From the study as to what pertains to beauty from, Dion [1] found that strangers rated attractive people as possessing ‘socially desirable’ traits to a greater extent than unattractive people, and that attractive people were also expected to lead better lives than unattractive people (as it always had been noted from the numerous black pilled threads we have had). For example, attractive individuals were thought to be able to achieve more prestigious occupations, be more competent spouses with happier marriages and have better prospects for personal fulfilment (this by in large emanates from the halo effect, that had heavily been noted from PSL communities). Well there has been a wealth of studies examining this attractiveness stereotype, demonstrating that attractive people are seen in a positive light for a wide range of attributes compared with unattractive people (okay “water is wet,” more to come later on though). On the basis of such studies, it has been suggested that there exists a stereotype associated with physical attractiveness, famously—‘What is beautiful is good’ [2] (see [3,4] for meta-analytical reviews of research on physical attractiveness stereotypes).
Studies on what attractiveness stereotypes have generally not addressed the particular characteristics of faces that make individuals either attractive or unattractive, or the features that elicit personality attributions, although different faces reliably elicit the same personality attributions, or simply seeing what attractiveness exudes in everyday life [5]. Expression certainly has large effects, with, for example, faces shown with smiles rated as more attractive (keep in mind that they may have tested it on those that had a PSL of 4-6. We know that a smile on a ugly fella emits bad vibes) and as having more positive personality traits than neutral faces (e.g. [6]). Such facial expressions are transient, however, and will differ rapidly within individuals over time and across photographs. Both baby-like and mature/dominant facial qualities are related and are more stable aspects of appearance that reliably elicit personality attributions cross-culturally (e.g. [7,8]), but their effect on attractiveness judgements, at least of men, is still in dispute, as noted earlier. Despite some findings showing a preference for more masculine and dominant male faces (e.g. [8]), several studies have shown that feminine characteristics and faces of low dominance are of increased attractiveness [9,10]. This explains as to why guys like Chico and Bieber (i.e. Pretty boys) doing well in the dating well. We heavily stereotype as Chads being all brute alpha high-T males, however there is some truth that they are "attractive," but we now in the end that women, would of course settle for feminine type guys of guys. We do not live in the time where masculinity is desired anyways (especially in the west).
Personality traits are reported cross-culturally to be among the most important factors in partner choice by both sexes [11,12]. If desired personality is so important, it would appear likely that personality attributions elicited by a face would affect its attractiveness. For example, women who value cooperation and good parenting may avoid masculine-faced men (this probably puts the dark triad personality theory at bay). Hence, instead of feminine faces being attractive and this attractiveness driving positive personality attributions.
Individuals may use personality stereotypes in mate selection to select partners with a personality that they desire. Some perceptual attributions to facial photographs are somewhat accurate (e.g. [13]), and so choosing a partner based on perceived personality (of course this pervades into looks = personality) may result in acquiring a partner who actually possesses desired personality traits. Attraction to faces based on personality stereotypes may happen regardless of whether attributions are accurate or not, especially as many individuals do believe that face provides an important guide to character [14,15]. In fact, it is possible that visually appearing to possess certain traits may be more important in initial selection processes than actually possessing desired traits because the visual stereotypes are more easily available than information about stable behavior. One study has indeed demonstrated that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness [16]. Individuals valuing particular personality traits find faces appearing to display these traits attractive. Conversely, those not valuing particular traits find faces attractive that are perceived to possess that trait less (this overshadows the notion of people saying that “personality matters”). Thus, desired personality influences perceptions of facial attractiveness in opposite sex faces, changing the result to: ‘what is good is beautiful’ [16]. In terms of benefits to perceivers, it is easy to see why traits such as appearing trustworthy would make a face appear more attractive (this further reinforces the importance of “facial harmony” that is heavily been talked of in PSLI communities).
