Sunny Style

The Effects of Facial Attractiveness and Familiarity on Facial Expression Recognition
Jinhui Li1, Dexian He1, Lingdan Zhou1, Xueru Zhao2, Tingting Zhao3, Wei Zhang1,4,5 and Xianyou He1,4,5*
1School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
2Academy of Educational Science Talent Capital Base, Beijing Institute of Education, Beijing, China
3School of Health Management, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
4Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
5Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
The classic theory of face perception holds that the invariant (e.g., identity and race) and variant (e.g., expression) dimensions of face information are independent of one another. Two separate neural systems are involved in face processing. However, the dynamic theory of face perception indicates that these two neural systems interact bidirectionally. Accordingly, by using the emotion categorization task and morph movies task, we investigated the influence of facial attractiveness on facial expression recognition and provided further evidence supporting the dynamic theory of face perception in both the static and dynamic contexts. In addition, this research used familiar celebrities (including actors, television personalities, politicians, and comedians) and explored the role of familiarity in face perception. In two experiments, the participants were asked to assess the expressions of faces with different levels of attractiveness and different levels of familiarity. We found that regardless of being in a static or dynamic face situation, happy expressions on attractive faces can be recognized more quickly, highlighting the advantage of happy expression recognition. Moreover, in static and dynamic familiar face situations, familiarity has a greater impact on expression recognition, and the influence of attraction on expression recognition may be weakened or even unaffected. Our results show that facial attractiveness influences the recognition of facial expressions in both static and dynamic contexts and highlight the importance of familiarity in face perception.

Introduction
Facial expressions can convey information regarding individuals’ emotions and social intentions, which is of great importance for social interaction. The rapid and correct identification of facial expressions is a necessity for successful social interaction. A classic cognitive model of face perception emphasizes the difference between the processes involved in the recognition of identity and those involved in the identification of expression (Bruce and Young, 1986). Based on this model, Haxby et al. (2000) proposed a model for the workings of this system that emphasized a difference between the indication of constant and variant sides of faces. The representation of the constant characteristics of faces (e.g., s*x, race, and identity) underlies the recognition of individuals, whereas the representation of the variant characteristics of faces (e.g., expression) underlies the perception of information that promotes social interaction.

In recent years, classic models of face perception have increasingly been challenged (Calder and Young, 2005; Hugenberg and Sczesny, 2006; Becker et al., 2007; Fisher et al., 2016). For example, one study found that the processing of facial identity and expression involves functional interactions and that their independence is not absolute (Calder and Young, 2005). This study proposed that the invariant and variable features of faces may be encoded by the same perceptual characterization system, followed by separation. Hugenberg and Sczesny (2006) found that participants could identify angry facial expressions faster in male faces than female faces. Becker et al. (2007) suggested that decisions regarding the gender of a face and facial expressions are not separate and found that subjects were faster and more accurate in discovering angry expressions on male faces and happy expressions on female faces. Fisher et al. (2016) identified the interaction between facial identity and expression. Similarly, other studies have concluded that there are different degrees of overlap between the brain regions that process face information (e.g., Ganel et al., 2005; Fox et al., 2009; Redfern and Benton, 2017). Specifically, Fox et al. (2009) found that the processes involved in facial identity and expression are not completely independent and that different degrees of overlap exist between the brain regions processing face information. Ganel et al. (2005) identified an interactive network responsible for the processing of expression and identity. Redfern and Benton (2017) used an identification task and concluded that expressions constitute a part of facial identity representation.

