by 105 student
Do you often find yourself staring at attractive people as you pass them on the street? If so, take comfort in the fact that you are not alone. In fact, a recent study found that it is harder for people to direct their attention away from attractive people than from unattractive people. Researchers also found that the time it takes to determine whether or not a person is attractive is almost immediate (about a tenth of a second). This fixation on attractive people is so great that even heterosexual people will even focus on attractive people of the same sex. It has been hypothesized that this is done in attempts to size up any competition.
However, don’t worry if you are one of the unlucky attractive people who are constantly gawked at. The price of being stared at is a small price to pay for the perks that come with being aesthetically pleasing. One study found that attractive people earn 12% more than “less goodlooking people.” This is because people readily associate good qualities, such as intelligence, with attractive people. The study found that coworkers judged attractive men and women as more helpful than middle or low attractive people. These studies bring up many interesting points. One question that immediately came to my mind was how the researchers determined who was deemed attractive? These studies seem to imply that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but instead there is an accepted, universal set of physical features that can be used to label someone “attractive.”
While it may be true that people perceived as attractive earn more money and attention from others, I find it hard to believe that beauty is universal. While some preferred facial features may be preserved across cultures, many individuals who don’t meet these standards are still considered beautiful. For example, many people disagree over whether actress Uma Thurman is incredibly eye-catching or simply mediocre. Likewise, members of different subcultures often value alternative features, challenging traditional beauty standards. On many college campuses, skinny boys with soft features replace the typical masculine prototype.
One study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201259.htm), undertaken by researchers at Harvard University, suggests that beauty is more standardized in closer knit circles. It was found that individuals who know each other well reported greater agreement as to whether photographed individuals were attractive. This increased level of agreement was reported equally as often between spouses as between genetically related family members, suggesting that this harmony is environmentally, rather than genetically, driven. It was also found that increases in daily contact between the subjects, predicted greater agreements. These findings help explain common opinions in tight groups of friends or families. They also warn against the notion of universal beauty and suggest that attractiveness can never be entirely calculated.
Comment by Jenna Rieder — May 4, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
In response to the author’s question about “how researchers determined who was deemed attractive” in studies on attractiveness:
What people find attractive is not just based on personal preferences, but is largely based on evolutionarily adaptive traits. In the article “The Science of Attraction”, by Rob Elder, he lists two main ways that attraction is “encoded” between two people: pheromones and body form. The latter provides evolutionary explanations for what we find physically appealing. Among other things, humans are prone to be more attracted to people with symmetrical facial and body features. Humans (subconsciously) see asymmetry as a sign that there is something wrong with that person’s genes, making them unfit for mating.
Symmetry is just one example of a general “rule of attraction” for humans; others include attraction to “hyper” -masculine and -feminine facial features (for example, strong bone structure on men, large lips and delicate features on) women.
My point is that while individual preferences obviously exist in regards to attraction, there are traits that humans have a biological predisposition to be attracted to. Therefore, in studies, scientists at least have a baseline by which to measure attractiveness.
Sources:
http://www.students.emory.edu/HYBRIDVIGOR/issue1/attraction.htm
http://www.nmsu.edu/~ucomm/Releases/2001/Jan2001/johnston.html
Comment by Yasmin Roberti — May 5, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Attractive people hold our attention for split seconds longer than other lesser attractive people, but in these split seconds we are processing more than just attractiveness.
According to one study (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/488), the perception of social dominance is just as important as the perception of attractiveness. By having subjects estimate the percentage of dominant males in a rapidly shown array of pictures, researchers were able to gauge which pictures both men and women fixated on in this rapid presentation. Both men and women estimated a higher percentage of dominant men than control subject who were allowed to look at the array for as long as they wanted. From this and another similar study the researchers concluded that women might spend more time looking at attractive men, but it is socially dominant men that they remember as these men will possibly be more successful mates. Further, they found that when men notice other men, they notice their social dominance rather than their attractiveness, meaning here they are sizing up their competition. Finally, when looking at images of women, both men and women noticed attractiveness much more readily than social dominance.
Clearly, there is a great deal of mental processing that goes on in the first moments of encountering another human being. And perhaps, in that extra time we spend staring at those attractive individuals, we are processing whether or not we think they are socially dominant. Apparently, first impressions really do mean quite a bit.
Comment by Cali Calarco — May 5, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
I find it interesting how by the year 2008 we still have primitive survival instincts such as finding “better” genes aesthetically pleasing. In the information age, it seems ridiculous that our minds still adhere to such simple laws as who has better features like good hair or long legs when we are clearly in the era where intellect has become the key survival tool. People are enslaved by the media’s over exaggerated response to simple human instincts, such as the one mentioned above, which maybe should have been outgrown by now. This subject leads one to wonder what the world would be like when, in the future, we might be able to genetically manipulate humans.
Comment by Frida Garcia — May 5, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Although it does sound as though the researchers in your study had a universal view of what is ‘beautiful’, another study shows that people are actually more attracted to people who look like themselves. There’s an evolutionary advantage to choosing a mate similar looking to you because they probably have similar genes, and by choosing a mate with similar genes, you would be conserving your own genes. Also, even though being deemed ‘attractive’ by society seems like it would be a win-win situation, it does have its downsides. “Beautiful” people are more likely to be considered, vain, snobby and shallow.So, even though it may seem like ‘attractive’ people get the better end of the bargain, this is just one example that they face some of the same setbacks as “average” looking people. Source: http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html
Comment by Veronica Swain — May 5, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Here is an idea for how researchers determined who was deemed attractive.
In The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology an article by Michael Cunningham, a psychologist determined that there is a strong agreement on what constitutes facial attractiveness. Cunningham concludes that the beauty of the female face is mathematically quantifiable. It is not strictly subjective as once thought.
Dr. Cunningham conducted several experiments where she asked 150 white, male American college students to rate the attractiveness and social attributes of 50 women from pictures of their faces. In this experiment twenty-seven of the women were finalists in the Miss Universe contest. Most of the women were white, but seven were black and six were Asian.
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~krzychu/literature/cunningham1986.pdf
In Dr. Cunningham’s research the dimensions and proportions of “attractive” women were remarkably consistent and precise. The perceived ideal of the attractive female face included elements such as, eye width that is three-tenths the width of the face at the eyes’ level; chin length, one-fifth the height of the face and other precise elements. But Dr. Cunningham’s data describes an ideal, not an actual face. This ideal face is what American culture defines “attractive.” Furthermore, small differences in the ratios made a significant difference for attractiveness.
Dr. Cunningham further believes that large eyes and a small chin and nose, are facial features that typify a newborn. The high wide cheekbone and narrow cheeks, point out that a woman has reached puberty. The high eyebrows, dilated pupils and wide smile are signals of positive emotions including, interest, excitement and sociability.
”The sum total of the features signify someone who is slightly young and helpless, though sexually mature and friendly, and men find that combination compelling,” concluded Dr. Cunningham.
It is also important to note that Cunningham’s research that the specifics of ideal attractiveness may vary from culture to culture.
References:
Goleman, Daniel, Equation for Beauty Emerges in Studies.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE3D7113EF936A3575BC0A960948260&scp=6&sq=psychology-+attractiveness&st=nyt
Cunningham, Michael. Measuring the Physical in Physical Attractiveness: Quasi-Experiments on the Sociobiology of Female Facial Beauty.
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~krzychu/literature/cunningham1986.pdf
Comment by Elizabeth Anderson — May 5, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Though many claim “beauty” is a matter of opinion, a new French computer program has been recently designed that challenges this view. Though it may seem impossible to attribute specific and concrete physical features to the abstract notion of personal beauty, this new program claims to accurately determine whether or not a Caucasian face is attractive. The software, though lacking the ability to make judgments of its own, was programmed using recent research into attractiveness and the opinions of thirty-six test subjects aged 19 to 61 who were shown 420 photos of people drawn from the general population and 32 photos of celebrities known for their attractiveness. Using this data programmers were able to pinpoint the specific “golden ratios” of facial proportion that typically result in attractiveness and enabled the computer to search for the presence or absence of these geometric patterns (France-Presse, 2008). Creating a computer that can seemingly replicate such an emotionally driven and intimate feature of humanity grounds the abstract in the substantial and reveals a great deal about the human mind. Can our minds be equated to extremely efficient computers capable of highly advanced computations and skills? Only further research into mental processes will reveal the answer to this question.
