While the concept of “love at first sight” seems far-fetched, the human preference for certain facial features is evolutionarily significant. In today’s society, however, cosmetics complicate visual cues of familiarity and attraction.
Appearance plays an enormous role in social interaction. It is our first impression on new connections, and conveys information about sex, cultural background, age, and occupation. While personality traits are also inferred from appearance, these are often gross assumptions (Graham and Jouhar, 1983). Even so, we associate desirable traits, such as kindness, sociability, and intellect, with facially attractive individuals (Bull and Rumsey, 2012). This fits with the social phenomenon that “what is beautiful is (believed to be) good” (Dion and Walster, 1972).
From an evolutionary perspective, we are attracted to individuals with whom we would successfully reproduce; so, “beautiful” faces are associated with higher fitness (Fink and Neave, 2005). For example, sex hormones, such as testosterone and estrogens, allow for development of characteristically masculine or feminine traits. However, such hormones are toxic to the immune system, so prominent sexually dimorphic characteristics may only develop in individuals with healthy immune response (Fink and Neave, 2005).
Similarly, females with smooth, red-tinted skin are considered more attractive. These factors are associated with good health: homogeneous skin is free of lesions, and a pink hue indicates good circulation (Fink and Neave, 2005). Cosmetics often mimic these effects; foundation smoothes, while blush gives cheeks a pink glow. Full, well-defined lips are also considered beautiful, as they are associated with health and youth (Fink and Neave, 2005). Lipstick not only enhances lip shape, but can also lend a red colour to indicate good circulation.
Distinctive faces are easily recognizable, and we recognize tiny imperfections in familiar faces (Ueda and Koyamma, 2010). Light cosmetic use accentuates unique features and increases recognisability. However, composite images are considered more attractive than individual faces (Langlois and Roggman, 1990). As Galton (1878) noted, this is likely because composites remove “special villainous irregularities”. We react most favourably to faces close to the average of our immediate population, perhaps because they are most “face-like”, compared to those that deviate further from the mean (Langlois and Roggman, 1990). Symmetrical faces are most attractive (Fink and Neave, 2005). Heavy makeup can make features appear to be more symmetrical, but can reduce recognisability (Ueda and Koyama, 2010).
Within the same ethnic group, females have lighter skin than males (Russel, 2009). Both have regions of darker skin, but the contrast is sexually dimorphic; female lips and eyes contrast more with the face than these features in males. Increased contrast in female features is considered attractive, while decreased contrast is attractive in males (Figure 1) (Russel, 2009). So, as many cosmetics accentuate lips and eyes, and thus increase facial contrast, “made-up” faces may be perceived as more feminine, and female faces may seem more attractive.
Eyebrows are also extremely important in facial recognition, perhaps even more than eyes (Sadr, Jarudi and Sinha, 2003). Eyebrows take up a large proportion of the face, and are relatively high-contrast. Furthermore, they are unlikely to appear different in lighting, as they are not shaded by other features. Primate eyebrows are sexually dimorphic; males have thicker brows and more convex underlying muscular ridges (Sadr, Jarudi and Sinha, 2003). Although evolution greatly reduced human facial hair, modern eyebrows both protect against perspiration and precipitation, and play a key role in signal conveyance. The underlying musculature is highly mobile and easily contorted into expressions (Figure 2). Filling in brows, a common cosmetic practice, may enhance this expressive ability.
Appearance has always been an immense part of social identity. Today, cosmetics further complicate human interaction and attraction. So, while beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, this beauty is often helped along by colour, shading, and a great deal of time in front of the mirror.
References:
Bull, R. and Rumsey, N., 2012. The Social Psychology of Facial Appearance. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E., 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), pp.285–290.
Fink, B., and Neave, N., 2005. The biology of facial beauty. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27(6), pp.317–325.
Galton, F., 1878. Composite portraits. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain & Ireland, 8, 132-142.
Graham, J.A., and Jouhar, A.J., 1983. The Importance of Cosmetics in the Psychology of Appearance. International Journal of Dermatology, 22(3), pp.153–156.
Langlois, J.H., and Roggman, L.A., 1990. Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1(2), pp.115–121.
Russel, R., 2009. A sex difference in facial contrast and its exaggeration by cosmetics. Perception, 38(8), pp.1211–1219.
Sadr, J., Jarudi, I. and Sinha, P., 2003. The role of eyebrows in facial recognition. Perception, 32(3), pp.285–293.
Ueda, S. and Koyama, T., 2010. Influence of make-up on facial recognition. Perception, 39(2), pp.260–264.