Given the debate regarding the classic theory of face perception, Quinn and Macrae (2011) proposed a dynamic theory of face perception. These authors proposed the existence of integrated processing pathways responsible for face processing. Facial characteristics (including invariant and variant characteristics) are processed in a multidimensional face coding system. The facial structure is coded in the primary stage; then, more sophisticated information is processed in the same dynamic system, and there is a general interaction. This view that facial characteristics are processed in a multidimensional face coding system has been confirmed by many studies (Ganel et al., 2005; Freeman et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2009). For example, Fox et al. (2009) found that facial identity and expression are not processed completely independently and that there are different degrees of overlap between the brain regions involved in face information processing. Other evidence suggesting that the invariant dimension of face information affects participants’ recognition of face’s variant dimensions has been reported (Craig et al., 2012; Fitousi and Wenger, 2013; Smith et al., 2017; Craig and Lipp, 2018).

Although previous research has typically focused on how invariant and variant face-related information is incorporated into judgments of facial expression, limited research has considered the relevance and importance of facial attractiveness. Face processing theories have paid minimal attention to the role of attractiveness and how attractiveness relates to other facial attributes. In the field of face perception, researchers have incorporated facial attractiveness into the invariant dimension of face information (Rhodes, 2006; Winston et al., 2007; Iaria et al., 2008). For example, Iaria et al. (2008) found that the fusiform gyrus (FFA) is activated when making facial attractiveness judgments and that the FFA mainly processes the invariant dimensions of faces. Additionally, noted attractiveness is based more on the temporally invariant aspects than the dynamic aspects of facial structure. Rhodes (2006) suggested that facial attractiveness may be more similar to the properties of identity and gender in terms of its processing demands. The attractiveness of a face is a salient social signal that reflects the overall effect of all physical attributes of a face.

Several studies have concluded that our perception of the attractiveness of a face is moderated by its facial expression (Magda and Goodwin, 2008; Tracy and Beall, 2011; Golle et al., 2014; Sutherland et al., 2017). In these studies, the participants perceived faces as more attractive when the facial expression was happy as opposed to other expressions. The apparent link between attractiveness and facial expression has been strengthened by recent neurological evidence emphasizing increased activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) during the presentation of stimuli that are attractive and positively valenced (O’Doherty et al., 2003). Sun et al. (2015) used the event-related potential (ERP) method to explore whether facial attractiveness and facial expression are processed similarly in the brain. They found that facial attractiveness and facial expression were separately embodied by two early components, i.e., N170 and P2, while their interaction effect was embodied by the late positive potential (LPP), which is a late component (Sun et al., 2015). Given that attractiveness is affected by facial expression recognition and that there is an overlapping brain region involved in facial attractiveness and facial expression recognition, we propose that attractiveness also affects expression recognition.

To the best of our knowledge, few studies have explored whether facial attractiveness contributes to facial expression, and the results of these studies are not consistent. Taylor and Bryant (2016) found that there was no interaction between facial attractiveness and expression. In their study, the authors asked the participants to categorize different facial expressions (happy, neutral, or angry) that varied with respect to facial attractiveness (attractive or unattractive). Their results suggested that facial attractiveness does not play a significant role in the judgment of happy or angry facial expressions. An earlier study also found no interaction between facial attractiveness and facial expression in the ratings of emotion valence (Jaensch et al., 2014). In contrast, Lindeberg et al. (2018) used an emotion category task and found that facial social classification cues influenced emotion perception. Thus, the authors found an interaction between facial attractiveness and expression. Specifically, they identified a greater happy face advantage resulting in more positively evaluated attractive faces than unattractive faces. Golle et al. (2014) indicated that the attractiveness of a face could affect the assessment of the happy expression. We suspect that these different experimental results may be caused by different experimental paradigms selected for different experiments. Taylor and Bryant (2016) and Lindeberg et al. (2018) used an emotional classification task in an experiment, but Lindeberg et al. (2018) used a larger sample size. Golle et al. (2014) utilized two alternative forced choice (2AFC) paradigms. It is also possible that different experiments use angry expressions as negative expressions and that angry expressions are often confused with other expressions (Taylor and Jose, 2014), leading to inconsistent conclusions in different studies. Although Lindeberg et al. (2018) verified that face attractiveness affects expression recognition, the findings of their study are inconsistent with the findings reported by Taylor and Bryant (2016). Therefore, more evidence concerning whether facial attractiveness affects facial expression identification should be collected. In addition, the facial expressions used in this research are happy and sad, which are not exactly the same as the happy and angry expressions used by Lindeberg et al. (2018). We used an experiment consistent with Lindeberg et al. (2018) in Experiment 1a. On the one hand, the paradigm investigates whether the recognition of facial expressions is affected by attractiveness. On the other hand, this study is an extension of existing research. The sad expression represents experimental material that expands the range of expressions affected by attractiveness and further verifies the relationship between facial attractiveness and expression recognition.