One reason for variability in preferences for male facial masculinity may lie in the personality traits that masculine- and feminine-faced men are assumed to possess. Increasing the masculinity of face shape increased perceptions of dominance, masculinity and age but decreased perceptions of warmth, emotionality, honesty, cooperativeness and quality as a parent [17]. Cunningham et al. [18] have suggested that, because both masculine and feminine faces are only rated as moderately attractive, a resolution to this conflict could be that very attractive male faces possess a combination of factors and so reflect ‘multiple motives’ in female mate choice (i.e. the desire for a dominant and a cooperative partner, as advertised by a combination of masculine and feminine features). It appears then that ‘socially valued’ traits such as honesty, warmth, cooperation and skill as a parent are associated with feminized versions of male faces, while traits such as dominance are associated with masculinized face shapes. Indeed, recent work has shown that masculine facial characteristics are associated with indices of physical dominance, such as physical strength [19], and the perception of such traits [20], and that feminine men show weaker preferences for short-term relationships and stronger preferences for committed, long-term relationships than their masculine peers do [21]. Feminization of male face shape may increase attractiveness because it ‘softens’ particular features that are perceived to be associated with negative personality traits. Women's face preferences may thus represent a trade-off between the desire for good genes and the desire for a cooperative partner. This trade-off means that masculinity may be more or less attractive under certain contexts and to certain individuals
References and Sources
Studies on what attractiveness stereotypes have generally not addressed the particular characteristics of faces that make individuals either attractive or unattractive, or the features that elicit personality attributions, although different faces reliably elicit the same personality attributions, or simply seeing what attractiveness exudes in everyday life [5]. Expression certainly has large effects, with, for example, faces shown with smiles rated as more attractive (keep in mind that they may have tested it on those that had a PSL of 4-6. We know that a smile on a ugly fella emits bad vibes) and as having more positive personality traits than neutral faces (e.g. [6]). Such facial expressions are transient, however, and will differ rapidly within individuals over time and across photographs. Both baby-like and mature/dominant facial qualities are related and are more stable aspects of appearance that reliably elicit personality attributions cross-culturally (e.g. [7,8]), but their effect on attractiveness judgements, at least of men, is still in dispute, as noted earlier. Despite some findings showing a preference for more masculine and dominant male faces (e.g. [8]), several studies have shown that feminine characteristics and faces of low dominance are of increased attractiveness [9,10]. This explains as to why guys like Chico and Bieber (i.e. Pretty boys) doing well in the dating well. We heavily stereotype as Chads being all brute alpha high-T males, however there is some truth that they are "attractive," but we now in the end that women, would of course settle for feminine type guys of guys. We do not live in the time where masculinity is desired anyways (especially in the west).
Personality traits are reported cross-culturally to be among the most important factors in partner choice by both sexes [11,12]. If desired personality is so important, it would appear likely that personality attributions elicited by a face would affect its attractiveness. For example, women who value cooperation and good parenting may avoid masculine-faced men (this probably puts the dark triad personality theory at bay). Hence, instead of feminine faces being attractive and this attractiveness driving positive personality attributions.
Individuals may use personality stereotypes in mate selection to select partners with a personality that they desire. Some perceptual attributions to facial photographs are somewhat accurate (e.g. [13]), and so choosing a partner based on perceived personality (of course this pervades into looks = personality) may result in acquiring a partner who actually possesses desired personality traits. Attraction to faces based on personality stereotypes may happen regardless of whether attributions are accurate or not, especially as many individuals do believe that face provides an important guide to character [14,15]. In fact, it is possible that visually appearing to possess certain traits may be more important in initial selection processes than actually possessing desired traits because the visual stereotypes are more easily available than information about stable behavior. One study has indeed demonstrated that a desire for some personality traits influences judgements of facial attractiveness [16]. Individuals valuing particular personality traits find faces appearing to display these traits attractive. Conversely, those not valuing particular traits find faces attractive that are perceived to possess that trait less (this overshadows the notion of people saying that “personality matters”). Thus, desired personality influences perceptions of facial attractiveness in opposite sex faces, changing the result to: ‘what is good is beautiful’ [16]. In terms of benefits to perceivers, it is easy to see why traits such as appearing trustworthy would make a face appear more attractive (this further reinforces the importance of “facial harmony” that is heavily been talked of in PSLI communities).
One reason for variability in preferences for male facial masculinity may lie in the personality traits that masculine- and feminine-faced men are assumed to possess. Increasing the masculinity of face shape increased perceptions of dominance, masculinity and age but decreased perceptions of warmth, emotionality, honesty, cooperativeness and quality as a parent [17]. Cunningham et al. [18] have suggested that, because both masculine and feminine faces are only rated as moderately attractive, a resolution to this conflict could be that very attractive male faces possess a combination of factors and so reflect ‘multiple motives’ in female mate choice (i.e. the desire for a dominant and a cooperative partner, as advertised by a combination of masculine and feminine features). It appears then that ‘socially valued’ traits such as honesty, warmth, cooperation and skill as a parent are associated with feminized versions of male faces, while traits such as dominance are associated with masculinized face shapes. Indeed, recent work has shown that masculine facial characteristics are associated with indices of physical dominance, such as physical strength [19], and the perception of such traits [20], and that feminine men show weaker preferences for short-term relationships and stronger preferences for committed, long-term relationships than their masculine peers do [21]. Feminization of male face shape may increase attractiveness because it ‘softens’ particular features that are perceived to be associated with negative personality traits. Women's face preferences may thus represent a trade-off between the desire for good genes and the desire for a cooperative partner. This trade-off means that masculinity may be more or less attractive under certain contexts and to certain individuals
References and Sources
[1] What is beautiful is good.
Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972 Dec; 24(3):285-90.
[2] Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M
Psychol Bull. 2000 May.
[3] Eagly A. H., Ashmore R. D., Makhijani M. G., Longo L. C. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but …: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol. Bull.
[4] Feingold A. 1992. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol. Bull.
Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy.
Hassin R, Trope Y
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May
[5] Reading a smiling face: messages conveyed by various forms of smiling.
Otta E, Folladore Abrosio F, Hoshino RL
Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Jun; 82(3 Pt 2):1111-21.
McArthur L. Z., Berry D. S. 1987. Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 18, 165–19210.1177/0022002187018002003
[6] Keating C. F., Mazur A., Segall M. H. 1981. A cross-cultural exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness. Ethol. Sociobiol. 2, 41–48
[7] Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness.
Grammer K, Thornhill R
J Comp Psychol. 1994 Sep; 108(3):233-42.
[8] What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.
Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72.
[9] Berry D. S., McArthur L. Z. 1985. Some components and consequences of a babyface. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48, 312–32310.1037/0022-3514.48.2.312
[10] Buss D. M., Barnes M. 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 559–57010.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
[11] Buss D. M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12, 1–4910.1017/S0140525X00023992
[12] Borkenau P., Liebler A. 1992. Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62, 645–65710.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645
[13] Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy.
Hassin R, Trope Y
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May; 78(5):837-52.
[14] Liggett J. 1974. The human face. London, UK: Constable
[15] Little A. C., Burt D. M., Perrett D. I. 2006. What is good is beautiful: face preference reflects desired personality. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 41, 1107–111810.1016/j.paid.2006.04.015
[16] Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction.
Botwin MD, Buss DM, Shackelford TK
J Pers. 1997 Mar; 65(1):107-36.
[17] Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.
Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S
Nature. 1998 Aug 27; 394(6696):884-7.
[18] What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.
Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL, J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72.
[19] Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women.
Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H
Am J Hum Biol. 2007 Jan-Feb; 19(1):82-7.
[20] Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers.
Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Main JC, Little AC, Welling LL, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Feb 22; 277(1681):617-24.
[21] Boothroyd L. G., Jones B. C., Burt D. M., DeBruine L. M., Perrett D. I. 2008. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 211–21810.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.009
Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972 Dec; 24(3):285-90.
[2] Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M
Psychol Bull. 2000 May.
[3] Eagly A. H., Ashmore R. D., Makhijani M. G., Longo L. C. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but …: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol. Bull.
[4] Feingold A. 1992. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol. Bull.
Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy.
Hassin R, Trope Y
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May
[5] Reading a smiling face: messages conveyed by various forms of smiling.
Otta E, Folladore Abrosio F, Hoshino RL
Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Jun; 82(3 Pt 2):1111-21.
McArthur L. Z., Berry D. S. 1987. Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 18, 165–19210.1177/0022002187018002003
[6] Keating C. F., Mazur A., Segall M. H. 1981. A cross-cultural exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness. Ethol. Sociobiol. 2, 41–48
[7] Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness.
Grammer K, Thornhill R
J Comp Psychol. 1994 Sep; 108(3):233-42.
[8] What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.
Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72.
[9] Berry D. S., McArthur L. Z. 1985. Some components and consequences of a babyface. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48, 312–32310.1037/0022-3514.48.2.312
[10] Buss D. M., Barnes M. 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 559–57010.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
[11] Buss D. M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12, 1–4910.1017/S0140525X00023992
[12] Borkenau P., Liebler A. 1992. Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62, 645–65710.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645
[13] Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy.
Hassin R, Trope Y
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 May; 78(5):837-52.
[14] Liggett J. 1974. The human face. London, UK: Constable
[15] Little A. C., Burt D. M., Perrett D. I. 2006. What is good is beautiful: face preference reflects desired personality. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 41, 1107–111810.1016/j.paid.2006.04.015
[16] Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction.
Botwin MD, Buss DM, Shackelford TK
J Pers. 1997 Mar; 65(1):107-36.
[17] Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.
Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S
Nature. 1998 Aug 27; 394(6696):884-7.
[18] What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness.
Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL, J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72.
[19] Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women.
Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H
Am J Hum Biol. 2007 Jan-Feb; 19(1):82-7.
[20] Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers.
Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Main JC, Little AC, Welling LL, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Feb 22; 277(1681):617-24.
[21] Boothroyd L. G., Jones B. C., Burt D. M., DeBruine L. M., Perrett D. I. 2008. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 211–21810.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.009
Last edited:
