intro & lit review

TAGS:

COVER STORY

Beauty is in the Mind of the Beholder ERIC WARGO

ATTRACTION BEAUTY FACE PERCEPTION PHYSICAL APPEARANCE SEX DIFFERENCES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

There’s no getting around it. In this world, you’re

better o�  being good-looking. At all ages and in all

walks of life, attractive people are judged more

favorably, treated better, and cut more slack.

Mothers give more a�ection to attractive babies.

Teachers favor more attractive students and judge

them as smarter. Attractive adults get paid more

for their work and have better success in dating and

mating. And juries are less likely to find attractive

people guilty and recommend lighter punishments when they do.

Many factors can play into personal attractiveness — the way you dress, the way you act, the

way you carry yourself, even things that are hard or impossible to change, like social status and

wealth, race, and body size and shape. But the first thing we notice when we meet someone is

their face. There are faces that launch a thousand ships, and faces that only a mother could

love, and we are supremely attuned to tell the di�erence. The brain, among its many other

functions, is a beauty detector.

The brain is such a good beauty detector, in fact, that it can judge the appeal of a face before

you’re aware you’ve even seen one. When participants in a recent study were presented with

attractive and unattractive faces for only 13 milliseconds, they were able to judge the faces’

attractiveness accurately (that is, in accordance with experimenters’ ratings), even though

they were not consciously aware of the stimuli and felt like they were just guessing (Olson &

Marshuetz, 2005).

Observer > 2011 > April > Beauty is in the Mind of the Beholder

There is no doubt that beauty (which here means both male and female attractiveness) is to

some extent in the eye of the beholder, but across individuals and across cultures there is

nevertheless considerable agreement about what makes a pretty or handsome face, and the

evidence strongly counters the conventional wisdom that attractiveness preferences are

mainly acquired through life experience. For one thing, the beauty bias is already present in

infancy. Six-month-olds prefer to look at the same relatively attractive faces that adults do

(Rubenstein, Kalakanis, & Langlois, 1999).

Truth in Beauty

The question is, is beauty really only skin deep, or does an attractive face actually reflect

underlying good qualities? In a few ways, the stereotype that “beautiful is good” does hold.

Evolutionary psychology holds that faces really are windows onto certain fundamental and

important characteristics indicative of a person’s quality as a romantic partner and as a mate

— qualities of health and genes, and even character.

Among the most important and consistent factors in

facial attractiveness are structural qualities of the face

that are highly sex-typical. An attractive man, in the eyes

of female experimental participants, is generally one with

relatively prominent cheekbones and eyebrow ridges and

a relatively long lower face. Likewise, prominent

cheekbones, large eyes, small nose, a taller forehead,

smooth skin, and an overall young or even childlike

appearance add to women’s allure in the eyes of male

raters.

Our faces are sculpted by our hormones. These sex-

typical facial features of adult men and women reflect

the ratio of testosterone to estrogen or estrogen to testosterone, respectively, acting on the

individual during development. We are programmed to be drawn to strong indicators of

maleness (for women) and femaleness (for men) partly because they reflect an individual’s

health (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). The reason hormones equate to health is somewhat

counterintuitive. High levels of sex hormones during puberty actually suppress the immune

system, raising vulnerability to disease and infection. It sounds like a bad thing. But when a

person with a particularly “male” or “female” face makes it to adulthood with all his or her

health intact, it means that the person has withstood the potentially debilitating influence of

those high hormones. In other words it signifies a more robust constitution.

‘Your Symmetry Lights Up the Room’

No two faces are alike, and no two halves of a face are alike. Countless small variables make

faces somewhat asymmetrical – a slightly wider jaw on one side, one eye a fraction of an inch

lower than the other, a cheekbone that sticks out just a wee bit more, a dimple on one cheek,

etc. Some asymmetries (called directional asymmetries) are common across the population –

for example, the le� side of most people’s faces is slightly larger than the right. But many

asymmetries, called fluctuating asymmetries, arise when one’s unfolding genetic program is

perturbed during development, for instance by parasites or other environmental challenges.

The slings and arrows of life’s fortunes can literally knock our faces o� of kilter, just like a punch

to the nose. A symmetrical face, like a particularly masculine or feminine one, is a sign of

having stood up better to life’s figurative schoolyard beatings.

Numerous studies have found that when men and women are asked to compare versions of

faces that are more versus less symmetrical, the symmetrical ones garner significantly higher

ratings of attractiveness, dominance, sexiness, and health, and are perceived to be more

desirable as potential mates (Rhodes, Pro�itt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Shackelford & Larsen,

1997). So as with masculine/feminine features, the appeal of symmetry makes perfect sense to

evolutionary psychologists. In a beautiful face, we are really seeing the artistry of good genes.