France-Presse, Agence (2008). Beauty Formula Unveiled at Last Retreived on May 4, 2008 from http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/style/story.html?id=5f83819c-27e3-482b-b790-f21cbd6f3ba8
Comment by Ben Crawford — May 5, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
After reading this post, I felt compelled to find out exactly how researchers determine “attractiveness.” In a study published by the Journal of Experimental Psychology, researchers came to the conclusion that there is not much truth behind the proverb “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” In different experiments, the researchers showed pictures of different people between the ages of 20 and 30, and in one experiment showed a racially diverse sample of faces, in an effort to determine whether facial attractiveness is primarily shared or private. Traditionally, faces that contain large eyes tend to receive higher and more favorable face scores. Considering evolutionary approaches, facial symmetry signals parasite resistance which would elicit a more desirable response from potential mates. Furthermore, people tend to rate faces of their own race higher than average responses (Honekopp, 2006).
This led me to thinking about views on attractiveness, specifically those held at Vassar. I feel that at Vassar people tend to be more attracted to those individuals that deviate from the conventional view of beauty. But then, following that standards of beauty are widely shared, does the preference for non-conventional beauty exist because more eclectic tastes are more welcome at Vassar? Or because more private and individualistic views are more common?
Honekopp, Johannes (2006). Once More: Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? Relative Contributions of Private and Shared Taste to Judgments of Facial Attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32 (2), 199-205.
Comment by Jordan Hynes — May 5, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
The correlation between physical appearance and earning power goes back to one of my posts earlier in the semester about the book “Blink,” written by Malcolm Gladwell, about rapid cognition- what humans pick up on in the “blink of an eye.” In a study of the average height of the CEOs of the 500 largest corporations in the United States, Gladwell found that the average CEO in the sample was 3 inches taller than the average American male, standing at just under 6’0”. He also found that 58% of the CEOs were over 6’0”, while only 14.5 percent of our population stands above the mark.
Although attractiveness is not objective, height is typically one of the most important features when judging both men and women. As the post states, we associate good qualities with people who are physically attractive, and to tall people we generally impute a sense of power. To either sex an imposing figure can be recognized. A study conducted in 2003 by Timothy Judge found that on average an inch of height amounted to $789 more in salary earnings per year. Although it is true that there is no “universal set of physical features that that can be used to label someone ‘attractive,’” height undeniably influences earning power, as other specific features certainly do as well.
There is still hope for short people. You can always do what professional athletes do and experiment with Human Growth Hormone…
Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
Judge article: http://www.wsbtv.com/jobs/2561766/detail.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/02/13/romantic.rivalries.ap/index.html
Comment by Ethan Fischer — May 6, 2008 @ 12:04 am
After reading the article for the second study, in which researchers discovered that more attractive people earn 12% more than those who are considered unattractive, I noticed that the behavior of the workers was similar to the Pygmalion effect that was observed in the Rosenthal and Jacobson study. We learned that in the Rosenthal study, teachers were found to alter their behavior towards specific students in accordance to the information they received about those students, effectively influencing and increasing the student’s performance. This action was determined to be representative of the self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a false prediction alters behavior and subsequently causes itself to become true. In the beautiful people study, researchers found that fellow workers altered their behaviors towards more attractive people in response to the prediction that attractive people were more cooperative and helpful. The researchers found that fellow workers judged and treat attractive people in a more positive manner due to the preconceived notions about them, and that these workers also act in a more cooperative manner when working with beautiful people. This evidence suggests that they altered their behavior according to the stereotype applied to beautiful people. Perhaps it was a result of this prediction that these attractive people did in fact became more helpful, and thus earned higher pay than those people who had not been involved in this prediction.
