New research provides evidence that objective, measurable aspects of a person’s three-dimensional facial shape determine how attractive that person is perceived by others, with distinct geometric patterns emerging in men and women. The findings suggest that the specific facial features that society considers attractive closely match the physical features that make individuals feel more attractive about themselves. The study was published in the journal Advances in orthodontics.
Facial appearance serves as the primary visual tool humans use to gather information during initial social interactions. In a fraction of a second, people unconsciously evaluate a stranger’s face to form lasting impressions about that person’s trustworthiness, competence, and overall health. These quick decisions do not require complex cognitive thinking and occur almost automatically upon visual contact. People who are perceived as physically attractive often receive favorable treatment in everyday life, which tends to make them more successful at work and easier to access romantic relationships.
“Physical attractiveness influences many aspects of our daily lives and plays an important role in everyday relationships,” said study author Georgios Kanavakis, assistant professor of orthodontics at the Faculty of Dentistry, National Kapodistrian University of Athens. “From first impressions and simple acquaintances to professional opportunities and romantic relationships. We tend to think of beauty as entirely subjective, but decades of research has shown that people tend to be surprisingly close in agreement about which faces they find attractive.”
Understanding the precise physical shape that makes faces attractive has fascinated scientists from multiple disciplines. “The primary motivation for patients to seek orthodontic treatment is to improve the appearance of their face and smile, so orthodontists have always focused on these topics,” Dr. Kanabakis explained. “My colleagues and I have always been interested in understanding which aspects of facial morphology contribute to the recognition that facial appearance produces.”
The researchers previously conducted two related studies to understand how people view their own faces. One previous study found that certain objective facial shapes had a significant impact on how attractive participants perceived themselves to be. In this sample, women who rated themselves as highly attractive tended to have narrower faces and fuller lower bodies. Men who were found to be very attractive had prominent jaws, flat cheeks, and pronounced eyebrow ridges.
In another previous study, the same research group demonstrated that a woman’s objective facial shape was statistically related to her internal self-esteem. Women with fuller, more protruding lips reported higher self-esteem, suggesting that people may internalize external beauty standards to judge their worth. Building on these previous findings, the scientists designed the current study to see if external raters share exactly the same visual preferences as individuals rating their own faces.
“Our previous research showed that certain facial features are associated with how attractive people perceive themselves to be,” Kanavakis said. “The next natural question was whether the same facial features also influence perceptions of attractiveness in others. This study allowed us to use highly detailed three-dimensional facial imaging to directly compare self- and external perceptions of the same individuals.”
To thoroughly investigate this concept, researchers recruited a sample of 601 young adults between the ages of 21 and 35. The group consisted of 393 women and 208 men from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, all of whom identified as heterosexual. Participants were primarily medical and dental students who grew up in the United States and whose native language was English.
The research team utilized a specialized three-dimensional camera system to capture highly detailed surface images of each participant. Participants were instructed to lightly touch their teeth, open their eyes, and maintain a calm, neutral facial expression. This standardized posture ensured that the natural baseline structure of the face did not change due to temporary muscular expressions such as smiling or frowning.
To convert these physical faces into measurable data, scientists applied a technique known as geometric morphometrics. This process involves placing 1,021 specific digital reference points, known as landmarks and semi-landmarks, across the surface of each computerized surface. These digital markers map the unique curves, contours, and proportions of the underlying bone and soft tissue structures.
“One aspect of this study that I find particularly interesting is the use of three-dimensional facial imaging and geometric morphometric analysis,” Kanabakis said. “Rather than relying on a few simple facial measurements or two-dimensional photographs, these techniques allow us to study the face as a complex three-dimensional structure. This provides a more realistic picture of how facial shape relates to attractiveness and helps research in this field move beyond subjective impressions to objective, quantitative analysis.”
Once the digital model was prepared, a panel of six external raters was convened to evaluate the images. This panel included three men and three women of the same age as the study participants, ensuring that the data were not skewed by generational differences in beauty standards. Raters viewed a three-dimensional image on a computer screen, allowing them to view the digital face from multiple angles.
Raters independently rated the attractiveness of each face using a visual analogue scale. A visual analog scale is a continuous measurement tool, often displayed as a horizontal straight line on the screen. Raters mark a point on the line representing their judgment, ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 100. The scientists averaged the scores from the six judges to create a single external attractiveness score for each participant.
