The results? On a variety of different measures, the participants were significantly more likely to choose a more attractive morphed face as being their actual face than even their nonmorphed actual face! The authors conclude, "It is perhaps of little wonder, then, that people so rarely seem to like the photographs taken of themselves. The image captured by the camera lens just doesn't match up to the image captured in the mind's eye." If you've ever been horrified to find a "bad" photo of yourself tagged on Facebook, I'm sure you can relate. The sad truth (well, for some of us it's a sadder truth than it is for others) is that that's what you really look like.
As you'll notice from my accompanying photo—which I must say looks nothing like me—the real tragedy of this story is that just when I've got a handle on hairstyles, my hairline has decided to retire into the background. But in case you're wondering, rest assured I have the necessary follicular strength in my scalp remaining for at least a dozen more glorious rattails.
In this new column presented by Scientific American Mind magazine, research psychologist Jesse Bering of Queen's University Belfast ponders some of the more obscure aspects of everyday human behavior. Ever wonder why yawning is contagious, why we point with our index fingers instead of our thumbs or whether being breastfed as an infant influences your sexual preferences as an adult? Get a closer look at the latest data as “Bering in Mind” tackles these and other quirky questions about human nature. Sign up for the RSS feed or friend Dr. Bering on Facebook and never miss an installment again.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentIs this science? We all know this. Wasted ink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting - but I wish they'd probed if this conclusion is different by gender. Because it's been proven/cited so often that women think they're fatter than they really are, and in most modern cultures any amount of fat = unattractive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWTF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLoved this article; interesting science, fun writing. I like Chevalier's suggestion above, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it would be interesting to conduct a study on why people feel compelled to make rude little comments like:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is this science? We all know this. Wasted ink.".
Is there some genetic defect that causes them to think people value their negative opinions more than is the case?
Tray64,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, these type of people also do not realize that it probably didn't take any ink at all to write this article. Maybe if they would have said, "wasted keyboard strokes", I would have taken their know it all attitude more seriously.
I find this research interesting.
"The sad truth (well, for some of us it's a sadder truth than it is for others) is that that's what you really look like."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not necessarily true. It depends on the mm length of lens you are using. The shorter the lens length (wide angle, 15-35mm) the more exagerated your facial features will be; the longer the lens length (narrow angle, 100+mm) the more natural (flatter) you face will look.
Now if you think about what most people use to take a picture of you, a cheap point and shoot camera, you will notice that most of them have a really short mm lens length (really wide angle, 15-25mm), so your facial features, especially those with larger noses, will seem quite exaggerated.
In professional photography, you will see them using a longer lens, more along the lines of 100mm or more, to take the "good" shots of you. And yes, it really does make a difference.
I too find this type of research interesting. I should have just ignored the comment but it seems that every where I look in this sort of forum on the web, people love to spout their inane and often hateful comments. Too much negativity out there and too many places to propagate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI learned very quickly, tray64, that the negatives aren't interested in learning anything. This is also a new column which is like Mirsky"s "Anti Gravity", lighthearted and mostly entertaining, but with a touch of science, and I like it too. This phenomenon also applies to talents as well as looks. It is amazing how tone-deafness can actually make someone think they can sing. Or how a lack of intelligence makes some think they are smart. Will you be my ghetto BFF hotblack?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis could have been an interesting study but I'm left scratching my head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I like to choose photos where I look more the way I want to look, but part of me knows I look more like the "bad" photos!!
Actually, it's fascinating science. Not only are the results interesting, what I find equally interesting is the method the researchers used to measure something I would have thought is not measureable. They've come up with an objective way to measure something which is subjective at best. Very cool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious about people that society accepts, in general, as very good looking (i.e. movie stars). If they start-off good or great looking, how inflated is their sense of their own attractiveness compared to say, mine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe method of research is interesting, but to jump to the "bad photos" conclusion seems sloppy and uneducated. "Ohhh, so that's why terrible photos of me exist" is something I would have concluded when I was in grade 6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a better explanation would be: we hold our faces differently when in front of a mirror, and unless one has outstanding facial kinesthetic sense, they are unaware of unflattering and subtle expressions they make when a friend's camera goes off. That's why so many people take self-portraits in front of their bathroom mirror. Their eyes don't LIE - they just have higher standards, which is more trustworthy.
Also I agree with [Cerebrl]'s argument.
The method of research is interesting, but to jump to the "bad photos" conclusion seems sloppy and uneducated. "Ohhh, so that's why terrible photos of me exist" is something I would have concluded when I was in grade 6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a better explanation would be: we hold our faces differently when in front of a mirror, and unless one has outstanding facial kinesthetic sense, they are unaware of unflattering and subtle expressions they make when a friend's camera goes off. That's why so many people take self-portraits in front of their bathroom mirror. Their eyes don't LIE - they just have higher standards, which is more trustworthy.
