Below are examples of famous findings from face research.
A facial illusion
Move your mouse over or tap on the upside‑down face. The eyes and mouth have been inverted but it looks far stranger when upright.
Turning a face upside down disrupts our ability to process configuration — the relationship between facial features. Humans appear to have specialised mechanisms for upright face perception.
Reference
Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: a new illusion. Perception, 9, 483‑484.
Averageness
Moving down the female images, the faces become more average. Averageness refers to how similar a face is to the population mean.
Average faces are harder to recognise but are often rated as more attractive. Humans may form an internal average face, based on the faces they encounter.
References
Langlois & Roggman (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science.
Little & Hancock (2002). Masculinity, distinctiveness and attractiveness. BJP.
Emotion
Move your mouse over the face. You should easily recognise the difference between happy and angry expressions.
Six basic emotions are widely recognised across cultures: Happy, Angry, Sad, Disgust, Surprise, and Fear.
References
Ekman & Friesen (1971). Constants across culture in emotion. JPSP.
Ekman & Friesen (1976). Pictures of Facial Affect.
Familiarity
Move your mouse over or tap on the Mona Lisa — the image flips. One is the original, the other is mirror‑reversed.
People tend to prefer familiar faces. This may contribute to beliefs that partners look alike or resemble parents.
Click here to see the real Mona Lisa.
References
Mita, Dermer & Knight (1977). Reversed facial images. JPSP.
Zajonc (1968). Mere exposure effect. JPSP.
Universal attractiveness
Move your mouse over or tap on the face. One is an average model, the other an average student.
People consistently rate the model face as more attractive. Agreement on attractiveness is high across individuals and cultures.
References
Jones & Hill (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness. Human Nature.
Langlois et al. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? Psychological Bulletin.
Caricatures and Anti‑Caricatures
Move your mouse over or tap the face. Caricatures exaggerate distinctive features, while anti‑caricatures smooth the face toward the average.
Surprisingly, caricatures are often easier to recognise than the original face. This supports the idea that faces are encoded relative to a mental average.
References
Benson & Perrett (1991). Perception and recognition of caricatures. Perception.
Rhodes et al. (1987). Caricature and recognition. Psychological Science.
Gender Morphs
Move your mouse over or tap the face. Gender morphs show how facial shape and texture cues contribute to perceived masculinity and femininity.
These continua are widely used in research on attractiveness, social perception, and gender stereotypes.
References
Perrett et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on attractiveness. Nature.
Age Morphs
Age morphs illustrate how facial cues change across the lifespan. Wrinkles, texture, and shape all contribute to age perception.
These stimuli are used in research on social judgments, memory, and age stereotypes.
References
George & Hole (1995). Age-related differences in face recognition. Memory & Cognition.
Ethncity Morphs
In the literature, ethnicity is often called race, although this is not quite the right word for modern use. Ethnicity morphs demonstrate how facial features vary across populations. They are commonly used to study the other‑race effect — the tendency to recognise faces of one’s own group more accurately.
These differences help illustrate how experience shapes face perception.
References
Meissner & Brigham (2001). Thirty years of investigating the other‑race effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.