New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Do Selfies Make You Look Bad?

A new study finds they are not as flattering as we think

GETTY IMAGES

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

People regularly see themselves as more attractive and talented than others see them. Now the rise of selfies has deepened the hue of this rose-tinted mirror. According to new research, people who take frequent self-portraits think these pics put them in the best light, even when others see selfies as, frankly, unflattering.

For this study, published online in April in Social Psychological and Personality Science, college students were asked to take a selfie in the laboratory, and a researcher took a nearly identical picture of them. Then the students and a group of online participants of all ages rated the images.

The researchers found that people who regularly take selfies thought that they looked more attractive and likable in their selfies than in the photographs taken by an experimenter. Other observers, however, rated them as less likable and more narcissistic in their selfies as compared with the nonselfies. For students who do not usually take selfies, it was a triple whammy: in addition to being seen as less likable and more narcissistic, their selfies were also judged to be less attractive.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


People who do not regularly take selfies did not have the same bias about their own snaps as did regular selfie takers, perhaps because the selfie-indulgent have internalized positive feedback for their shots on social media, the researchers theorize. They suggest that selfie takers may also enjoy knowing they were the photographer because they have positive illusions about their photography skills, too.

“Exercise some caution when posting a selfie,” says Daniel Re, a researcher at the University of Toronto and the paper's primary author. “It might not be perceived the way you intend.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe