The familiar idiom “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” reinforces the idea that judgments of
attractiveness and beauty are independent of the object. In other words, beauty is a characteristic
we ascribe to things, not an innate quality of the thing itself. Compare this to Plato’s conception
of beauty which was independent of both the object and the observer. Most students have fairly
strong opinions about the question of what is or is not beautiful so the goal here is to get students
to examine their pre-existing beliefs.
The class before the activity, ask students to find a picture of a person who he or she thinks is
beautiful and bring it to class. Depending on the size of the class, the pictures can be passed
around or posted on the chalkboard. Before beginning the discussion, have students look
through the pictures. Questions to prompt discussion include:
• What similarities do you see in the pictures?
• What differences do you see?
It is likely that the process of identifying differences will prompt support for a receiver-oriented
definition of beauty. However, we want students to critically evaluate their assumptions so we
introduce two compelling models for a physical definition of attractiveness: Facial Averaging
and Geometric Profiling.
Facial averaging is a line of research exploring facial attractiveness through the
amalgamation of facial characteristics and features. In other words, researchers take
large numbers of human faces and average them together to create the face that most
closely resembles all of them. Lisa DeBruine and Ben Jones, a pair of experimental
psychologists at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, have a great website devoted to
this type of study (http://www.faceresearch.org). Consider bringing the website up in
class and mixing combinations of faces and ask students to rate them on attractiveness.
What is interesting is that facial averaging tends to produce a facial structure that is rated
as more attractive regardless of race or culture. Visiting the website in class allows for
students to merge pictures together.
Another interesting line of research has attempted to quantify facial attractiveness. There
are several different variants of this research, but I want to spend a few minutes talking
about one in particular: Marquardt Beauty Analysis (http://www.beautyanalysis.com/).
MBA defines attractiveness mathematically based on facial dimensions and geometry.
MBA uses a ratio known as phi (1.618:1), also known as the “Golden ratio.” This ratio
seems be consistently present in things that are seen as beautiful. What is interesting
about the human facial geometry based on the phi ratio (also known as the mask) is that
individuals who have facial structures that closely conform to the mask are consistently
rated as more attractive regardless of race or culture. If you have an interest in it, the
website actually provides instructions downloadable printouts of the mask so that you can
compare your facial structure to the mask itself. Of course, the mask won’t tell you
whether you’re beautiful or not—your loved ones do that.