바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.25 No.1

Citation Share

얼굴 모양 맞춤 가설과 신체적 매력 맞춤 가설

Matching Hypotheses of Similarity of Shapes of Faces and of Similarity of Attractiveness of Faces

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.1, pp.77-93
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.005
안신호 (부산대학교)
김준영 (부산대학교)
안신호, & 김준영. (2011). 얼굴 모양 맞춤 가설과 신체적 매력 맞춤 가설. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(1), 77-93, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.005

초록

신혼부부의 사진 20개로 제작한 실제 커플 얼굴 사진 20개와 무선 커플 얼굴 사진 20개를 제시하고 얼굴의 매력 유사성과 얼굴의 모양(형) 유사성을 평정받았다. 매력 유사성과 모양 유사성 모두 실제 커플에서 무선 커플보다 높았다. 실제 커플의 매력 유사성의 검증은 이미 사회심리학에서 확립된 것으로 볼 수 있는 이론의 재검증이지만 서양인보다 얼굴 특징 요소가 풍부하지 않은 우리나라 사람들의 얼굴 사진도 유사성 연구에 재료로 사용가능함을 확인한데 의의를 찾을 수 있다. 신혼부부 사진을 재료로 한 실험에서의 얼굴 모양 유사성 검증은 얼굴 모양의 유사성에 따른 동류 짝 결정(Assortative Mating) 혹은 “맞춤원리(Matching Priniple)”의 네 가지 이론들(Zajonc의 정서 원심성 이론, 단순노출 효과 이론, 각인이론, Bateson의 Optimal outbreeding 이론) 중 단순노출 효과와 각인이론을 지지하는 것으로 해석되었다. 커플의 매력 유사성과 모양 유사성을 커플 사진 판단 이외의 방법으로 검증하기 위하여 두 실험이 추가로 시도되었다. 얼굴 사진을 하나씩 제시하고 매력 정도를 평정케 하여 그 자료에 기초한 실제 커플과 무선 커플의 매력 유사성을 비교한 분석 결과는 통계적으로 유의하지는 않지만 예언과 일치하는 방향의 결과 양상을 보였다. 얼굴 사진을 하나씩 제시하고 각 얼굴이 일곱 범주(정사각형, 직사각형, 원, 타원, 다이아몬드 형, 삼각형, 역삼각형) 중 어디에 해당되는지를 고르게 한 자료로부터 두 가지 얼굴 유사성 지표를 산출하여 실제 커플과 무선 커플을 비교한 결과 역시 통계적 유의수준에는 달하지 못하였지만 예언과 일치하는 방향의 결과 양상을 보였다. 각 이론을 검증하기 위한 후속 연구에 관하여 논의하였다.

keywords
맞춤 원리(Matching Principle), 동류 짝 결정(Assortative Mating), 신체 특징(얼굴 모양) 유사성, 신체(얼굴) 매력 유사성, 유사성-매력 가설, 타 인종 효과(Other-race effect), 자기 인종 편파(Own-race bias), Matching Hypothesis, Assortative Mating, Similarity of the Shape of Faces, Similarity of Physical (Face) Attractiveness, Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis, Other-Race Effect, Own-Race Bias.

Abstract

Attractiveness similarity ratings and shape similarity ratings for the faces of actual and of random couples (produced from wedding pictures of Koreans) were analyzed. Both attractiveness similarity and shape similarity of actual couples were higher than those of random couples. Differences in the attractiveness similarity between actual and random couples based on attractiveness ratings on single faces were not significant but the result patterns were consistent with Attractiveness Matching hypothesis. Differences in the shape similarity between actual and random couples based on categorization of single faces into one of seven categories (circle, oval,square, rectangle, diamond, triangle, and inverted triangle) were not significant, but the result patterns were also consistent with the Matching Principle. Results were interpreted as partial support for Similarity-Attraction or Assortative Mating hypothesis, especially for Mere-Exposure Effect explanation (Hinsz, 1989) or Imprinting explanation rather than Zajonc et al's (1987) Emotional Efference explanation.

keywords
맞춤 원리(Matching Principle), 동류 짝 결정(Assortative Mating), 신체 특징(얼굴 모양) 유사성, 신체(얼굴) 매력 유사성, 유사성-매력 가설, 타 인종 효과(Other-race effect), 자기 인종 편파(Own-race bias), Matching Hypothesis, Assortative Mating, Similarity of the Shape of Faces, Similarity of Physical (Face) Attractiveness, Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis, Other-Race Effect, Own-Race Bias.

참고문헌

1.

Allison, D. B., Neale, M. C., Kezis, M. I., Alfonso, V.C., Heshka, S., & Hemsfield, S. B. (1996).Assortative mating for relative weight: Geneticimplications. Behavior Genetics, 26, 103-111.

2.

Aron, A. (1988). The matching hypothesisreconsidered again: Comment of Kalick andHamilton. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54, 441-446.

3.

Bateson, P. (1978). Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature 273, 659-660.

4.

Bateson, P. (1982). Preferences for cousins inJapanese quail. Nature 295, 236-237.

5.

Bateson, P. (1983). Optimal outbreeding. In P.Bateson (Ed.), Mate choice (pp. 257-278).Cambridge University Press.

6.

Bentler, P. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1978).Longitudinal study of maritial success andfailure. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 46, 1053-1070.

7.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L.(2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, andimprinting: Parental influence on mate choicepreferences. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 33, 677-690.

8.

Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G.W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and datingchoice: A test of the matching hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7,173–189.

9.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physicalattractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advancesin experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, (pp.157–215). New York: Academic Press.

10.

Blais, C., Jack, R. E., Scheepers, C., Fiset, D., &Caldara, R. (2008). Culture shapes how we lookat faces. PLoS ONE, 3, e3022.doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0003022.

11.

Byrne, D. (1971). Attraction paradigm. New York:Academic Press.

12.

Caldara, R., Zhou, X., & Miellet, S. (2010). Puttingculture under 'spotlight' reveals universalinformation use for face recognition. PLoS ONE,5, e9708, doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0009708

13.

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness inromantic partners and same-sex friends: Ameta-analysis and theoretical critique.Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–.235.

14.

Galton, F. (1886). Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. The Journal of theAnthropological Institute of Great Britain andIreland, 15, 246-263.

15.

Griffiths, R. W., & Kunz, P. R. (1973). Assortativemating: A study of physiognomic homogamy.Social Biology, 20, 448–.453.

16.

Hill, C. T., & Peplau, L. A. (1998). Premaritalpredictors of relationship outcomes: A 15-yearfollowup of the Boston Couples Study. In T. N.Bradbury (Ed.), The development of course ofmarital dysfunction (pp. 237-278). New York:Cambridge University Press.

17.

Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976).Breakups before marriage: The end of 103affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–.168.

18.

Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engagedand married couples. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 6, 223–.229.

19.

Horry, R., Wright, D. B., & Tredoux, C. G. (2010).Recognition and context memory for faces fromown and other ethnic groups: A remember-knowinvestigation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 134-141.

20.

Immelmann, K. (1971). Sexual and other long-termaspects of imprinting in birds and other species.In D. S. Lehman, R. A. Hinde, & E. Show(Eds.), Advances in the study of behavior. (Vol.4). pp. 147-174. New York: Academic Press.

21.

Keller, M., Thiessen, D., & Young, R. K. (1996).Mate assortment in dating and married couples.Personality and Individual Differences, 21,217-221.

22.

Kelly, D. J., Miellet, S., & Caldara, R. (2010). Cultureshapes eye movements for visually homogeneousobjects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 6.1-7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00006

23.

Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K.,Ge., L, & Pascalis, O. (2007). The other-raceeffect develops during infancy: Evidence ofperceptual narrowing. Psychological Science, 18,1084-1089.