Because male and female faces develop differently due to hormonal influences, the researchers analyzed the two groups separately. “While attractiveness certainly has a subjective component, our findings suggest that some aspects of facial shape are consistently perceived as attractive across observers,” Kanabakis told PsyPost. “In other words, there are real, measurable differences in shape that make faces appear more attractive to external observers.”
For female participants, the analysis revealed a statistically significant association between geometric face shape and ratings of external attractiveness. Researchers found that women’s faces rated as more attractive tended to have slightly narrower overall width. These highly rated faces have less fullness in the cheek area, resulting in a more angular appearance with a sharper, more defined jawline.
Additionally, certain central facial features stood out in the group of attractive women. The most attractive faces had a slightly protruding central part, especially around the nose, and a slightly longer lower face. Most notably, the woman who received the highest score from the external judges had a very distinctive face with a fuller, more forward-protruding upper lip.
In the male group, the statistical effect sizes were similar to the female group, but the mathematical values did not exceed the strict threshold of absolute significance. “Another interesting observation was that the statistical association between facial shape and attractiveness was stronger for women than for men, even though the overall patterns were strikingly similar,” Kanavakis said. “While this may be partly due to the small sample size of men and the greater variation in male facial morphology, it also clearly raises the interesting question of whether facial attractiveness in men is relatively dependent on features beyond facial shape alone.”
Despite the lack of statistical significance, a consistent visual pattern emerged on the faces of high-rated men. Men’s faces judged to be more attractive by the judges tended to exhibit less roundness on the sides of the face and a well-defined angular structure. They exhibited straighter facial contours and more pronounced central features, especially a stronger chin and more pronounced area under the forehead.
The scientists also conducted a subanalysis focused on white participants, since they constituted the largest relatively homogeneous ethnic subgroup in the study. For Caucasian women, external evaluators again preferred reduced cheek volume, angular chin, and increased forward protrusion of the upper lip. For white men, no significant statistical association was found between facial shape and external evaluation, reflecting a statistical trend seen in the broader group of men.
These external ratings are highly consistent with the group’s previous findings on self-perceived attractiveness. “Perhaps the most interesting finding is that there is a strong similarity between self-perceived attractiveness and externally perceived attractiveness,” Kanabakis said. “We expected some overlap, but the consistency exceeded our expectations. This suggests that people may have internalized many of the same facial features that society typically associates with attractiveness, or that there is a universal subconscious agreement regarding attractive facial features.”
The exact geometric features that the external panel found attractive are the same geometric features that participants in previous studies rated themselves as highly attractive. “Interestingly, we also found significant congruence between facial features associated with how attractive people view themselves and how attractive others perceive them to be,” Kanavakis added. This strong agreement provides evidence that people judge their own appearance using exactly the same geometric criteria that society uses to evaluate them.
“At the same time, facial shape only explains part of what makes a face attractive,” Kanabakis explained. “One of the key messages is that facial attractiveness is influenced by measurable aspects of facial shape, but is not determined by any single feature. Attractive faces are characterized not by one ‘perfect’ nose, chin, or jawline, but by a combination of subtle features that interact with each other.”
Certain limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of these studies. “Our participants were young people and our evaluators were young people with health science backgrounds,” Kanabakis said. “While previous research suggests there is substantial agreement between different populations regarding many aspects of facial attractiveness, our findings should not be assumed to apply equally to all ages or cultures.”
Age is known to strongly influence attractiveness preferences, and raters from older generations may prioritize completely different facial proportions. “Additionally, we focused specifically on static three-dimensional facial shapes,” Kanavakis says. “We did not assess dynamic facial expressions, skin texture, eye appearance, hairstyle, etc., which can have a significant impact on attractiveness in everyday life.”
Future research should aim to replicate these geometric steps in more diverse populations around the world and see if these physical preferences hold true across cultures. “Our long-term goal is to better understand how objective facial morphology interacts with psychological and social factors to shape perceptions of attractiveness,” Kanavakis explained. “We are particularly interested in investigating how facial shape relates to self-esteem, body image, and psychosocial well-being.”
“From a clinical perspective, we hope this study will help orthodontists and other clinicians develop a more evidence-based approach to facial aesthetic treatment planning,” he concluded. “The ultimate goal is not to create a single definition of beauty, but to gain a deeper understanding of the biological and psychological factors that influence how people perceive themselves and others.”
The study, “The influence of facial shape on perceived attractiveness,” was authored by Nikolaos Gkantidis, Sven Stucki, Mohammed Ghamri, Demetrios Halazonetis, and GeorgiosKanavakis.
