Was a scientific study really necessary?

[redspicyflag]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7082478.stm

Gaze 'key to facial attraction'


You can alter your attraction to the opposite sex simply by looking straight at them and smiling, research suggests.

A study of hundreds of volunteers at Stirling and Aberdeen Universities found averting the eyes even a fraction can make you appear less attractive.

In the Royal Society's Proceedings B journal, they say the direction of gaze plays a role alongside a symmetrical face or healthy skin.

An expert said it may stop people wasting energy on pointless courtships.

The study used pictures of male and female faces which had been subtly digitally manipulated.

In one picture, a woman might be looking straight at the camera, while in the next, a tiny adjustment meant she would be looking marginally to the left or right.

The difference was so small that it was not immediately obvious to the viewer.

However, after these pictures were shown to 460 men and women, who were asked to rate them for "attractiveness", it became clear that it was having a pronounced subliminal effect.

In some pictures, there was an eight-fold difference in ratings between the "straight to camera" and averted gazes.

While many studies have found links between face shape, expression and other physical "cues" to attraction, this is one of the first to look in more detail at the direction of gaze.

The researchers wrote: "Mating effort is a finite resource that should be allocated judiciously, and preferences for direct gaze in opposite-sex faces would increase the likelihood of allocating mating effort to potential mates who are most likely to reciprocate."

Success stakes

One of the paper's authors, Dr Claire Conway, said: "People prefer faces that appear to 'like' them, showing that attraction is not simply about physical beauty."

Professor Ruth Mace, a researcher into evolutionary anthropology at University College London, said that while this seemed an obvious principle, it could be a sign of evolution at work.

She said: "It's a pretty clear signal whether a person is interested in you or whether you are wasting your time.

"But it suggests that how attractive you find someone is governed partly by how likely you are to be successful."

 

[Deep Dish]

To answer your question, yes. A scientific study is always necessary. I commonly hear people rhetorically ask if such or such study was necessary for such or such obvious truth, but before studes are done you merely have anecdotes and anecdotes are scientifically meritless. Science constantly refines itself and so while looking at someone while smiling is “no duh” important, apparently minor directional differences in gazes needed refinement. Is it really intuitive to say “Gee, at first I thought you didn’t like me because your gaze was ten degrees off-center”?

 

[ketostix]

The why is it when you have your pictures taken professionally the photographer usually tells you to not look directly at the camera?

 

[Phyzzle]

The why is it when you have your pictures taken professionally the photographer usually tells you to not look directly at the camera?

Red eye?

Nonetheless . . . retarded study. The eyes were DIGITALLY MANIPULATED to gaze away.

So, uh, how do you know that the entire effect wasn't a result of people reacting to the tiny digital manipulation?

I've said it before: professional social scientists are very often tards. They are the people who couldn't handle real science in their freshman year at college.

 

[ketostix]

Red eye?

Nonetheless . . . retarded study. The eyes were DIGITALLY MANIPULATED to gaze away.

So, uh, how do you know that the entire effect wasn't a result of people reacting to the tiny digital manipulation?

I've said it before: professional social scientists are very often tards. They are the people who couldn't handle real science in their freshman year at college.

I wondered the same thing, if the difference in perceived attraction was because of the digital manipulation to gaze away. And I wonder if they manipulated the photos to gaze directly to compesate for this variable, but the study didn't say and I doubt they did. So it sounds like another biased study.


Even if they had controlled for that variable of digital manipulation, I still don't think they could've came to song strong and broad conclusion they did. About the best thing that could be conclusion that could be drawn is, If you want your pictures you post online to be the most attractive, gaze directly at the camera or viewer .

 

[seanchai]

Even if they had controlled for that variable of digital manipulation, I still don't think they could've came to song strong and broad conclusion they did. About the best thing that could be conclusion that could be drawn is, If you want your pictures you post online to be the most attractive, gaze directly at the camera or viewer .

Read the study and then draw your conclusions. It's never a good idea to take media interpretation of a study to be what it actually says.

 

[Super_geek]

I would like to know what percentage of the females preferred the forward looking faces versus the looking away faces.

Untill the statistics are provided, we cannot say if it was a statistically significant conclusion. Knowing it was done with 460 men and women doesnt tell us much about the strength of the conclusion. We dont even know what percentage of the 460 subjects were female!

I have a feeling that the results were more due to chance, and the conclusion was NOT statistically significant. But we cannot say untill they release the actual statistics collected in the study.

If anyone can get ahold of these statistics, I would be happy to conduct an independant analysis (I'm a mathematician )

P.S. yes, a study is always neccessary, Deep Dish said it well.