Running head: STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Standards of Facial Beauty

Joy Li
The Pennsylvania State University

Author Note
This document was prepared for the Science journal by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Abstract
The effects of manipulating facial feature sizing on perception of beauty were examined
in the study. Forty-seven participants were enlisted in the study, and asked to take a two part
survey. The goal of the study was to determine whether theories about "golden" ratios of the face
and average sizing of facial features were true in terms of maximizing perception of
attractiveness. The effect of averageness of feature size was tested, in particular through the
study. An image of a female face with "golden ratio" proportions was manipulated to increase or
decrease (by 10% in size) three features in isolation. The features were the eyes, the nose, and
the mouth. The manipulated feature images were compared directly to the original or each other,
and subjects were asked to select which face they found more attractive. This portion of the
survey indicated that the original (the average feature sizes) are preferred over any of the three
feature deviations, for both the larger and smaller sizes. The survey also asked the participants to
rank the images on a scale of 1-5 of how attractive they found the faces, with 5 being the most
attractive. This portion indicated that the original image received the highest number of "4" and
"5" votes, while the feature manipulations all averaged around either a "3" or a "4" in
attractiveness. The study showed that average-sized features are preferred over any deviations in
terms of eyes, nose, and mouth size, validating the golden ratio/sizing theories.
Background
Beauty, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, is "the quality of being pleasing,
especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you
look at it. " However, this does not nearly begin to touch upon what the word encompasses. As
human beings, it is in our nature to want to be beautiful and to feel beautiful. As animals, it is in
our nature to want to be desired by others, as a precursor to reproduction, for the purpose of

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

passing along our genes. While a portion of attraction can be attributed to hormones, another
major player involving physical attraction is derived from visual appearance- namely, the
appearance of the face. Although there is a general, agreed-upon definition for the word beauty,
it is what actually makes something beautiful that is difficult to define. What is it about certain
faces that make them more aesthetically pleasing than others?
Vera Cruz references an experiment conducted by Kun which indicated that there was
evidence that a "preference for beautiful faces emerges early in child development, and that the
standards of attractiveness are similar across different genders and cultures" (as cited in Vera
Cruz, 2013). Pallett also references Rubenstein to explain that a preference for attractive faces
"exists from early infancy and is robust across age, gender, and ethnicity" (as cited in Pallett,
Link & Lee, 2010). These studies indicate an unconscious selection by infants and young
children toward more "beautiful" individuals/faces. Without even recognizing the mechanism for
the preference, the children were more inclined towards more attractive faces. It then becomes
apparent that we have an innate inclination towards more attractive individuals without realizing
it is a result of that inclination towards beauty.
Of course, the first step in realization must be recognition of the subject itself. What
causes something to be considered beautiful? There have been many attempts to answer this
question, the most frequent theory being a "golden ratio" of the face. Pallett's experiment found
that an optimally attractive state existed in terms of length and width ratios of the face. The
relationship between the eye to mouth had an ideal distance, the face length had an ideal
distance, and the eye-to-eye to facial width had an ideal distance (Pallett, Link & Lee, 2010).
Vera Cruz's study showed that the participants from different countries, continents, and cultures
demonstrated a similar assessment of the beauty of twenty-five faces. This suggested a similar

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

regard for proportionality in beauty (Vera Cruz, 2013). Both these studies identified a specific
proportionality that individuals found to be the most attractive and the most pleasing to the eye.
This general set up of the face featured what was the most aesthetic set up of each face.
Similarly, many studies that were conducted focused on the idea of "averageness" as the
classification for what was deemed beautiful. Despite how contradictory this concept seems,
scientific studies show that this theory is equally valid. Chen's study discussed recent
psychological experiments that found agreement across age, sex and ethnicity for what was
considered a beautiful face, and that they demonstrated how location of organs of the face was a
factor of the perception of facial attractiveness. This went onto discuss a genetic algorithm that
was adopted to generate prototypes of beautiful faces by Johnston and Franklin (as cited by
Chen, Zhang & Zhao, 2011). These experiments suggest there is some sort of formula to the term
"beautiful."
Another similar theory involves the concept of symmetry of the face. Vera Cruz explored
the idea that the more symmetrical both faces and bodies were, the more attractive, sexy, and
healthy those individuals were considered to be, a theory reported from a study conducted by
Erwing. It was also concluded that "symmetry was perceived to suggest that the individuals
would have the ability to create healthy offspring" (as cited by Vera Cruz, 2013). This association
plays into the innate attraction we have toward individuals we perceive to be attractive. The
symmetry, is quite literally, easy on the eyes. The human brain theoretically finds beauty and
enchantment in symmetry, and the role of symmetry in beauty is therefore supported.
In contrast, however, Valentine's study concluded that the effect of averageness is
independent of any effect of symmetry on the perceived attractiveness of female faces. This
experiment compared the modification of both the full-face view and the profile view of the face,