In addition, previous research illustrates that familiar stimuli prompt diverse positive reactions (Zajonc, 1968; Bornstein, 1989). Many studies have found that familiarity affects the processing of face perception (i.e., facial attractiveness and facial expressions) (Moreland and Beach, 1992; Dubois et al., 1999; Claypool et al., 2007; Carr et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2017). Moreover, studies have shown that there are strong interactions between familiarity and expression recognition (Claypool et al., 2007; Carr et al., 2017). For example, Carr et al. (2017) concluded that familiar faces appear happier and less angry than unfamiliar faces, indicating that familiarity affects facial expression recognition. Claypool et al. (2007) also found the same result. Furthermore, previous studies have examined how multiple social category cues, namely, s*x and race (Smith et al., 2017; Craig and Lipp, 2018) and s*x and age (Craig and Lipp, 2018), simultaneously moderate expression recognition and provided evidence of the combined influence of these social cues on expression recognition. However, no studies have investigated how facial attractiveness and familiarity simultaneously moderate expression recognition. Thus, in the present research, we manipulate facial familiarity.

More importantly, most existing research concerning facial expression recognition has used static face images (Claypool et al., 2007; Dobel et al., 2008; Carr et al., 2017), whereas in real life, faces are typically seen in motion. In addition, the dynamic context is more ecologically valid. That is, in interpersonal contexts, people’s facial expressions are usually in a dynamic situation (Niedenthal et al., 2000; Rubenstein, 2005; Ishii et al., 2011). Therefore, in this research, we presented both static and dynamic faces to subjects to judge facial expressions.

As mentioned above, the present research uses the emotion categorization task (see Bijlstra et al., 2010; Taylor and Bryant, 2016; Lindeberg et al., 2018) and morph movies task (see Niedenthal et al., 2000; Hugenberg and Bodenhausen, 2003; Bijlstra et al., 2014) in static and dynamic contexts. Accordingly, we investigate the extent to which attractiveness and familiarity influence facial expression processing. We conduct two experiments to explore this problem. According to the dynamic theory of face perception, if the attractiveness associated with face information can affect the processing of expression recognition, the processing of facial attractiveness and expression recognition are dependent on one another. However, according to the classic theory of face perception, if the facial attractiveness related to face information does not affect the processing of expression recognition, the processing of facial attractiveness and expression recognition are independent of one another. Based on behavioral evidence suggesting that attractive faces are often associated with positive personality characteristics (Dion et al., 1972; Golle et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Lindeberg et al., 2018), we hypothesize that participants can recognize the happy expressions of attractive faces more quickly and that the advantages of happy expression recognition do not apply to unattractive faces in either a static context or a dynamic context (Experiments 1a and 1b). In addition, in accordance with previous studies (Carr et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017; Craig and Lipp, 2018; Lindeberg et al., 2018), we anticipate that if familiarity has a greater impact on facial expression recognition, under the familiar face condition, the impact of attractiveness on facial expression recognition may be weakened or even unaffected. Similarly, compared to the other conditions, if familiarity and attractiveness together affect expression recognition, happy expressions on familiar attractive faces can be identified more quickly.

In general, the main aim of this research is to investigate whether facial attractiveness affects expression recognition in both static (Experiment 1a) and dynamic (Experiment 1b) contexts. This research also explores how familiarity and facial attractiveness can affect expression recognition in static (Experiment 2a) and dynamic (Experiment 2b) contexts.

Why Are Symmetrical Faces So Attractive?
There is a surprising reason we are drawn toward symmetry, especially in faces.
Posted July 8, 2019 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

Share on FacebookShare
Share on TwitterTweet
Share via EmailEmail
What constitutes beauty?

Among cultures and through history, standards of beauty have changed considerably. At certain times, stoutness was a symbol of wealth and influence and thus was considered attractive. At other times, hardy physical fitness was the gold standard. Different variations of skin tone, facial hair (men), breast size (women), eye color, hair texture, color, and style have all experienced wide swings in their perceived attractiveness at different points in history and in different places.

Jean Alves/Pexels; RoyalAnwar/Pixabay
Source: Jean Alves/Pexels; RoyalAnwar/Pixabay
When it comes to physical attraction, cultural forces far outweigh biological ones, but there are a couple of features that seem to cut through the cultural conditioning and are seen as universally attractive. (Read about how our brain computes attraction.)

For example, across cultures and times, height is reliably rated as desirable in men. For women, a low waist-hip ratio is seen as attractive globally. Of course, these two features are each just one aspect within a full suite of qualities for a specific person and do not overpower everything else. However, there is indeed something special about them simply because they are so universal while most other "attractive features" are not.

There is another feature that drives perceptions of attractiveness and does so almost equally among men and women: facial symmetry. Across many clever experimental designs, researchers have confirmed that we rate faces that are more symmetrical as more attractive than those with less symmetry.

Like height in males and waist-hip ratio in females, symmetrical faces are more attractive to people across cultures and historical times. But where does this biological attraction to facial symmetry come from? First, we must consider how symmetry develops.

Like all vertebrates, humans have bilateral symmetry about the sagittal plane. For the most part, our right side develops as a mirror image of our left side.

CFF/Wikicommons
Source: CFF/Wikicommons
Beginning during embryonic development and continuing through growth and maturity, the same developmental genes should be activated in the same cells, at the same time, and with the same dosage. In the ideal situation, all of that unfolds identically in the left and right sides of our faces, leading to perfect symmetry between the two halves.

Of course, in the real world, the tiniest fluctuations in gene expression and cellular activity lead to small differences between the two halves of our face.

Look closely at your face in the mirror (or a friend’s face). You can usually see that one eye is slightly larger than the other. The larger eye is also usually higher. The nostrils usually show asymmetry in their size and shape as well, and the height and size of the ears can be surprisingly asymmetric also.

article continues after advertisement

All of this asymmetry adds up to a symmetry score for each human face, and these symmetry scores strongly influence how attractively we rate faces. Using CGI, researchers can transform an image of a face that most people rate as highly attractive into one that rates poorly simply by tweaking the symmetry.

But why do we find symmetrical faces more attractive? The dominant scientific explanation for the attractiveness of facial symmetry is sometimes called “Evolutionary Advantage Theory.” If the grand choreography of developmental gene expression is perfectly executed, the result is perfect symmetry.

Therefore, anything less than perfect symmetry indicates some kind of dysfunction, however small. If, on one side of the face, a gene gets expressed too much or too little, in slightly the wrong place, or a bit early or late, the tissue will take shape in a slightly different pattern than on the other side. Most of these small fluctuations result in what is called micro-asymmetry, which we can’t detect with the naked eye (but which we may be subconsciously aware of).

However, larger differences in symmetry may indicate issues that have occurred (or are ongoing) with the growth and development of the individual. Some factors that are known to affect facial symmetry are infections, inflammation, allergic reactions, injuries, mutations, chronic stress, malnourishment, DNA damage, parasites, and genetic and metabolic diseases. Each of these is a potential handicap to the success of the individual and possibly his or her offspring.

While the resulting facial asymmetry is probably the least of the person’s worries, the rest of us respond negatively to it, because it could indicate reduced fitness. Since mating strategies invariably involve the pursuit of the highest quality mate possible, facial asymmetry knocks someone down a few pegs in terms of their attractiveness. This is the currently dominant thinking about why humans strongly prefer symmetry in each other’s faces.

article continues after advertisement

The preference for symmetrical faces is not limited to s*xual attraction and mate selection. Facial symmetry appears to influence how we pursue friends and allies as well.

Of course, we all want a “high-quality” mate and co-parent of our children, but we also want friends that are high quality and, dare I say it, high status. It’s an awful thing about us, but everyone wants to be friends with the rich, powerful, and popular.

This reality has become crystal clear in today’s society where people can be “famous for being famous,” having produced essentially nothing of value to anyone and possessing no identifiable skills, talents, or accomplishments and still somehow be known as an important “influencer.” I digress.

It's not altogether surprising that we, as a species, would read so much into faces. We speak face-to-face, and we spend a lot of time looking at each other's faces even when we're not in a conversation. We also have an exceptional degree of diversity in our faces, and this probably comes from the face-centric nature of our social interactions.

In sum, facial symmetry is universally associated with beauty and attractiveness in both s*xes and in s*xual and non-s*xual contexts. The most well-supported theory for this is that our species has evolved to recognize symmetry, if unconsciously, as a proxy for good genes and physical health. This gives us a tentative answer to the question: What’s in a face?

Is facial symmetry a sign of good health?
Is facial symmetry a sign of good health?
Research suggests that people with more symmetric faces are perceived as more attractive, have better developed immune system, and are more resistant to upper respiratory tract infections. What are the reasons for and the implications of this relationship? Dr hab. Urszula Marcinkowska Trimboli from the JU MC Institute of Public Health will shed some light on this issue.



The perception of human faces plays an important role in many areas of our lives. Persons who look like ourselves seem more trustworthy than strangers (DeBruine et al. 2005), femininity or masculinity of facial features has an impact on their perceived attractiveness (Little et al. 2011), and so does the similarity of a given face to the faces of our parents (Marcinkowska et al. 2012) or siblings (Marcinkowska et al. 2013). What’s more, the perceived attractiveness of other people’s faces differs depending on the beholder’s living conditions, (Marcinkowska et al. 2014, Marcinkowska et al. 2019), age (Marcinkowska et al. 2017), and the level of s*x hormones (Marcinkowska et al. 2018).

One of the features that impact the perception of faces is symmetry, and, more precisely, lack of what is known as fluctuating asymmetry, which is defined as the random deviation from perfect symmetry in bilateral physical traits, which does not display any directional tendency (Vanvalen 1962). For several dozen years, researchers have been searching for the causes of fluctuating asymmetry and trying to understand its association with the perceived attractiveness and other personal traits (Grammer and Thornhill 1994).

It is thought that the level of facial asymmetry can serve as an indicator showing the body’s capability of bilaterally symmetrical development in the face of adverse environmental factors (such as energy deficiencies or pathogens, Parsons 1990). This means that facial symmetry can reflect developmental stability (also prenatal) and indicate the so-called inherited genetic quality (Thornhill and Moller 1997), which is broadly understood as the individual’s chances of passing on genes to future generations. In other words, this would mean that we are attracted to symmetrical faces, as they are a sign of good general health (including reproductive health) of a given person,

This line of reasoning links facial symmetry both to real (Van Dongen and Gangestad 2011) and perceived (Jones 2018) state of health. It has also turned out that oxidative stress (marker of the body’s aging speed) is related to face symmetry. The studies recently conducted in the Institute of Public Health of the Jagiellonian University Medical College have shown that the faces of women with high oxidative stress levels (whose bodies aged more quickly) were perceived as less symmetrical by randomly selected judges and were indeed less symmetrical (Marcinkowska et al. 2020).