Also I agree with [Cerebrl]'s argument.
As a scholar of ancient art I would suggest that the researchers consult with someone about how ancient portraiture works if they wish to continue this research. Errors in perception or delusions are not just individual, but culture. We are taught to see not only what we wish to see as individuals, but as what we expect to see a members of a community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAncient portraiture is not portraiture in the modern sense, but to be broad and paint with a wide brush, instead combines issues of type, genre (e.g., generals are supposed to look this way, philosophers that way) as well as individual patronage, i.e., people wishing to look "better" than they were in some cases.
Thus, Julius Caesar used four or five different images of himself in a succession not strictly chronological, and Octavian--in time named Augustus--used six during his long career. Both borrowed from the Greeks, especially Alexander and trod a road well worn by their day.
From Alexander onwards, each Greek dynast made use of both personal (individual, or what we might call genetic markers like a big nose, etc.) and topoi, or typological markers related to their culture, in order to have themselves depicted.
But the most important marker to Greek and subsequently, Roman portraiture, was the concept of "the good and the beautiful." One in a position of authority--a leader of men-- and one who thus had their portrait done, was inherently beautiful--i.e., with harmonious proportions to their features, because their societal role was to regulate harmony. If someone had big ears, or whatever, it was less important than who they were in their job and hence, usually wasn't shown, or was shown in an abbreviated manner.
It was not just a case of misperception or flattery, but a case of cultural will. Of course dynasts, kings and emperors were handsome, because that's what dynasts, kings and emperors were.
As a scholar of ancient art I would suggest that the researchers consult with someone about how ancient portraiture works if they wish to continue this research. Errors in perception or delusions are not just individual, but culture. We are taught to see not only what we wish to see as individuals, but as what we expect to see a members of a community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAncient portraiture is not portraiture in the modern sense, but to be broad and paint with a wide brush, instead combines issues of type, genre (e.g., generals are supposed to look this way, philosophers that way) as well as individual patronage, i.e., people wishing to look "better" than they were in some cases.
Thus, Julius Caesar used four or five different images of himself in a succession not strictly chronological, and Octavian--in time named Augustus--used six during his long career. Both borrowed from the Greeks, especially Alexander and trod a road well worn by their day.
From Alexander onwards, each Greek dynast made use of both personal (individual, or what we might call genetic markers like a big nose, etc.) and topoi, or typological markers related to their culture, in order to have themselves depicted.
But the most important marker to Greek and subsequently, Roman portraiture, was the concept of "the good and the beautiful." One in a position of authority--a leader of men-- and one who thus had their portrait done, was inherently beautiful--i.e., with harmonious proportions to their features, because their societal role was to regulate harmony. If someone had big ears, or whatever, it was less important than who they were in their job and hence, usually wasn't shown, or was shown in an abbreviated manner.
It was not just a case of misperception or flattery, but a case of cultural will. Of course dynasts, kings and emperors were handsome, because that's what dynasts, kings and emperors were.
I agree. This is really interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. This is quite interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really appreciate many of the topics of Jesse's articles but I find it completely disturbing that his face takes up half the screen. Is there a way to minimize that? Sometimes I rush through them or scroll down until his face is out of the way to continue reading. I'd like to be able to read one the whole way through one day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't agree with the part that claims the reason we don't like ourselves in photos is because we have a different idea of what we look like. Being photogenic has to do with curves and angles on your face and how these reflect the light (especially a strong flash light) at different angles. Skin oiliness also affects the results (shiny surfaces reflect more light), hence the heavy powdering before tv appearences or photo shoots. And you might have noticed, that as a rule of thumb, people with bulbous noses or prominent facial characteristics are looking worse in photos than they do in real life, while people with sunken characteristics ar more likely to disappoint you when you see them in flesh..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts the same thing why u comment it too.. its freedom to say what ever we want.. No matter what the circumstance.. Live with it and the world is not perfect....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe purely emotional negative attacks (lacking any logic or factual support) I have seen seem to fall into one of three categories: young people out to show how smart they are, religious types who are anti-science in general or business types whose business is threatened by the result being reported.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also liked Chevalier's question about whether there was any variation in this effect due to gender.
