Psychology Wiki

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Biological: Behavioural genetics · Evolutionary psychology · Neuroanatomy · Neurochemistry · Neuroendocrinology · Neuroscience · Psychoneuroimmunology · Physiological Psychology · Psychopharmacology (Index, Outline)

Koinophilia is a term used by biologist Johan Koeslag, meaning that when sexual creatures seek a mate, they prefer that mate not to have any unusual, peculiar or deviant features.

Natural selection results, over the course of generations, in beneficial (or "fit") features replacing their disadvantageous counterparts. Thus, natural selection causes beneficial features to become increasingly more common with each generation, while the disadvantageous features become increasingly rare. A sexual creature, therefore, wishing to mate with a fit partner, would be expected to avoid individuals sporting unusual features, while being especially attracted to those individuals displaying a predominance of common or average features.[1] This is termed "koinophilia". It has, as an important side effect, that mates displaying mutant features (the result of a genetic mutation) are also avoided. This, in itself, is also advantageous, because the vast majority of mutations that manifest themselves as changes in appearance, functionality or behavior, are disadvantageous. Because it is impossible to judge whether a new mutation is beneficial or not, koinophilic creatures will avoid them all with equal determination, even if this means avoiding the very occasional beneficial mutation. Thus, koinophilia, although not perfect or infallible in its ability to distinguish fit from unfit mates, remains, on average, a very good strategy when choosing a mate. It will be right far more often than it will be wrong. Even when it is wrong, a koinophilic choice always ensures that the offspring will inherit a suite of thoroughly tried and tested features.

File:Pavo cristatus albino001xx.jpg

This albino peacock is unlikely to reproduce not only because albinism is detrimental to health, but also because it is unlikely to find a mate.

Koinophilia must be distinguished from assortative mating, [2] which means “like prefers like”. If like prefers like it would mean that albino animals, for instance, would be sexually attracted to one another, and, since albinism is not an excessively rare mutation, an albino subspecies would rapidly come into being, as would similar variations of the parent species. Koinophilia predicts that this is unlikely to occur because an albino animal is attracted to the population average in the same way that all the other members of the species are attracted to that average. But none of the other members of the species are attracted to the albino, because of its unusual appearance. Few albinos therefore find mates. This means that they are very unlikely to form albino lineages that might lead to the creation of a new subspecies, or species.

According to Koeslag, koinophilia provides very simple and obvious explanations for such evolutionary puzzles as the process of speciation,[3][4] evolutionary stasis and punctuated equilibria,[3][4] and the evolution of cooperation.[5][6] Koinophilia might also contribute, possibly substantially, to the maintenance of sexual reproduction, preventing its reversion to the much simpler and inherently more advantageous asexual form of reproduction.[7][8]


This mating strategy, was first referred to as koinophilia by Johan H. Koeslag,[3] from the Greek, koinos, meaning "the usual" or "common", and philos, meaning "fondness" or "love". It was independently identified in humans by Judith Langlois and her coworkers,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] who found that the average of two human faces was more attractive than either of the faces from which that average was derived. The more faces (of the same gender and age) that were used in the averaging process the more attractive and appealing the average face became.

Physical attractiveness[]

Main article: Averageness

Francis Galton, a half cousin of Charles Darwin, created composite portraits of a number of convicted criminals, hoping to generate a prototypical criminal face. Surprisingly, the composite portrait became more and more attractive with the addition of each new face. Galton published this rather inexplicable finding in 1878, concluding that average features combine to create good-looking faces.[16]

Despite of the novelty of this finding, Galton’s observations were forgotten until Judith Langlois and Lori Roggman[9] created computer generated composite images in the late 1980s. They found that facial attractiveness increased in proportion to the number of faces that went into creating the composite. Many studies, using different averaging techniques, including the use of line drawings[17] and face profiles,[18] have subsequently shown that this is a general principle: average faces are consistently more attractive than the faces used to generate them. [9] [11] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

This principle transcends culture. For instance, Coren Apicella and her co-workers from Harvard University[32] created average faces of an isolated hunter-gatherer tribe in Tanzania in Africa, the Hadza people. Hadza people rated the average Hadza faces as more attractive than the actual faces in the tribe. While Europeans also rated average Hadza faces as attractive, the Hadza people did not express any preference for average European faces. Apicella[32] attributes this difference to the visual experiences of the Europeans and the Hadza tribespeople. While the Hadza had never been exposed to human races outside their immediate environment, the Europeans had been exposed to both Western and African faces. Thus the indifference of the Hadza towards average European faces could have been the result of lacking the European ‘norm’ in their visual experience. These results suggest that the rules for extracting attractive faces are culture-independent and innate, but the results of applying the rules depend on the environment and cultural experience.[23][33]

