Sat - December 27, 2003

With morphing software, the researchers then generated new 50:50 compound images from each of two original faces (or more than two faces in later experiments). These compound images were again shown to test subjects who ranked them on a seven point scale. A modeling agency, shown the compound and original images, was also asked to rank the faces for their beauty characteristics.

The results?

1. Zits really are out to get you: Although beauty books—and plastic surgeons—often stress the importance of facial symmetry, researchers found that it was not the proportions of a face but its surface characteristics, such as skin texture, that really determined attractiveness.

2. You've come a long way, "baby": For female faces, having babyface attributes such as large, round eyes, a large domed forehead and a small, short nose and chin led to a marked rise in the attractiveness rankings accorded by both male and female test subjects.

3. Metrosexuals have an advantage: The research found that attractive female faces are narrower than unattractive ones and possess a brown skin tone, rosy lips, thin, dark eyebrows and full eyelashes, high cheekbones and a narrow nose. The most attractive male images had exactly the same characteristics, coupled with a more prominent lower jaw and chin.

4. Blame your parents for your ugly mug: Compound images comprised of multiple original faces were almost always deemed to be more attractive than original faces. But heredity is still important because compound faces comprised of more attractive original images ranked higher than those that weren't.

5. Beauty matters in many ways: People with more attractive faces were assessed to be more successful, contented, pleasant, intelligent, sociable, exciting, creative and diligent than people with less attractive faces.

6. But beauty is an ideal, not a reality: Eighty-eight percent of the faces that the modeling agency placed in the "beauty" category were compound faces generated by the morphing software and did not exist in reality. Similarly, female compound images with more babyface attributes than real women participants always ranked highest.

What does all this mean? Here's what I took from it:

1. Appearance matters because more attractive people realize definite socioeconomic benefits. So striving to look your best is wise, but obsessing about your physical appearance and comparing yourself unfavorably to the retouched, airbrushed photos in magazines is counterproductive. No one's actual appearance approaches that unrealistic ideal.

2. The photographs in magazines may negatively influence our self-image, but they aren't entirely to blame because they reflect an innate ideal of beauty that we all may share.

3. German test subjects, at least, shared this common vision of beauty. It would be interesting to see if the elements of attractiveness found in these studies hold true across different cultures. The photograph that accompanies this post isn't a real person—it's a composite of photographs taken of the finalists for Miss Germany. Certainly, the subject is attractive, but does she reflect the range of possible outcomes for what defines beauty?

4. As tested for by the researchers, beauty does not embody personality or style. In fact, photographs used in their studies were deliberately normalized to exclude an audience's reactions to clothing, background, or unique physical attributes, such as a smile. In the real world, at least, these characteristics influence our perception of others. So take heart: Your face may look like a slab of ground beef, but if you smile broadly, shake hands firmly, and dress like a GQ model, you'll be a taco-class vision of pulchritude in no time!

Via Slashdot.