24.

Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractivefaces are only average. Psychological Science, 1,115-121.

25.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P.(1944). Level of aspiration. In J. McV. Hunt(Ed.), Personality and behavior disorders. (Vol.1, pp. 333-378). New York: Ronald Press.

26.

Lindsay, D. S., Jack, P. C., & Christian, M. A.(1991). Other-race perception. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 76, 587-589.

27.

Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006).Assortative mating for perceived facial traits.Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 973–.984.

28.

Malpass, R, S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition forfaces of own and other race faces. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 13, 330–334.

29.

Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirtyyears of investing the own-race bias in memoryfor faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology,Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.

30.

Nisbett, R. E., Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence ofculture: Holistic versus analytic perception.Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 467-473.

31.

Oreffice, S., & Quintana-Domeque, C. (2009).Anthropometry and Socioeconomics in theCouple: Evidence from the PSID. Unpublished Manuscript.

32.

O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A,. Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of facerecognition and the other-race effect. Memory& Cognition, 22, 208–224.

33.

Pearson, K. (1903). Assortative mating in man: Acooperative study. Biometrika, 2, 481-498.

34.

Pearson, K., & Lee, A. (1903). On the laws ofinheritance in man: I. Inheritance of physicalcharacters. Biometrika, 2, 357-462.

35.

Penton-Voak, L. S., Perrett, D. I., & Peirce, J. W. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role offacial familarity in judgements of attractiveness.Current Psychology: Development · Learning ·Social, 18, 104-117.

36.

Perlman, D, & Oskamp, F. (1971). The effects ofpicture content and exposure frequency onevaluations of Negros and whites. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 7. 503-514.

37.

Roberts, D. F. (1977). Assortative mating in man:Husband/wife correlations in physicalcharacteristics. Supplement to the Bulletin of the Eugenics Society, 2 (Whole Part).

38.

Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, humanaltruism, and group selection. Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

39.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Genetic similarity theory andhuman assortative mating: A reply to Russell &Wells. Animal Behavior, 50, 547-549.

40.

Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1995). Human assortative mating: More questions concerninggenetic similarity theory. Animal Behavior, 50,550-553.

41.

Sangrigoli, S., Palier, C., Argenti, A. M., Ventureyra,V. A. G., & de Schonen, S. (2005). Reversibilityof the other-race effect in face recognition during childhood.. Psychological Science, 16,440-444.

42.

Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2000).Social psychology, 10th. ed. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

43.

Thiessen, D. (1999). Social influences on humanassortative mating. In M. C. Corballis, & S. G.Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychologicalperspectives on hominid evolution (pp. 311-323).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Thiessen, D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortativemating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionaryperspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1,111-140.

45.

Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd,G., McCullough, J. K. & Franklin, M. (2003).Major histocompatibility genes, symmetry andbody scent attractiveness in men and women.Behavioral Ecology, 14, 668-678.

46.

Vandenberg, S. G. (1972). Assortative mating, orwho marries whom? Behavior Genetics, 2,127-157.

47.

Wedekind, C., & Furi, S. (1997). Body odourpreferences in men and women: Do they aim forspecific MHC combinations or simplyhetereozygnosity? Proceedings of Royal Society,London, B, 264, 1471-1479.

48.

Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Brettens, F., & Pacpe, A.J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences inhuman. Proceedings of Royal Society, London,B, 260, 245-249.

49.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mereexposure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology Monograph 9, 1-29.

50.

Zajonc, R. B. (1985). Emotion and facial efference.Science, 228, 15-21.

51.

Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T., &Niendenthal, P. M. (1987). Convergence in thephysical appearance of spouses. Motivation andEmotion, 11, 335–.346.

52.

Zei, G., Astofli, P., & Jayakar, S. D. (1981).Correlation between father's age and husband'sage: A case of imprinting? Journal of BiosocialScience, 13, 409-418.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책