That the preference for the average is biological rather than cultural has been supported by a number of studies on babies. Neonates and infants gaze longer at attractive faces than at unattractive faces.[15] [21] [29] [35] [36] [37] [38] Furthermore, Mark Stauss[39] reported that 10-month old children respond to average faces in the same way as they respond to attractive faces, and that these infants are able to extract the average from simply drawn faces consisting of only 4 features. Adam Rubenstein and coworkers[29] showed that already at six months of age, children not only treat average faces the same as they treat attractive faces, but they are also able to extract the central tendency (i.e. the average) from a set of complex, naturalistic faces presented to them (i.e. not just the very simple 4-features faces used by Strauss). Thus the ability to extract the average from a set of realistic facial images operates from an early age, and is therefore almost certainly instinctive.

Despite these findings, David Perrett and his colleagues at St Andrews University in Scotland[23] found that both men and women considered that a face averaged from a set of attractive faces was more appealing than one averaged from a wide range of women's faces. When the differences between the first face and the second face were slightly exaggerated the new face was judged, on average, to be more attractive still. However, the three faces are difficult to distinguish one from the other, although close examination shows that the so-called “exaggerated face” looks slightly younger than the average face (composed of women's faces aged 22–46 years). Since the same results were obtained using Japanese subjects and viewers, these findings are probably culture-independent; indicating that people generally find youthful average faces[30] sexually the most attractive. (European viewers saw no differences between the three female Japanese faces created by David Perrett.[23])

Speciation and "punctuated equilibria"[]

Main article: Speciation

The striking uniformity of the outward appearances of all the adult members of a species is a great evolutionary mystery.

A major evolutionary problem has been how the continuous process of evolution produces groups of individuals, labeled species, whose adult members look extraordinarily similar, and distinctively different from the members of other species. Lions and leopards are, for instance, both large carnivores inhabiting the same general environment, and hunting much the same prey, in much the same way, but they look extraordinarily different, and would not be confused one for the other even by the most unsophisticated observer.[40] There would seem to be no obvious evolutionary reason which suggests that lion-leopard intermediates are likely to be less successful hunters than either of the two distinct species that inhabit the African savanna today. Why then do they not exist? What evolutionary force drives these intermediate forms to extinction, leaving only highly uniform and distinctive lions on the one hand and highly uniform and distinctive leopards on the other?

File:Species 01a.gif

Speciation poses a "2-dimensional" problem. The discontinuities in appearance between existing species represent the "horizontal dimension" of the problem. The succession of fossil species represent the "vertical dimension".

This is, however, only one aspect of what is almost certainly a two-dimensional problem.[41][42] The "horizontal" dimension refers to the almost complete absence of transitional, or intermediate forms between present-day species (e.g. between lions, leopards, cheetahs and lynxes).[40][43][44][45][46] The "vertical" dimension concerns the fossil record. Fossil species are frequently remarkably stable over extremely long periods of geological time, despite continental drift, major climate changes, and mass extinctions.[47][48] When a change in appearance or form does occur, it tends to be abrupt in geological terms, again producing phenotypic gaps (i.e. an absence of intermediate forms), but now between successive species, which then often co-exist for considerable periods of time. Thus the fossil record, though open to different interpretations, suggests that evolution occurs in bursts, interspersed by long periods of evolutionary stagnation (i.e. by means of punctuated equilibria[47]). Why this is so, has been one of evolution's great mysteries.[48]

Koinophilia could explain both the horizontal and vertical manifestations of speciation, and why it usually involves the entire external appearance of the creatures concerned.[3][4] If sexual creatures prefer mates sporting predominantly common features, and avoid mates with unusual, unfamiliar, fringe, or extreme attributes, then common features will tend to become more common still, and at a rate and to an extent that natural selection on its own is unlikely to achieve. Since koinophilia affects the entire external appearance, the members of an interbreeding group will soon all begin to look astoundingly alike, both with regard to important or essential features (e.g. the jaws, dentition, and claws of a lion) and trivial features (e.g. the black furry tuft at the tip of the lion’s tail, or the lion's “beard”).[49] It is almost inevitable that each interbreeding group will, in this way, very quickly develop its own characteristic appearance. An individual from one group who wanders into another group will consequently be recognized as being different, and will, therefore, be discriminated against during the mating season. This koinophilia-induced reproductive isolation might thus be the first crucial step in the development of, ultimately, physiological, anatomical and behavioral barriers to hybridization, and thus, ultimately, full specieshood. Koinophilia will thereafter defend that species' appearance and behavior against invasion by unusual or unfamiliar forms (which might arise by immigration or mutation), and thus be a paradigm of punctuated equilibria (or the "vertical" aspect of the speciation problem[3][4]), and stabilizing selection.