Yet, not all research suggest such a simple relationship between symmetry on the one hand and health and attractiveness on the other. The recently published study based on a large population sample, has not confirmed the association between facial symmetry and a number of real indicators of health condition (Foo et al. 2017). It is thus unclear, which specific aspects of health are linked to facial symmetry and at which point of an individual’s development (from conception to death) can this relationship be strengthened or weakened.

Original text by Dr hab. Urszula Marcinkowska Trimboli from the JU MC Institute of Public Health: www.nauka.uj.edu.pl

What Scientists Have to Say about Facial Beauty
By Margaret Seide, MD Updated on May 25, 2021
Medically reviewed by Rachel Goldman, PhD, FTOS
Print
Features that psychologists have found to be indicators of beauty
Verywell / Jiaqi Zhou

Table of Contents
Where Does Our Idea of Beauty Come From?
How Is Beauty Defined?
It isn’t necessarily fair, but there is a substantial body of research demonstrating that being perceived as beautiful or handsome offers some advantages. Physical attractiveness has important social consequences.

It may not be surprising that attractive individuals fair better in the world of dating. What you may not know is that beauty is also associated with more plentiful and stronger-bonded platonic relationships.

Beauty also correlates with upward economic mobility, especially for women. In mock interviews, those deemed to be attractive based on certain traits (more on this later) are significantly more likely to be hired for a position. This is true even when they have comparable education and experience to other applicants.1

Good looks even influences perception of seriousness of committed crimes and that more attractive people pay lower bail, on average.

There seems to be an attractiveness stereotype. People perceived as beautiful are viewed as more competent, kinder, and in general as having more socially desirable traits than those considered as less attractive.1

This article sums up the latest findings about beauty from a scientific perspective. It appears that the eyes tend to prefer or be more attracted to certain facial features and there may be some evolutionary reasons why.

Attractiveness Affects How Sexual Harassment Claims Are Received
Where Does Our Idea of Beauty Come From?
It is an understandably common misconception that our ideas of beauty come from cultural influences such as movies and magazines. Most of us believe that we are “taught” what is beautiful based on the images presented to us throughout our life.

If this were true, that would mean that what defines attractiveness would differ based on culture and era. It would also mean that babies should have very little context for beauty, and therefore not know what it is. None of that is true.

How Babies Perceive Beauty
It turns out that we are only minimally influenced by culture and experience. There are some human facial features that seem to be universally and reliably appraised as attractive, and even babies agree.2

How can we measure what infants understand about beauty? We know that children stare at things that are interesting and appealing to them, such as bright colors.

In one study, infant’s preferences were calculated based on eye-tracking technology. The results indicate that babies between 12 and 24 months old display visual preferences for things such as facial symmetry and features that are typically associated with facial femininity. These are among the same preferences that grown-ups have. Infant’s appreciation for attractiveness of adult faces are in alignment with that of adults.3

This point about infants is crucial in that babies have not yet been programmed by culture, advertisements, or celebrity images.

It answers the question, how would someone perceive beauty if their brain were scrubbed of all the societal influences? Their visual attraction to certain facial characteristics represents a more pure neurobiological response.

How You Can Help Boost Your Child's Self-Esteem
How Is Beauty Defined?
The commonly used phrase ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ implies that visual beauty is this undefinable, mysterious thing. However, what we know to be true is that scientists have boiled down human facial attractiveness to a few key determinants and that there is fairly tight consensus across time, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds.

The basic technique used to determine this is having study participants review and give their impression of pictures of various faces. There is then analysis of what attributes were common to the more favorably rated faces.

Researchers can also digitally manipulate features of the images and observe how that influences opinion. For example, making the jaw of a man more square in an image and seeing how that influences response to the face.

Below are some of the characteristics and the evolutionary theory behind why those attributes may be sought after.