Comment by Allie St. Jules — May 6, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Apparently a pretty face doesn’t just mean that you could get paid more or gawked at on a more regular basis. A recent study shows that your face can influence how people (especially potential suitors) perceive your attitude towards sexual relationships. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408202048.htm) Durham University examined 700 heterosexuals and found that both men and women could usually tell based just on a photograph if the individual pictured would be more interested in a long term or short term relationship. While the majority could correctly determine this, further questioning illuminated that the answers were not always confident. Participants, in their early 20s, filled out a questionnaire that determined their attitudes and behaviors in sexual relationships. Then, each participant was shown pairs of photos, in which each subject had contrasting views towards sexual relationships. The participant was asked who they thought would “be more open to short-tem sexual relationships, one night stands, and the idea of sex without love”. Participants were also questioned on the masculinity or femininity of the picture as well as which picture was more attractive for a long term vs a short term relationship. It was also found that women who were more open to short term relationships were usually seen as more attractive just based on their picture. Men in this same situation were often characterized as being more “masculine- looking” sporting such features as the strong square jaw line or a bigger nose. While this experiment does not provide concrete evidence for why people interpret others, it illustrates how people can be grouped into stereotypes based on their looks. Not only this, but if this study proves true for most situations, those stereotypes may actually be accurate most of the time.
Comment by Kristen Lauer — May 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
This study brought to mind a slightly older one that suggests that this preoccupation with beautiful faces begins at a very early age. Babies between the ages of 1 and 7 days were shown two photos of women’s faces on “opposite ends of the attractiveness spectrum”. It was noted that almost all of the babies spent more time looking at the picture of the more attractive women. The researchers theorize that babies are doing this because their minds are hardwired to recognize the prototype of a human face and that attractive people are closer to the prototype. This is an interesting theory, but I’m not sure how convincing it is. Regardless of the reason, it is fascinating that in addition to being pre-structured for certain things such as language, the minds of newborns are able to recognize attractiveness. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html)
Comment by Keri Peacock — May 6, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Reading about how influential our mere appearances can be in everyday decisions is often depressing; who wants to think they didn’t get that promotion because the other candidate was born with a prettier face? However, beyond the superficiality of first impressions, it is obviously important to remember that our personalities also have a large effect on how people view us. In fact, a recent study [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm] found that perceptions of personality can even affect how physically attractive a person appears to others. Subjects in the study rated pictures of people before and after being given information about his or her personality; it was found that people described as having positive personality traits were rated as more attractive the second time around, regardless of how they were initially rated. So while people may be unable to look away from a person they initially judge to be physically attractive, in the long run personality can actually affect these judgments as well. Of course, here one also runs into the halo effect: people who are better looking are often perceived as having better personality traits, and as the results of the above research suggests, would then be thought of as even more attractive. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that personality can play a role in all of this, even to the degree of affecting perceptions of physical attractiveness.
Comment by Carolyn Lefferts — May 7, 2008 @ 12:04 am
While a person’s attractiveness may generally be agreed upon, the source of the attractiveness isn’t always intrinsic to the individual. In a 1976 study by Daniel Bar-Tel and Leonard Saxe, researchers asked 64 college males and 64 college females to rate the attractiveness of people on photographs, first shown as couples, then as single photographs. Results showed that the attractiveness of women was rated independently of that of their husbands, whereas men were rated more attractive when paired with an attractive wife. Similar patterns were found to exist in social situations, where perception of positive responsiveness by a new acquaintance increased the attractiveness of that individual (Lemay and Clark, 2008). So stay confident, maybe find an attractive buddy, and you’re in the social clear.
References
Bar-Tel, D. and Saxe, L. (1976). Perceptions of Similarly and Dissimilarly Attractive Couples and Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (6), 772-781.
Lemay, E. and Clark, M. (2008). How the Head Liberates the Heart: Projection of Communal Responsiveness Guides Relationship Promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (4), 647-671.