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

evaluating the correlation between attraction and averageness. The results indicated a
significantly higher correlation with the full-face view, but both views were more attractive as an
average (Valentine, Darling & Donnelly, 2004). Many studies have either implied a connection
between symmetry and averageness, or have treated the concepts as interchangeable. This study
raises the idea that they are, in fact, not. The profile of the face altered towards the more average,
was enough to be deemed more beautiful, without the presence of symmetry in the mix.
Rhodes, Yoshikawa, Clark, Lee, McKay & Akamatsu, too, (2001) directed a study
towards the idea of symmetry and averageness in Non-Western faces. Increasing the averageness
of a face made it more attractive, while decreasing the averageness of a face made it less
attractive. In addition, an averaged composite of faces was considered more attractive than the
individual faces of the composite. These averaged composites were also rated as more attractive
than the average-version of the individual faces (p. 622). This was interesting as it indicated that
average positioning of features created a more attractive face, but averaged overall features in
addition to the positioning created an even more beautiful face. As suggested by the experiment,
features that are neither too small nor too big, are great factors in attractiveness.
This idea seems contradictory, as well, though. In many Asian cultures, large, doe-like
eyes are considered to be the epitome of beauty, with many individuals participating in doubleeyelid cosmetic surgery to open them up. In the United States, there is not as precise of a
measure for certain features, but in respect to the lips, lip plumping and lip injections have
become something of a trend, and people seek out methods to obtain the "Angelina Jolie pout."
Noses, too, seem to be a point of contention. The slender, thin nose with a mildly pronounced
bridge can typically be regarded as the perfect, little nose. Not only that, with the craze of

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

highlighting and contouring, it has become standard to shade and brighten the nose in a way as to
sharpen and slim the width of the nose.
Still, overall, the studies indicated that the more "average" a face appeared, the more
people were drawn to it. Through the variables of symmetry, averageness, and proportionality a
general face of beauty can be formulated. The features of the face should be symmetrically
placed, and the facial structure and shape should be similarly symmetric. The features should be
located at average positions on the face, at certain distances from one another, while the features
themselves should be of average size and type. The eyes should follow a horizontal line across
the face, not tilted up or down. The nose should be neither upturned nor downturned. The mouth
should be medium-sized, both lengthwise and widthwise. The facial structure, too, should be of
average size and shape. There are, of course, exceptions to this generalization, but this design is
the best method of creating an attractive, beautiful face.
The research previously conducted implies that there exists a formula that loosely creates
a face that is considered beautiful, and that can be used to evaluate the beauty of a specific face.
As with any other real-life laws of nature, exceptions exist. The faces produced by this "formula"
may not all be considered the same level of beautiful, and some of the faces may not even
necessarily be considered any level of beautiful by certain individuals. The results of the
experiments themselves are averages. There may have been outliers among the test subjects as
preferences vary from individual to individual. The average features are found to be most
attractive, by the average test subject. The faces that fit the "formula" may not always be
considered attractive, and faces that do not fit may be considered beautiful by many. Formulas
are only applicable to a certain extent. Although these experiments elucidate a great deal on the
concept of a standard of beauty, there is much more to be explored. Are there specific types of