The evolution of cooperation[]

Main article: Co-operation (evolution)
File:Canis lupus pack surrounding Bison.jpg

Cooperative hunting by wolves allows them to tackle much larger and more nutritious prey than any individual wolf could handle. However, such cooperation could, potentially, be exploited by selfish individuals who do not expose themselves to the dangers of the hunt, but nevertheless share in the spoils.

Cooperation is any group behavior that benefits the individuals more than if they were to act as independent agents. There is a second corollary to cooperation: it can always be exploited by selfish individuals who benefit even more by not taking part in the group activity, yet reaping its benefits. For instance, a selfish individual who does not join the hunting pack and its incumbent dangers but nevertheless shares in the spoils has a fitness advantage over the other members of the pack. Thus, although a group of cooperative individuals is fitter than an equivalent group of selfish individuals, selfish individuals interspersed amongst a community of cooperators are always fitter than their hosts. This means they raise, on average, more offspring and grandoffspring than their hosts, and will therefore ultimately replace them.

If, however, the selfish individuals are ostracized, and rejected as mates, because of their deviant and unusual behavior, then their evolutionary advantage becomes an evolutionary liability.[3] Cooperation in all of its very many forms then becomes evolutionarily stable.[5][6] Sociability, social conventions, ritualistic behavior, the expressions of the emotions, and other forms of communication between individuals, all essential ingredients for full cooperativity, can all be similarly evolutionarily stabilized by koinophilia. Template:Clear left