Comment by Dennis D'Urso — May 7, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Just as our judgments of a person’s intelligence may be affected by our judgments about that person’s physical appearance, so too are our judgments of a person’s physical appearance affected by our preexisting perceptions of his or her first name. Recent studies suggest that these preexisting perceptions about first names are very strong, and can taint our perceptions of traits as far-ranging as success, luck, and, yes, attractiveness.
These stereotypes may often become self-fulfilling prophecies- professors may look more kindly on papers written by those with first names they find attractive; college admissions officers may find themselves looking more favorably on applicants with names they associate with success. This positive feedback will inspire confidence in those with names associated with success and attractiveness, and because confidence is linked to success and attractiveness, the individuals will actually begin to fit into the stereotypes others hold for their names.
Thus, Elizabeth and James, first names judged to be “successful,” may more easily find success than those with lower-ranked first names. However, while perceptions of one’s first name may be a slight advantage or disadvantage, it is clear that real talent, drive, and dedication will lead anyone to success, no matter his or her given name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7312412.stm
Comment by Abby Fite — May 8, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
This blog post posits the question of “how the researchers determined who was deemed attractive?” I have heard that the is may be a universal set of physical features that we as humans are ingrained to perceive as attractive. It reminded me of something I had read a while back from Psychology Today. Alan S. Miller Ph.D. and Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. put together a list of “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature.”(Psychology Today, July/Aug 2007: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml)
The article suggests that many of our actions and reactions are ingrained in our genetic code from our ancestors, through an evolved psychological mechanism. The first point made is that “Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)” The article suggests that certain features are deemed more attractive because they can be indicative of health and age.
For instance, blondes may be deemed attractive because they are unknowingly assumed to be younger. Natural blonde hair fades to a less vibrant brown with age. Additionally, the article claims that long hair is attractive in females because it indicates years of a woman’s health status. I am the reminded of a brief article I read in the February edition of Psychology Today, which claimed men are attracted to women with long hair. It is very much possible that we all hold the same beliefs for defining “attractiveness” because of ingrained genetic material and not necessarily the media and popular culture.
Comment by Stacy Locke — May 9, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
yes there is a universal set of features that that cuts across all races/ethnicities to be deemed as beautiful
Basically beauty is based on how proportional your face is
Comment by lisa — August 21, 2008 @ 4:10 am
I actually found out that there were several others studies that demonstrate the disadvantage of unattractive people.
One study states that unattractive people are more likely to commit crime than average-looking ones. On the other hand, very good looking individuals tends to commit less crime than those with normal appearance. Although the cause of this phenomenon still remains unclear but since unattractive people can hardly find a good job and be well payed, they have more incentive to engage in criminal acts
The researchers also report that more attractive students have better grades as well as social skills.
Another sad thing is that even parents often take less care for the ugly child than for the attractive ones.
Richard Morin. The Ugly Face of Crime. washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602039_pf.html
Guy P. Harrison. Ugly people need love too.
http://www.guyharrison.info/Essays/Ugly%20people%202005.pdf
Comment by Trang Hoang — November 29, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Jordan, you write that researchers in the Journal of Experimental Psychology conducted research and came to the conclusion there isn’t much truth to the proverb “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder,” but the paper actually reads, “Private taste substantially contributes to judgments of facial
attractiveness.”
Johannes Honekopp examined the question of private and shared taste in this paper and he finds that both contribute about equally. The idea of universal, shared standards is akin to telling a young girl a zoo is a place where people have fun. IT’s not wrong, but it doesn’t tell you much about what a zoo is.
Bronstad and Russell expounded on this in a paper called Beauty is in the we of the beholder.