People prefer symmetrical faces even when they can’t actually perceive the symmetry – that is,

when only face halves are presented. It may be that symmetry covaries with other desirable

characteristics that reflect the same genetic endowment and overall health (Penton-Voak et

al., 2001).

It may not be all that surprising that we’d rather mate with a symmetrical Greek god or

goddess than with someone who stepped out of a Picasso painting. Less obvious is that a

pretty or handsome face is also generally one that is, well, average. When presented with

individual faces and a composite of those individual faces, participants will judge the

composite as more attractive than the individual, more distinctive faces. And the more faces

that contribute to the composite, the more attractive it becomes (Langlois & Roggman, 1990).

The most attractive faces appear to be those whose features are closest to the average in the

population—that is, more prototypical.

Averageness, like symmetry, reflects a favorable genetic endowment. Those with average

features are less likely to be carrying harmful mutations. Additionally, averageness reflects

greater heterozygosity — having both a dominant and a recessive allele for given traits, rather

than two dominant or two recessive alleles (an advantage that symmetry also reflects).

Heterozygosity confers relatively greater resistance to pathogens, in many cases, and thus,

along with all the other indicators of resilience, we may be programmed to seek it out through

its subtle but telltale signs.

However, it has also been argued that there may be some much simpler cognitive reasons for

the preference for averages. Besides faces, people show a preference for average-looking dogs,

average-looking birds, and average-looking watches (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000). Prototypes

are more familiar-looking than less typical examples of a given class of objects, be it the face of

a potential mate or the face of a timepiece, and they are easier to process. Easy on the eyes =

easy on the brain.

In the Sex of the Beholder

Men and women both show the above preferences when it comes

to faces, but in general men’s preferences tend to be more

pronounced (Rhodes et al., 1998). Males may place greater

importance on physical beauty when it comes to mate choice,

while females also attend to characteristics like power and status.

But a number of factors contribute to how much — and when —

male face characteristics matter to women.

One factor is a woman’s own attractiveness: Preference for

masculine and symmetrical features has been shown to be higher

for women who regard themselves as more attractive (Little, Burt,

Penton-Voak, & Perrett, 2001). Another is time of the month: The degree of women’s

preferences for di�erent attractive qualities fluctuates strikingly across the ovulatory cycle.

A group of University of Mexico psychologists have studied women’s shi�ing preferences for

symmetrical men. They have found that this preference (which women can not only see, but

even smell in tee-shirts slept in by symmetrical men) increases dramatically around the time of

ovulation, when a woman is most fertile and the chance of conception is highest (Gangestad,

Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005). So does a woman’s preference for more masculine-looking

men. But this preference wanes during other times of the month. Again, evolutionary

psychology provides a ready explanation.

Humans, like many other species, are socially monogamous but not necessarily sexually

monogamous. When sex might result in getting pregnant, it’s health and fertility that are

particularly desirable in a mate. But good genes in the sense of physical health is not the same

as good genes in the sense of character, and what makes a good sperm donor may not make

the best long-term, nurturing, helpful life partner. The flip side of high testosterone is an

increased tendency toward aggression and antisocial behavior, a tendency to compete rather

than help. Thus a male with less testosterone, indicated by less masculine features, may invest

more in caring for o�spring (whether or not he’s the biological father) and so may be better to

have around for the long term.

A Thousand Ships

In myth, beautiful women are disruptive of men’s reason, even

causing them to go to war. We now know that there’s truth to

the idea that men make worse decisions when exposed to

female beauty, and we even are beginning to understand the

neural basis. A pair of McMaster University researchers found

that looking at photographs of attractive women (but not

unattractive women) caused a significant increase in delay

discounting in men — that is, choosing a smaller immediate

reward over a larger delayed one (Wilson & Daly, 2004). It’s the

same tendency found to a high degree in addicts and others

with impaired self-control. Interestingly, viewing attractive men

did not influence women’s decisions.

The reason-unseating e�ect of a beautiful face partly involves the amygdala. Activation of the

amygdala, which detects the value of social stimuli, has been associated with greater

discounting of all kinds of future rewards, and sure enough, this brain area shows much

stronger activation to attractive faces than to more ho-hum ones. (It is actually a U-shaped

relationship; the amygdala is also highly activated by unattractive faces; Winston, O’Doherty,

Kilner, Perrett, & Dolan, 2007.)

In both men and women, attractive faces cause greater activation in several other brain areas

involved in processing of rewards. These include the nucleus accumbens, which also activates

in response to rewarding stimuli like money; the medial prefrontal cortex; and the anterior

cingulate cortex, which may be involved in shaping future behavior from learning reward

outcomes. In men (but not in women), the orbitofrontal cortex, an area that evaluates the

reward value of current behaviors, also activates in response to attractive female faces

(Cloutier, Heatherton, Whalen, & Kelley, 2008).