  1. Symons, D. (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Ayala, F.J. (1982) Population and evolutionary genetics p. 60. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings. ISBN 0-8053-0315-4
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Koeslag, J.H. (1990). Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour. J. theor. Biol. 144, 15-35
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Koeslag, J.H. (1995). On the engine of speciation. J. theor. Biol. 177, 401-409
  5. 5.0 5.1 Koeslag, J.H. (1997). Sex, the prisoner's dilemma game, and the evolutionary inevitability of cooperation. J. theor. Biol. 189, 53--61
  6. 6.0 6.1 Koeslag, J.H. (2003). Evolution of cooperation: cooperation defeats defection in the cornfield model. J. theor. Biol. 224, 399-410
  7. Koeslag, P.D., Koeslag, J.H. (1994). Koinophilia stabilizes bi-gender sexual reproduction against asex in an unchanging environment. J. theor. Biol. 166, 251-260
  8. Koeslag, J.H., Koeslag, P.D. (1993). Evolutionarily stable meiotic sex. J. Heredity 84, 396-399
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1, 115-121 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Langlois & Roggman, 1990" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Langlois & Roggman, 1990" defined multiple times with different content
  10. Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Musselman, L., Acton, S. (1991). A picture is worth a thousand words: Reply to "On the difficulty of averaging faces." Psychological Science 2, 354-357.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science 5, 214-220 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Langlois, 1994" defined multiple times with different content
  12. 12.0 12.1 Langlois, J.H., Musselman, L. (1995). The myths and mysteries of beauty. In D.R. Calhoun (Ed.), 1996 Yearbook of Science and the Future , pp. 40-61. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
  13. Kalick, S.M., Zebrowitz, L.A., Langlois, J.H., Johnson, R.M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychological Science 9, 8-13
  14. Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives: Westport, CT: Ablex
  15. 15.0 15.1 Hoss, R.A., Langlois, J.H. (2003). Infants prefer attractive faces. In O. Pascalis & A. Slater (Eds.), The development of face processing in infancy and early childhood: Current perspectives pp. 27-38. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons in a single resultant figure. J. Anthropol. Inst. 8, 132–144.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Rhodes, G., Tremewan, T. (1997) Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol. Sci. 7, 105–110.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Valentine, T., Darling, S., Donnelly, M. (2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of the attractiveness of female faces. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 482-487
  19. Rhodes, G., Brennan, S., Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: implications for mental representations of faces. Cogn. Psychol. 19, 473–497.
  20. Kalkofen, H., Müller, A., Strack, M. (1990). Kant’s facial aesthetics and Galton’s composite portraiture - are prototypes more beautiful? In Halasz, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics. pp. 151–154. Budapest: International Association for Empirical Aesthetics.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Musselman, L., Acton, S. (1991). A picture is worth a thousand words: Reply to "On the difficulty of averaging faces." Psychological Science 2, 354-357. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Langlois, 1991" defined multiple times with different content
  22. Müller, A. (1993). Visuelle Prototypen und die physikalischen Dimensionen von Attraktivität. In Hassebrauck M. & Niketta R. (Eds.), Physische Attraktivität . pp. 123–162. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Perrett, D.I., May, K.A., Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature (Lond.) 368, 239–242.
  24. Etcoff, N. (1994). Beauty and the beholder. Nature (Lond) 368, 186-187.
  25. Grammer, K., Thornhill, R. !994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comp. Psychol. 108, 233–242.
  26. Enquist, M., Ghirlanda, S. (1998). The secret of faces. Nature (Lond) 394, 826-827.
  27. Perrett, D.I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P., Castles, D., Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature (Lond.) 394, 884-887.
  28. Kalick, S.M., Zebrowitz, L.A., Langlois, J.H., Johnson, R.M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychological Science, 9, 8-13.
  29. 29.0 29.1 29.2 Rubenstein, A.J, Kalakanis, L., Langlois, J.H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev. Psychol. 35, 848–855.
  30. 30.0 30.1 Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., Jeffery, L. (2000). Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? Brit. J. Psychol. 91, 125-140.
  31. Rubenstein, A.J., Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In G. Rhodes & L.A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives: Westport, CT: Ablex.
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Apicella, C.L., Little, A.C., Marlowe, F.W. (2007). Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception 36, 1813–1820.
  33. 33.0 33.1 Grammer, K., Fink, B., Moller, A.P., Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 78, 385–407.
  34. Rhodes, G. (2006) The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 199-226.
  35. Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Casey, R.J., Ritter, J.M., Rieser-Danner, L.A., Jenkins, V.Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype? Dev. Psychol., 23, 363–369.
  36. Slater, A.M., Von Der Schulenburg, C., Brown, E., et al. (1998). Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behav. Dev. 21, 345–354.
  37. Samuels, C.A., Ewy, R.(1985) Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. Brit .J Dev. Psychol. 3, 221–228.
  38. Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L.A., San Giovanni, J.P., Sherak, B. (1995). Infants' preferences for attractiveness and babyfaceness. In Bardy, B.G., Bootsma, R.J., Guiard, Y. (Eds.) Studies in perception and action III. pp. 389–392. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
  39. Strauss, M.S. (1979). Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants. J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Learn. Mem. 5, 618–632.
  40. 40.0 40.1 Gould, S.J. (1980). A Quahog is a Quahog. In The Panda's Thumb. pp. 204-213. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  41. Bernstein, H., Byerly, H.C., Hopf, F.A., Michod, R.E. (1985). Sex and the emergence of species. J. Theor. Biol. 117 665-690.
  42. Hopf, F.A. (1990). Darwin's dilemma of transitionalforms: a comparison of model with data. In: Organisational Constraints of the Dymnamics of Evolution Eds. Maynard Smith, J., Vida, G. pp. 357-372. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  43. Gould, S.J. (1985). The Flamingo's Smile. pp. 160, 169. London: Penguin Books.
  44. Maynard Smith, J. (1983). The genetics of stasis and punctuation. Ann. rev. Genet. 17, 11-25.
  45. Coyne, J.A. (1992). Genetics and speciation. Nature (Lond) 335, 511-515.
  46. Coyne, J.A., Barton, N.H. (1988). What do we know about speciation? Nature (Lond) 331, 485-486.
  47. 47.0 47.1 Eldredge, N., Gould, S.J. (1972). "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" In Schopf, T.J.M., ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82-115. Reprinted in Eldredge, N. (1985) Time frames. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
  48. 48.0 48.1 Williams, G.C. (1992). Stasis. In Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges. pp. 127-142. New York: Oxford University Press.
  49. Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. (2007). Field guide to mammals of Southern Africa. pp. 174-175. Cape Town, Struik. ISBN 978-1-77007-404-0

External links[]

  • Why Sex? discusses the origin of sex, and the evolutionary problem of the affordability of males, together with its koinophilic solution.
  • Beauty Check includes example blended faces and discusses why average face shapes are more attractive.
  • Averaging faces shows how the average of two faces looks more attractive than either of the faces used in the averaging process.

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).