Abstract
Young (n = 24) and old (n = 24) participants rated 160 faces of young and old individuals taken from the CAL/PAL Face Database (Minear & Park, 2004) with regard to attractiveness, likeability, distinctiveness, goal orientation, energy, mood, and age. Ratings are reported for each face separately. Further analyses showed that the age groups differed in their ratings of young and old faces. On average, old participants evaluated the faces as more positive (i.e., more attractive, more energetic) than did young participants. In line with research on a negative aging stereotype, old faces were judged as less positive than young faces. They were, for instance, seen as less attractive, less likeable, less distinctive, less growth-oriented, and less energetic. The findings of the present study can serve as a basis for the selection of appropriate facial stimuli in age-comparative studies of face perception, face processing, or memory for faces. All face-specific data are archived at www.psychonomic.org/archive.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, G., & Huston, T. (1975). Social perception of middle-aged persons varying in physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 11, 657–658.
Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2006). Evidence for an own-age bias in face recognition. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 237–252.
Bäckman, L. (1991). Recognition memory across the adult life span: The role of prior knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 19, 63–71.
Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and recognition of faces in old age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 229–238.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 158–216). New York: Academic Press.
Brigham, J. C., & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do “they all look alike”? The effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306–318.
Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder The science of face perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (1995). Perception of age in adult Caucasian male faces: Computer graphic manipulation of shape and colour information. Proceedings of the Royal SocietyB, 259, 137–143.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Golby, A. J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Chiao, J. Y., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2001). Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 845–850.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hummert, M. L., Garstka, T. A., O’Brien, L. T., Greenwald, A. G., & Meixot, D. S. (2002). Using the implicit association test to measure age differences in implicit social cognitions. Psychology & Aging, 17, 482–495.
Kite, M. E., & Johnson, B. T. (1988). Attitudes toward older and younger adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Aging, 3, 233–244.
Lamont, A. C., Stewart-Williams, S., & Podd, J. (2005). Face recognition and aging: Effects of target age and memory load. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1017–1024.
Mason, S. E. (1986). Age and gender as factors in facial recognition and identification. Experimental Aging Research, 12, 151–154.
McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.
Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633.
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event-and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785.
Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570–580.
Psychological Image Collection at Stirling (PICS) (n.d). University of Stirling Psychology Department, pics.psych.stir.ac.uk/.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S. [W.], Bryk, A. [S.], & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Steinkraus, J., & Ebner, N. C. (2006). A manual to Psy-Point. Unpublished manual, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). New York: Psychological Corporation.
Wernick, M., & Manaster, G. J. (1984). Age and the perception of age and attractiveness. Gerontologist, 24, 408–414.
Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 641–654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded and conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ebner, N.C. Age of face matters: Age-group differences in ratings of young and old faces. Behav Res 40, 130–136 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.130
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.130