# Childrens' Face Reaction **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 29, 2004, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755 "2004-09-29T23:27:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![outside\_artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@outside\_artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outside_artist)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755/1 "2004-09-29T23:27:35Z")
A friend of mine told me that there was an experiment done that showed that infants and very young children (maybe up to age 3) when shown pictures of different individuals responded positively to those faces that were ‘attractive’ and negatively to those that were not. As reliable as my friend’s take on most things usually is, I find this very hard to believe. Isn’t attractiveness very subjective, are not standards of beauty as variable as the cultures that they represent? I asked if he meant that they took the faces and distorted them slightly, or if the faces were of people who were particularly weird looking or deformed, and he said no, they were just of people who were just considered unattractive. Anyone know anything about this, or a similar study? ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755/2 "2004-09-30T00:10:30Z")
Humm - I’ve heard the results of one study that suggest that more attractive infants get held and cuddled more by their mothers. I’ve also heard it suggested that symmetry = attractiveness - that is, the more symmetrical your face is, the more attractive you’ll be perceived as. However, I can’t find any of these studies on medline right now. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755/3 "2004-09-30T00:15:25Z")
The _Naked Ape_ series back up your friend, as they showed the same experiment with the same results. > [@](#): > > Isn’t attractiveness very subjective, are not standards of beauty as variable as the cultures that they represent? No. Beauty standards are remarkably consistent in humans. For women, the universal signs of beauty are having an hourglass figure and having a long neck. (Long neck?! I still don’t get that one.) For men, the markers are being tall and having a “V” figure. For both sexes, having a clear complexion and having symmetrical features are universal markers of beauty. > [@](#): > > I asked if he meant that they took the faces and distorted them slightly, or if the faces were of people who were particularly weird looking or deformed, and he said no, they were just of people who were just considered unattractive. Anyone know anything about this, or a similar study? By “considered unattractive”, he was probably referring to asymmetrical faces and blemished skin. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755/4 "2004-09-30T20:05:32Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > The _Naked Ape_ series back up your friend, as they showed the same experiment with the same results.No. Beauty standards are remarkably consistent in humans. For women, the universal signs of beauty are having an hourglass figure and having a long neck. (Long neck?! I still don’t get that one.) For men, the markers are being tall and having a “V” figure. For both sexes, having a clear complexion and having symmetrical features are universal markers of beauty.By “considered unattractive”, he was probably referring to asymmetrical faces and blemished skin. I’ve read (somewhere) that those traits above are pretty universally deemed attractive, along with big eyes and full lips (in both sexes, incidentally.) It doesn’t surprise me at all that certain traits are considered quite attractive by nature, though it’s a little more of a leap, in my opinion, to expect babies to demonstrate such responses. But I’m not shocked to hear it. Personally, I’d be more curious about research into why particular physical traits are preferred by certain people - for instance, my own preference for prominent noses . . . ---
**Author:** ![outside\_artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@outside\_artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outside_artist)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/childrens-face-reaction/266755/5 "2004-10-01T02:23:46Z")
Below is an interesting site. One particular doctor feels that the attractiveness ratio has actual measurements. I guess the word should have been "regular’ or "typically human’, instead of “attractive”. [http://www.beautyanalysis.com/mba\_youandthemask\_page.htm](http://www.beautyanalysis.com/mba_youandthemask_page.htm)