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/psych/professuren/allpsy2/Artikel/JEPHPP_2006.pdf
“Misconstruing the meaning of Cronbach’s alpha, experts on facial attractiveness have conveyed the impression that facial-attractiveness judgment standards are largely shared. This claim is unsubstantiated, because information necessary for deciding whether judgments of facial attractiveness are more influenced by commonly shared or by privately held evaluation standards is lacking. Three experiments, using diverse face and rater samples to investigate the relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness, are reported. These experiments show that for a variety of ancillary conditions, and contrary to the prevalent notion in the literature, private taste is about as powerful as shared taste.” …
Finally, a reanalysis of the data presented
here showed that any answer to the question of how much of
beauty is in the eye of the beholder heavily depends on the
attractiveness homogeneity of the faces used. Thus, it is not
possible to provide a universal answer to this question. However,
because the samples used had acceptable ecological validity, the
findings of the present experiments—indicating that private and
shared taste are roughly equally important—may be regarded as a
valid answer.
What about the prevailing message in the scholarly literature
that “standards of beauty are widely shared” (Rhodes, Zebrowitz,
et al., 2001, p. 31)? In light of the data presented here, a statement
like this is not “wrong,” but it is very likely to bring about a wrong
notion about facial attractiveness. It is a bit like telling a little girl
that a zoo is a place where many children eat ice cream and have
much fun; in saying as much, one says nothing wrong, but the girl
will acquire a queer concept of a zoo. After all, it is not less true
to say that standards of beauty are widely private. Because both
statements are true, seemingly militating phenomena can peacefully
coexist: Some people can make a fortune with their good
looks because they appeal to a broad public, and friends can
endlessly debate about who is attractive and who is not.
Private taste substantially contributes to judgments of facial
attractiveness.
http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p5793
Stacey, if faces’ attractiveness is determined by ingrained genetic material, how would you explain the finding that a husband and wife agree significantly more on whether a face is attractive than two random strangers?
Also, that page is based on the work of a very sloppy researcher:
Private taste substantially contributes to judgments of facial
attractiveness.
As for the question of blond hair, this paper actually doesn’t support the idea that blond hair is always found to be attractive and there’s a preference for it that transcends ethnicity, culture etc.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120121235/abstract
The present study investigated the role of skin tone, hair colour and hair length in perceptions of women’s physical attractiveness, health and fertility. One-hundred and thirty men and 112 women rated a series of 12 line drawings that varied in three levels of skin tone, two levels of hair colour and two levels of hair length. Results showed a number of interactions between the three variables, suggesting that these phenotypes are highly intercorrelated. However, there were also significant main effects of each of the variables, with hair colour generally explaining the greatest amount of variance. In general, light-toned figures were rated the most positively. Contrary to expectations, however, brunettes were rated more positively than blondes, and hair length had only a weak effect on ratings of attractiveness. Implications of these findings and the limitations of the use of line drawings are discussed in conclusion.
Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 2008.
This study investigated the role of skin tone, hair colour, and body weight in perceptions of women’s physical attractiveness and health. Four-hundred and thirty-six women and 423 men in eight distinct national settings on three continents rated a series of 18 female line drawings that varied in three levels of skin tone, two levels of hair colour, and three levels of body weight. Results showed significant cross-cultural differences in what was considered attractive and healthy, as a function of the three manipulated physical characteristics. However, the role played by, and the importance of, the three characteristics appeared to differ relative to the type of rating being made. Specifically, ratings of health were not congruent with ratings of physical attractiveness. There were also a number of interactions between the different variables, which were most pronounced with participants’ nationality. Interactions between the different stimulus variables themselves were small, but nevertheless suggest combined effects. These results support recent arguments for contextualising interpersonal perceptions, rather than viewing them in isolation of sociocultural environments.
Private taste substantially contributes to judgments of facial
attractiveness.
This paper is a good review on the morphological attributes found attractive, and contrary to what many people say, symmetry is not one of the shared cues to attractiveness. In fact, measurable symmetry accounts for less than 1% of the variance in attractiveness judgments of women and 3% of attractiveness judgements of men.
Averageness and sexual dimorphism are factors in shared standards.
http://uit.no/getfile.php?PageId=1935&FileId=483
Comment by Nadia Hassan — March 19, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
* on the very sloppy researcher, this is the page I meant to link:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/02/the_fenimore_co.html
Comment by Nadia Hassan — March 19, 2009 @ 7:42 pm