Abstract

Contrary to the long-held belief of a close linkage between pupil dilation and attractiveness, we found an early and transient pupil constriction response when participants viewed an attractive face (and the effect of luminance/contrast was controlled). While human participants were making an attractiveness judgment on faces, their pupil constricted more for the more attractive (as-to-be-rated) faces. Further experiments showed that the effect of pupil constriction to attractiveness judgment extended to intrinsically esthetic visual objects such as natural scene images (as well as faces) but not to line-drawing geometric figures. When participants were asked to judge the roundness of faces, pupil constriction still correlated with their attractiveness but not the roundness rating score, indicating the automaticity of the pupil constriction to attractiveness. When pupillary responses were manipulated implicitly by relative background luminance changes (from the prestimulus screen), the facial attractiveness ratings were in accordance with the amount of pupil constriction, which could not be explained solely by simultaneous or sequential luminance contrast. The overall results suggest that pupil constriction not only reflects but, as a part of self-monitoring and attribution mechanisms, also possibly contributes to facial attractiveness implicitly.

Highlights

  • The overall results in Experiments 3–5 indicated that none of the factors that we examined alone can explain the discrepancy between our finding and the literature, but in general, the effect of pupil constriction to attractive faces was more effectively observed during the early time course, when the pupil generally constricted in response to the relative sequential luminance increase and when a task demand was required in contrast with passive viewing

  • We found an early and transient pupil constriction response in proportion to attractiveness judgment

  • The constriction response was found to be specific to esthetic object categories such as faces or natural scenes, as opposed to relative emotionally neutral objects such as line-drawing geometric figures

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Pupillary response reflects the peripheral nervous system’s activity in response to ambient luminance changes (i.e., the pupillary light reflex) and the central nervous system’s activity underlying cognitive functions such as attention (Eldar, Cohen, & Niv, 2013; Einhäuser, Stout, Koch, & Carter, 2008; Aston-Jones & Cohen, 2005), memory (Zokaei, Board, Manohar, & Nobre, 2019; Naber, Frässle, Rutishauser, & Einhäuser, 2013; Goldinger & Papesh, 2012), decision-making (de Gee, Knapen, & Donner, 2014; Einhäuser, Koch, & Carter, 2010), emotion (Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig, & Lang, 2008; Partala & Surakka, 2003), and interpersonal impressions and attitudes (Hess, 1965, 1975; Janisse, 1973; Hess & Polt, 1960). Evidence indicated that individuals' pupils dilated when they were viewing emotionally toned stimuli, such as pictures of a baby for female participants and pictures of a partially nude man or woman for female and male participants, respectively (Hess, 1965; Hess & Polt, 1960; cf Janisse, 1973) This may be because of arousal and/or sexual attraction (Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012; Caryl et al, 2009; Tombs & Silverman, 2004; Hess, Seltzer, & Shlien, 1965), which activates the sympathetic nervous system to induce pupil dilation. Positive feedback has been assumed for a long time

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call