Beautify Yourself

Beauty is unfair. Not everyone can be born with great genes. Not everyone can be born

symmetrical. Not everyone can be born enticingly, well, average. But obviously there are many

factors contributing to attractiveness that are potentially under our control.

For women, makeup does have a strong e�ect. In one study,

women wearing makeup were approached more, and

approached faster, by men at a bar than they were on nights

without makeup (Gueguen, 2008b). E�ect sizes on beauty

judgments for makeup have been found to be as high as those

for the facial structural features mentioned earlier (Osborn,

2006).

Getting enough beauty sleep is something everyone can do to

up their beauty quotient. A group of Swedish and Dutch

researchers conducted an experiment in which observers rated

the attractiveness (as well as health) of participants who were photographed both a�er a

period of sleep deprivation and a�er a good night’s sleep (Axelsson, 2010). Not surprisingly,

individuals who were sleep deprived were rated significantly less attractive than those who

were rested. They were also rated less healthy.

And then there are the emotions we project through our faces. Not surprising, positive

emotions increase attractiveness. We are drawn to those who smile, for example. As when they

wore makeup, women who smiled at men on entering a bar were more likely to be approached

and were judged more favorably (Gueguen, 2008a). Even a smile perceived only in the periphery

of one’s vision will be seen as more attractive than a face with a neutral expression (Bohrn,

Carbon, & Hutzler, 2010). And attractive faces that smile produce even more activity in the

orbitofrontal cortex than do attractive faces wearing neutral expressions (O’Doherty et al.,

2003).

So here’s the timeless message of psychological science: Be beautiful—or, as beautiful as you

can. Smile and sleep and do whatever else you can do to make your face a reward. Among its

other social benefits, attractiveness actually invites people to learn what you are made of, in

other respects than just genetic fitness. According to a new study at the University of British

Columbia (Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010), attractive people are actually judged more

accurately—at least, closer to a subject’s own self-assessments—than are the less attractive,

because it draws others to go beyond the initial impression. “People do judge a book by its

cover,” the researchers write, “but a beautiful cover prompts a closer reading.”

References

Axelsson, J., Sundelin, T., Ingre, M., Van Someren, E.J.W., Olsson, A., & Lekander, M. (2010).

Beauty sleep:

Experimental study on the perceived health and attractiveness of sleep deprived people

[online version].

British Medical Journal, 341. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6614

Bohrn, I., Carbon, C.-C., & Hutzler, F. (2010). Mona Lisa’s smile—Perception or deception?

Psychological

Science, 21, 378–380.

Cloutier, J., Heatherton, T.F., Whalen, P.J., & Kelley, W.M. (2008). Are attractive people rewarding?

Sex

di�erences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness.

Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current

Directions in

Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.

Gangestad, S.W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar (2005). Adaptations to ovulation: Implications for

sexual and

social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 312–316.

Gueguen, N. (2008a). The e�ect of a woman’s smile on men’s courtship behavior. Social

Behavior and

Personality, 36, 1233–1236.

Gueguen, N. (2008b). The e�ects of women’s cosmetics on men’s approach: An evaluation in a

bar. North

American Journal of Psychology, 10, 221–228.

Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an

evolutionary

explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.

Haselton, M.G. & Gildersleeve, K. (in press). Can men detect ovulation? Current Directions in

Psychological

Science.

Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science,

1, 115–121.

Little, A.C., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S., & Perrett, D.I. (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness

influences human

female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.

Lorenzo, G.L., Biesanz, J.C., & Human, L.J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately

understood:

Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological

Science, 21,

1777–1782.

O’Doherty, J., Winston, J., Critchley, H., Perrett, D., Burt, D.M. (2003). Beauty in a smile: The role

of medial

orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 41, 147–155.

Olson, I.R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5,

498–502.

Osborn, D.R. (2006). Beauty is as beauty does? Makeup and posture e�ects on physical

attractiveness

judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 31–51.

Penton-Voak, I.S., Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D.M., & Perrett, D.I.

(2001).

Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness.

Proceedings of the

Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 268, 1617–1623.

Rhodes, G., Pro�itt, F., Grady, J.M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of

beauty.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 659–669.

Rubenstein, A.J., Kalakanis, L., & Langlois, J.H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive faces: A

cognitive

explanation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 848–855.

Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological,

emotional,and

physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 456–466.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future? Proceedings

of the Royal

Society of London B, 271(Suppl.), S177–S179.

Winston, J.S., O’Doherty, J., Kilner, J.M., Perrett, D.I., & Dolan, R.J. (2007). Brain systems for

assessing facial

attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45, 195–206.

April 1, 2011