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

features that resonate more frequently with individuals as being beautiful? Are there feature
types that alone can make a face more attractive? Previous studies indicate facial beauty is an
effect of averageness in facial feature proportion and averageness in facial feature size. But, how
valid is this theory? For one thing, there are always anomalies; individuals may have "irregular"
and "irregularly-placed" features, but still be considered very attractive by a number of people.
Secondly, the standard of beauty changes over time. For instance, a more natural, bushy brow is
in style at the moment, but was not a few years ago. The standard of beauty also varies from
culture to culture. In the Chinese culture, large eyes, eye folds, and pale skin are all features that
together, form the "perfect face." This is not the case in American culture. Lastly, people disagree
on what faces they consider to be attractive. It is safe to assume that people have variations in
preference for different features, so is there really a way to maximize beauty through the correct
sizing and placements of the features of the face?
Perhaps, in comparison to the very extremes of the spectrum the "average" theories hold
true, but with respect to minor deviances from the actual "average," people have preferences for
the deviances. If beauty is a subjective thing, how can there any standard of beauty? Is there
really a perfect formula, and is it possible to have a standard that is constantly being altered? do
people really prefer the "average-sized" feature to the deviations, and if not, is there a deviation
that they prefer (slightly larger features or slightly smaller features)?
Method/Procedure
The study was carried out through the use of a simple survey, in order to collect the
opinions of numerous individuals. This method was most effective, since it was necessary to
reach as many individuals as possible and ask direct questions to the participants. The survey
consisted of two parts. The first part involved the forced choice of one face over another, so that

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

more standardized data was obtained. There was no "none of the above" option. An image of a
woman's face that fulfilled the "golden ratio" of facial feature positioning and the "golden"
proportions of facial feature sizing was chosen. Then, three features were altered: the eyes, the
nose, and the mouth. Each isolated feature was manipulated to be 10% larger and 10% smaller,
and subjects were asked to choose the face they felt was more attractive in the direct comparison
of two faces. This portion consisted of nine questions and subjects were asked to choose between
(1) the larger manipulation vs. the original image, (2) the smaller manipulation vs. the original
image, and (3) the larger manipulation vs. the smaller manipulation. This was completed for each
of the three features. This identified whether individuals preferred the original image or one of
the manipulated images. By comparing the two manipulations, a general preference for one
deviation (bigger or smaller) was measured.
The second part of the survey consisted of ranking the same images on level of
attractiveness, on a Likert scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most attractive. This indicated the extent
to which the general preferred certain feature sizes to the original, and to the other size.
Results
The goal that was set for survey participants was 50 individuals, and the actual number of
participants that were enlisted was 47. This number is close enough to the goal number for the
results to be considered satisfactory in predicting trends.
The data produced by the first portion of the survey is presented in Table 1. The results
indicated that between faces, the original face with ideally sized features was chosen to be more
attractive than any other feature size deviation. It ranged from being 68% to 89% the more
attractive face when compared to faces with manipulated eyes size, manipulated mouth size, and
manipulated nose size. When the deviances were compared against one another, preference

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

between big eyes and small eyes was very nearly 50/50. Participants preferred big eyes slightly
more than small eyes at 51.06%. When the deviances for mouth size were compared, 74.47% of
participants preferred the smaller manipulation, which was a significant difference. When the
nose deviances were compared to each another, the smaller manipulation was preferred at 61.7%.
The data collected from the second portion of the survey is presented in Table 2. The
ranking of the different faces revealed that a majority of the participants had chosen "4" for most
of the faces. The only deviation from this were for mouth size, where "3" was chosen more
frequently for both the larger mouth and the smaller mouth, and the big nose, where "3" and "4"
were equal in preference at 34.04% each. The original face had the greatest number of "5's" at
34.04%, and the big mouth face had the lowest number of "5's", at 4.26%. The big mouth also
had the greatest percentage of "1's", at 6.38%.
In terms of the specifics, the original face was largely preferred as demonstrated by the
ranking data. 87.23% of the participants found the original to be either a "4" or "5" in
attractiveness, the greatest ranking of any of the faces. Big mouth was shown to be the least
preferred feature, with less "4's" and "5's" than all the other deviations, and more "1's" and "2's".
Apart from this, all other deviation faces were ranked to be nearly the same in attractiveness,
with similar distributions of preference across the five scores.
Conclusions
The goal of the study was to prove that individuals have a preference for certain size
deviations of facial features from the average, in attempt to disprove the idea that average-sized
facial features and average proportions for placement of facial features are considered to be the
most attractive by the general public. However, this goal was not supported by the results of the
experiment. The data collected showed that the original face was always preferred in comparison

