Picture ©Lightworks-Gallery, V. Schrader
A small series of articles by Dr. med. Margrit Lettko (Medical Director of the Network Aesthetics) and Dirk Brandl (Speaker Network Aesthetics)
Have you already read the first two parts of this series of articles? If not, then follow this link to get to the very beginning, or this link to get to part 2.
When is a person actually considered attractive?
The three most important theories of attractiveness research are
- the hypothesis of averages
- the symmetry hypothesis
- the theory of sexual dimorphism.
We would like to deal with these three hypotheses in particular because they are frequently referred to at congresses or in articles on aesthetics. If an aesthetically working physician or an innocent reader like one or the other of you draws conclusions for his work or his own charisma, he or she might make fatal mistakes, because: There is quite a lot of research on these three theories which, on closer examination, reveal contradictions and methodological flaws. None of the theories of attractiveness research that have been put forward seems to be able to explain attractiveness in a really scientifically tenable way.
To point 1: Averageness
In attractiveness research, the thesis applies that averageness is the prerequisite for attractiveness. Average here refers to the mathematical average of a population. With the help of morphing software (changing the face and/or body contours with a software programme) mathematical average faces were developed and compared with the original faces. From this the scientists derived the average hypothesis which is still valid today in attractiveness research.
A closer examination of the studies reveals some very striking deficiencies, however, which relate on the one hand to the methods used, and on the other hand to the underlying hypotheses (only that can be found which was also asked about), which we would like to touch on here and which Gründl worked out excellently in his habilitation (we give literature recommendations at the end of the series). He proves in detail that the statement of averageness is based on false assumptions and is therefore simply wrong. If at all, then averageness has only a small, non-significant influence, and that only if the more attractive faces are morphed. Gründl’s research shows that the seemingly large attractiveness enhancing effect of mediocrity is due to artefacts of morphing itself. Image processing leads to a better skin texture. Flaws become smaller or even no longer visible, the skin becomes smoother.
The condition of the skin plays an important role in assessing its attractiveness, which is easy to understand; after all, flawless skin is an unmistakable sign of health and, above all, youthfulness. The healthier or more youthful the skin itself, through its texture, uniformity of colour and tone, the more attractive the person is judged to be. Average facial proportions lead to nothing more than a mediocre appearance.
To point 2: Symmetry
Does the face have to be symmetrical for it to look beautiful? After all, symmetry is considered an outward sign of genetic health. The theory of attractiveness research says: If the external shape is symmetrical, the probability of healthy genes is much higher and thus also of viable offspring.
Whether symmetry is really the only indicator of genetic quality may be questionable at the moment. There are many studies on symmetry and attractiveness, which vary depending on the methodology used.
Gründl was able to show that the symmetry hypothesis must be regarded as refuted, taking into account previous methodological shortcomings. According to him, supposed influences of symmetry on the attractiveness of faces are based on method artefacts. According to him, symmetry is completely irrelevant as an attractiveness criterion. Attractiveness cannot be increased even by perfect optimisation of facial proportions. Conversely, this also means that more attractive faces are automatically perceived as more symmetrical by the viewer. The asymmetry as such, if it is not extreme, is not noticed at all. After all, we all have faces that deviate from perfect symmetry, and that is precisely what we find attractive.
To point 3: Sexual dimorphism
The following explanations are again based on Gründl. Sexual dimorphism means that attractive faces look particularly gender-typical, i.e. typically feminine or typically masculine.
The baby schema hypothesis that signs of a child are part of a woman’s attractiveness is closely related to this hypothesis.
The theoretical background of the “sexual dimorphism” hypothesis is to be found in evolutionary psychology. According to this hypothesis, high testosterone causes strong expression of secondary male sexual characteristics, but also high susceptibility to disease, as testosterone suppresses the immune system, which has so far only been observed in animals, but not in humans.
Since a high susceptibility to disease would not be particularly beneficial for reproduction, the handicap hypothesis is now being used. According to this hypothesis, only particularly healthy men equipped with a genetically determined capable immune system would be able to afford to develop such secondary sexual characteristics (immunocompetence handicap hypothesis). In women, on the other hand, a low testosterone level is said to be advantageous, as it reduces susceptibility to disease.
The same marker, testosterone, is therefore assessed on a gender-specific basis, which does not support the validity of the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be correct, the oestrogen level of the woman and the resulting female sexual characteristics are then used. High oestrogen levels = female sexual (=facial) characteristics = better fertility.
Empirical findings on the statement that male facial characteristics increase their attractiveness in men vary greatly depending on the method used (anthropometric measurement, experimental manipulation by computer, direct rating scales). This most probably speaks for methodological errors. Gründl suspects a possibly curvilinear relationship between male facial features and attractiveness. The different statements of women, who sometimes prefer machos, sometimes softies, also speak for this.
The typical child characteristics are, with some exceptions, congruent with the female characteristics, which is why many studies are based on the child scheme. The comparison of previous studies as well as the experiments newly designed by Gründl show that the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism probably only applies to women’s faces. Female faces that were approximated to the Kindchen scheme were rated as more attractive if the proportion did not exceed 40%. According to Cunningham, it is the mixture of childishness and maturity that makes female beauty attractive. The sign of maturity that plays a role here is the height of the cheekbones, as well as the melting of the cheek fat and the resulting cheek shadow – however, this mixture ratio is variable and changes according to personality, requirements or zeitgeist.
The less attractive man also seems to benefit from childlike traits, whereas the man already considered attractive does not. For men, it is probably more a question of the mixture of childlike and masculine characteristics.
So much for the three hypotheses of attractiveness research. So we can safely throw them away. But you will always come across one or the other argumentation when researching what attractiveness means. So if your face is neither average, nor particularly symmetrical, nor does it have any particularly prominent male or child-female attributes, this does not mean anything at all: you can still be attractive!
In part IV of the series we will report on the criteria by which an aesthetically working doctor evaluates attractiveness and therefore treats accordingly. An overview of all the works discussed or quoted can be found at the end of part 6.