While Verywell aims to be inclusive to all genders, s*xualities, etc. please note that much of the scientific research conducted on the topic of beauty and attractiveness, is still based on the surveying of cis-gendered, heteros*xual men and women.

Symmetry
Symmetry refers to the extent to which one half of an object is the same as the other half. Our faces are not exactly the same on both halves. Symmetry is one of those qualities that consistently rates as desirable across cultures, and even across species, when it comes to mate selection.

When images were manipulated in no other way than to make one side of a face more closely resemble the other side of the face, that dramatically increased the likelihood of that person being regarded as more attractive when compared to the unaltered image.

This may be related to the evolutionary drive to reproduce. In men, a symmetrical body correlates to increased s***m count and s***m health. Breast symmetry in women is associated with increased fertility.1

Secondary Sexual Characteristics
This refers to the qualities that are associated with the way in which a face becomes more masculinized or feminized following puberty. Typically, masculine features such as a large jaw and a prominent brow ridge are associated with dominance and handsomeness. The same is true of things such as fuller lips and higher or fuller cheeks in women.

Women with more feminized faces were found to have higher circulating estrogen, on average. Similarly, increased testosterone relates to more typically “manly” features. These outward indications of a person’s greater hormonal levels are valued in potential mates.1

The Appearance of Health
Features that give indication of health and vitality are prized and considered alluring. This includes things such as skin color. Not any particular color but homogeneity of color, as in evenness of skin tone. This, along with smooth texture, fewer blemishes and lines are associated with health of facial skin.4

These qualities are felt to signify health even when someone is shown a patch of skin without a full face. Skin condition is a particularly useful marker of current health status.

Redness of cheeks and lips may signal fitness and more oxygenated blood which explains the association between redness and attractiveness. Women are seen as more attractive by men when presented with red backgrounds or when wearing red clothing relative to other colors.

A pale or sallow complexion, or a high waste to hip ratio in women are indicators of illness or a suboptimal metabolic picture and are perceived as less appealing.1

Indicators of Personality
People were rated as more attractive when their features seemed to indicate socially valued traits such as kindness, contentedness or cheerfulness. Although facial expressions are transient, faces shown smiling are almost always rated as more beautiful than neutral faces. Particularly when combined with direct eye contact or when the smile is perceived as directed at the person rating the picture.

Earlier in the article, it was mentioned that masculine features were seen as more attractive. That is more true for women who were already romantically partnered, who were around their time of ovulation (when women are most fertile) or in the context of short-term relationship seeking.

During other phases of the menstrual cycle, a more feminized version of a male face is preferred. Instead of dominance, feminine traits are associated with honesty, warmth, and being cooperative. In other words, features that wouldn’t necessarily be associated with fertility but with stable parenting.1

Partner Status
Research shows that men labelled as married were more alluring than men labelled as single. Women also rate men as more enticing when they are shown as surrounded by other women than when they are shown alone or with other men.

People also perceive someone as more attractive, in part, if their prior romantic partner had features associated with the standard of beauty.1

Other Influencers of Attractiveness
An interesting quality that determines how fetching you will find someone is what you look like. Women seem to have an aversion to opposite-s*x faces that looked like them. When men were looking at opposite-s*x faces that had similar facial features to them, there was an aversion to those images, but only when asked to consider the partner for short-term relationships. However, this is not true regarding longer term unions. This may explain why you may have noticed that couples sometimes resemble each other.1

This may be due to the fact that the part of the brain felt to be responsible for interpreting beauty called the cingulate gyrus, is also related to self-assessment.5

Other studies have shown that for hair and eye color, the best predictor of a partner’s traits are the opposite-s*x parent’s color traits. Individuals also seem to be most drawn to faces in the age range consistent with the age their parents were when they were born.1

Furthermore, women who rate their childhood relationship with their father as positive, show stronger attraction to men whose face proportions are similar to their father’s face.