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

to deviances, indicating that the idealized, average, "golden ratio" face is, in fact, accurate in
being the face that is most perceived to be attractive. Not once did a deviation in feature size of
any of the three features beat out the original as being preferred by the majority. Some
differences in preference were not as significant as others, but original was always considered the
most attractive in comparison to the two manipulations for each feature.
For the direct deviation comparisons, the face with the smaller nose was significantly
favored over the one with the larger nose. This idea was consistent with the popular beauty
trends of highlighting and contouring for the illusion of a slimmer nose. However, the direct
comparison of the smaller mouth deviation to the larger mouth deviation yielded unexpected
results. The face with the smaller mouth was chosen to be more attractive than the one with the
bigger mouth. This seemed to contradict popular beauty trends of lip plumping and lip injections,
in attempt to achieve larger lips. Additionally, a slight preference for the larger eyes over smaller
ones was expected, but none was noted.
It can be interpreted from this experiment that there exists an idealized face-layout with
specific feature-position proportions and specific feature-size proportions that is perceived to be
the most attractive version of a face. Certain deviances were favored over other deviances, but
none were favored over the ideal. The "golden" ratio and average sizing theories effectively
create a face that is considered by a majority of individuals to be beautiful.

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

References
Chen, F., Zhang, D., & Zhao, Q. (2011). Quantitative analysis of human facial beauty using
geometric features. Pattern Recognition, 44(4), 940-950. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2010.10.013
Pallett, P.M., Link, S., & Lee, K. (2010). New golden ratios for facial beauty. Vision Research,
50(2), 149-154. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.003
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Akamatsu, S. (2001).
Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of
biological standards of beauty. Perception, 30(5), 611-625.
http://pec.sagepub.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/30/5/611.full.pdf+html
Valentine, T., Darling, S., & Donnelly, M. (2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of
view and averageness of female faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 482-487.
http://link.springer.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/article/10.3758%2FBF03196599
Vera Cruz, G. (2013). Cross-Cultural Study of Facial Beauty. Journal of Psychology in Africa,
23(1), 87-90. http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94272434&site=ehost-live&scope=site

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Appendix A
1.) Select which face you find more attractive for each pair

Pair 1

Pair 2

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 3

Pair 4

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 5

Pair 6

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 7

Pair 8

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 9
2.) Rate how attractive each face is on a scale of 1-5 (5 being most attractive)

Pair 1

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 2

Pair 3

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 4

Pair 5

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 6

Pair 7

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Pair 8

Pair 9
Any additional comments?

STANDARDS OF FACIAL BEAUTY

Appendix B
Question Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Table 1: Survey Part 1

Percentages of Subjects Preferred

31.91% Big Eyes
68.09% Original
23.4% Small Eyes
76.6% Original
51.06% Big Eyes
48.94% Small Eyes
25.53% Big Mouth
74.47% Original
31.91% Small Mouth
68.09% Original
25.53% Big Mouth
74.47% Small Mouth
10.64% Big Nose
89.36% Original
23.4% Small Nose
76.6% Original
38.3% Big Nose
61.7% Small Nose

Question Number
1
10: Big Eyes
0%
11: Small Eyes
0%
12: Big Mouth
6.38%
13: Small Mouth
2.13%
14: Big Nose
2.13%
15: Small Nose
4.26%
16: Original
0%
Table 2: Survey Part 2

2
2.13%
8.51%
23.4%
17.02%
17.02%
12.77%
4.26%

3
21.28%
31.91%
38.3%
40.43%
34.04%
29.79%
8.51%

4
63.83%
46.81%
27.66%
27.66%
34.04%
40.43%
53.19%

5
12.77%
12.77%
4.26%
12.77%
12.77%
12.77%
34.04%