.47
Forehead 8.85 9.55 9.29 9.00 9.01 9.01
Waist and hips 8.70 9.09 8.95 9.49 9.52 9.50
Legs 8.64 9.45 9.14 8.79 9.70 9.36
Chin 9.47 9.80 9.68 9.11 9.41 9.34
Note. Values are averaged over 10 female and 10 male targets respectively.
Visual Process Method 121
male targets, once again those features indicating the woman s youthfulness and fer-
tility were observed sooner than the corresponding features in male targets, whereas
for the latter, the chin a sign of dominance was viewed sooner than in female
targets (Cunningham et al. 1990). The importance of the eyes also supports this ar-
gument. They are the foremost indicator of facial symmetry, and symmetric mates
are at an advantage in sexual selection (Gangestad et al. 1994; Grammer and Thorn-
hill 1994; Shackelford and Larsen 1997). A combination of mouth (second in order
of observation) and eyes allows for a fairly good prediction of the target s age and
his or her physical attractiveness (Jones 1995). Seen in this light, the information
search strategies observed in this study are both logical and functional and lead to a
fast appraisal of information relevant to successful mating.
Ratings of Physical Attractiveness
The results thus far have been related to the depth of information and the importance
of selected face and body parts. The following section will analyze whether or not
persons arrived at the same attractiveness judgment with the amount of information
they specifically requested compared to when all information was available (i.e., all
parts uncovered). To do this, I correlated the physical attractiveness rating for each
target that was given after the perceiver had indicated that he or she needed no fur-
ther information (PAMAX) with the physical attractiveness rating given based on
the total information (PATOTAL). These correlations range from .29 to .66 and
imply that there were targets from whom the overall impression was gained rela-
tively early, and targets who made a different impression when all information on
them was available than with only partial information.
The correlations between PAMAX and PATOTAL (separated by sex of the
perceiver) were Fisher s Z-transformed and analyzed by a perceiver sex target sex
mixed- model ANOVA with repeated measures on the first factor (cases in this anal-
ysis are the 20 targets), which resulted in a significant main effect for target sex, F
(1, 18) 8.26, p .01 and a marginally significant effect for the sex of the per-
ceiver, F (1, 18) 4.19, p .056. Mean correlations between PAMAX and PA-
TOTAL were significantly higher for male targets (mean r .55) than for female
ones (mean r .42), and female perceivers ratings based on restricted information
were closer to their final ratings (mean r .53) than were males ratings (mean r
.45). These results are unexpected and counterintuitive. Considering the larger im-
portance men place on women s appearance and the smaller importance women
place on men s looks, we would expect men to be capable of judging the physical
attractiveness of a woman even when he cannot see her completely. The pattern we
observed, however, is the opposite. The correlations between PAMAX and PATO-
TAL were the lowest when men judged female targets (mean r .33) and highest
when women judged the physical attractiveness of male targets (mean r .57). This
fact is all the more interesting since the participants themselves decided if they
needed further information.
The results do not stem from men having viewed fewer parts of women than
women of men, thus leading to ratings based on a smaller amount of information.
122 M. Hassebrauk
The above mentioned depth of information search shows the opposite pattern: men
looked at more features of the female targets (M 4.15) than women did of the
male targets (M 3.27).
Neither can the results be due to a difference in reliabilities between males and
females ratings. The physical attractiveness ratings are comparably reliable for
male and female perceivers, both with all parts of the target visible (alphas .942
and .944) and with only partially uncovered target photos (alphas .744 and .798).
An explanation for the target sex main effect regarding these correlations could lie
in the fact that the physical attractiveness of females is more complex than that of
males. It could be that there are more face and body parts responsible for a woman s
physical attractiveness than a man s. According to current evolutionary views, the
interplay of youthfulness, health, and sexual maturity is what gives a woman her
physical attractiveness; perhaps all such information is needed in order to make an
appearance judgment. However, further research is needed to explain the unex-
pected results found here.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The visual process method is a reliable means of gathering data in the context of
studying physical attractiveness judgments. It allows the ascertainment of the
importance of specific face and body parts in making this decision and provides
information on processing speed. The results gained with this method are consistent
with evolutionary psychological views on the role of selected face and body parts
for physical attractiveness judgments. Features associated with the mate value of the
individual were looked at sooner and more often. For female targets, these features
were those that indicated her youthfulness, sexual maturity, and fertility. The results
for male targets were not quite as obvious, which may have to do with the fact that
male physical attractiveness is less important than female attractivenes for the
choice of a mate (Buss 1989), and that the mate value of a man (e.g., status and
dominance) is determined less easily from his appearance than a woman s value is
from hers. Also explainable in evolutionary framework is that men s processing
speeds regarding female targets were exceptionally fast. One can speculate that evo-
lution favored the development of such a specific information processing system.
The results clearly show that facial attractiveness plays a much larger role than
the attractiveness of the body. It should not be surprising that despite the fact that
many studies have shown the importance of the WHR ratio (Singh 1993, 1995), the
importance of these body parts in our study remains small because WHR is espe-
cially useful at a distance when details of a face are not available.
All in all, the agreement of the results with the predictions made by current the-
ories is not only an indicator of the reliability but also of the validity of the visual
process method. I hope other attraction researchers also will use this method in the
future.
I would like to thank Rebecca Muthig who helped me with the translation, and Niko Avramidis for his
help with the programming.
Visual Process Method 123
REFERENCES
Ashmore, R.D., Solomon, M.R., and Longo, L.C. Thinking about fashion model s looks: a multidimen-
sional approach to the structure of perceived attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 22:1083 1104, 1996.
Barber, N. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphol-
ogy. Ethology and Sociobiology 16:395 424, 1995.
Berscheid, E., and Walster [Hatfield], E. Physical attractiveness. In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, (Vol. 7) L. Berkowitz (Ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 157 215.
Buss, D.M. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1 49, 1989.
Buss, D.M. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Cook, M., and McHenry, R. Sexual Attraction. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1978.
Cunningham, M.R. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobi-
ology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:925 935,
1986.
Cunningham, M.R., Barbee, A.P., and Pike, C.L. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of mul-
tiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 59:61 72, 1990.
Fallon, A.E., and Rozin, P. Sex differences in perceptions of desirable body shape. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 94:102 105, 1985.
Feingold, A. Gender differences in mate selection preferences: test of the parental investment model.
Psychological Bulletin 112:125 139, 1992.
Ford, C.S., and Beach, F.A. Pattern of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.
Galton, F. Composite portraits made by combining those of many different persons into a single resultant
figure. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 8:132 142, 1878.
Gangestad, S.W., Thornhill, R., and Yeo, R.A. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctu-
ating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology 15:73 85, 1994.
Gladue, B.A., and Delaney, H.J. Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in
bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16:378 391, 1990.
Grammer, K., and Thornhill, R. Human facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry
and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108:233 242, 1994.
Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. Mirror, Mirror . . . : The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany,
NJ: State University of New York Press, 1986.
Jones, D. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny. Current Anthropology 36:723
748, 1995.
Kenrick, D.T. Evolutionary social psychology: from sexual selection to social cognition. In Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 26) M.P. Zanna (Ed.). San Diego: Academic Press,
1994, pp. 75 121.
Liggett, J. The Human Face. London: Constable, 1974.
Locher, P., Unger, R., Sociedade, P., and Wahl, J. At first glance: accessibility of physical attractiveness
stereotype. Sex Roles 28:729 743, 1993.
Reis, H.T., Nezlek, J., and Wheeler, L. Physical attractiveness in social interaction. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology 38:604 617, 1980.
Salusso-Deonier, C.J., Markee, N.L., and Pedersen, E.L. Gender differences in the evaluation of physical
attractiveness ideals for male and female body builds. Perceptual and Motor Skills 76:1155
1167, 1993.
Singh, D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 65:293 307, 1993.
Singh, D. Female judgement of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: role of waist-to-hip
ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:1089 1101, 1995.
Shackelford, T.K., and Larsen, R.J. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and
physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:456 466, 1997.
Treu, G. Durchschnittsbild und Schönheit. Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft
9:433 448, 1914.