Aesthetics

This article addresses two papers on the attractive form of the umbilicus in women.

Here is a novel approach to generating more attractive faces using a computer, though the morphing methodology used leaves much to be desired.  The article is by Wong et al.^{(1, pdf)}

Potter and Corneille came up with the following study:^{(1, pdf)}

Abstract: Face attractiveness relates positively to the mathematical averageness of a face, but how close attractive faces of varying groups are to their own and to other-group prototypes in the face space remains unclear.  In two studies, we modeled the locations of attractive and unattractive Caucasian, Asian, and African faces in participants’ face space using multidimensional scaling analysis.  In all three sets of faces, facial attractiveness significantly increased with the absolute proximity of a face to its group prototype.  In the case of Caucasian and African faces (Study 1), facial attractiveness also tended to increase with the absolute proximity of a face to the other-group prototype.  However, this association was at best marginal, and it became clearly non-significant when distance to the own-group prototype was controlled for.  Thus, the present research provides original evidence that average features of faces contribute to increasing their attractiveness, but only when these features are average to the group to which a face belongs.  The present research also offers further support to face space models of people’s mental representations of faces.

Here are two studies on cross-cultural comparisons.

Two studies follow.

Springer et al.^{(1, pdf)} showed the following noses individually to 308 judges and asked them to judge whether they belong to women or men.  Each of the four images shows the average of a sample of men or women, none of whom were the judges.

One point that has repeatedly come up in this site’s criticism is that beauty standards fluctuate greatly, an alleged example being that overweight women were preferred in medieval Europe.  Just about everyone points out Peter Paul Rubens’ paintings featuring obese women.  What did medieval Europeans prefer in women’s looks?

Swami et al. examined whether feminist identification in women is associated with different body weight preferences.^{(1, pdf)}

In many animals, including most mammalian species (roughly, milk-producing animals), the male looks much more spectacular than the female and is more dependent on his looks for reproductive success.  A classic example is that of peacocks and peahens, where the male looks magnificent and the female comparatively dull; another example is of lions vs. lionesses.  A general theme in such species is that the investment of the female in producing and rearing offspring is much greater, making the females largely choose the males and the males court the females, for which they need to impress the females, which they often do through their looks.  Among humans, women invest more heavily in raising children, and courtship, with a minority of exceptions, mostly comprises of males seeking to impress women, but the general theme in human societies is that physical attractiveness (henceforth attractiveness) is more important for women.  Why is this so?

Swami et al. showed line drawings of men and women that varied the length of the legs relative to height, and had the figures rated for appeal by men and women.^{(1, pdf)}