Re Cerebrl's comment: compact cameras do not cover nearly as wide an angle as professional SLRs. My Canon 5D and Sigma 12-24mm rectilinear lens covers 122 degrees across the diagonal. Consumer compact cameras have only recently gone under the equivalent of 30mm on a 35mm-format [D]SLR... nowhere near as wide. Note that they may quote shorter focal lengths, but they need to be considered relative to the sensor size to be compared. Still, as he points out, most portraits are done with a longer focal length such as 85mm... occasionally the 100mm he mentions... which while well within the zoom range of almost all compacts, is unlikely to be their widest angle, so his overall point may still have some validity. Hard to know without doing a statistical sample from Picasa or some such site....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would have been more interesting if you hadn't spent more than 2/3 of the post talking about yourself. Not only are people not as good-looking as they think they are, they aren't as interesting as they think they are...Your writing style is humorous, nonetheless. Kudos to picking a fun topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting study...finally explains why many people comment that you are looking good in a pic. when you feel, 'what's so special about this pic..isn't this the way i actually look?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould love to read more posts on human behaviour and how deep-rooted individual thought processes affect them.
And then again, some people are far more good-looking than what they give themselves credit for! Hmm, go figure!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you've ever been horrified to find a "bad" photo of yourself tagged on Facebook, I'm sure you can relate. The sad truth (well, for some of us it's a sadder truth than it is for others) is that that's what you really look like."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm, no. I don't even know where to start. First of all I know people on Facebook with such bad photos of themselves that barely resemble what they actually look like(ie they are actually cute in real life, not ugly with flat washed out features like in their photos). I knew a girl that was stunning in real life and was a model but amateur photography with a cheap digital camera just didn't do her face justice. This girl I speak of had a crush on me, too. And when I showed her my drivers license she said it didn't even look like me! Part of all this has to do with being photogenic. On the flipside I've also known people that were very cute in real life but are DROP DEAD GORGEOUS in pictures, like you might think they were the offspring of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. There's also countless people in my yearbook, some of which look better in their picture than RL, and some that look better in RL than their picture. But onto my main point which is...
OF COURSE people are going to choose the more attractive composite image of themself...I mean why wouldn't you? You have nothing to lose by doing so...what does this study prove? nothing.
Sorry, but I have to question the results of this study. Not whether people are likely to have inflated opinions about themselves or their physical appearance, but whether this study demonstrates such an effect. The most obvious detractor to this study is the fact that an individual's physical appearance varies depending upon many factors. Given enough time to "freshen up" or even catch a few hours of sleep, the same person might easily appear objectively more attractive than they were even minutes or hours previously. Given this point, it is perfectly conceivable that most people have a canonical image of themselves which most closely matches an optimal level of physical attractiveness (i.e. that "night-on-the-town" or "going clubbing" look). If we assume that many of the participants in the study were not objectively at this optimal level of attractiveness when the researchers took pictures of them (honestly, who gets dolled up for a psych study?), it would be perfectly conceivable that participants would believe the slightly more attractive image (bolstered by the face of a more attractive person) is an accurate representation of how they currently appear. In this case, however, it would be incorrect to say that these individuals had an inflated opinion of their personal appearance in general--rather, they would simply have an inflated opinion of their *current* appearance. Which is hardly unlikely: when I walk down the street I am rarely completely aware of how I look--in fact, even when the wind is blowing my hair into a ridiculous tangle, I often still hold a deep suspicion that my locks remain in pristine form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother point is that this study does not make it clear whether the participants were more likely to select a "better looking" version of their own face due to an inflated opinion of their own looks or simply a preference for the more attractive image. In other words, a participant might have simply selected the preferred image amongst several images which looked similar to his or her actual face.
Clearly then, I think this study shows something, just not what the authors claim. The obvious alternate explanation is simply that people would prefer to think they are looking their best, even when they are not. In other words, a temporarily inflated belief of one's own image, not a permanently inflated belief.
(As an aside, I think there's plenty of cases where people look at themselves in the mirror and go, "wow, I can't believe I look that good!"... just goes to show, perception is a fallible process.)
You know you're good looking by what kind of females you're able to get..... If you're able to get at least 8's out of 10's then you're good looking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood study, but there's a few problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. (The biggest problem) You're using two dimensional references for a three dimensional object.
2. In line with that, you're disregarding the inherent asymmetry to the human face.
"The sad truth (well, for some of us it's a sadder truth than it is for others) is that that's what you really look like."
Human faces do have good sides and bad sides. (There's also the issue of lighting, which professionals take advantage of, so different types of lighting suit different faces).
So a combination of the two factors above can make a person who isn't very photogenic beautiful and person who is, very ugly.
3. You're leaving out something that should have been noted: People who suffer from self image disorders such as BDD, Anoxeria and even OCD or GAD.
When they were asked to sketch their faces people afflicted with these disorders sketched themselves as uglier than they actually appear.
(This isn't so much for the scientist, but for the readers)
Revise the study with three dimensional models, and you'll probably get better results.
What about those of who aren't good looking? What does this article say about us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this