Do cosmetics enhance female Caucasian facial attractiveness? R. Mulhern*, G. Fieldman*, T. Hussey*, J-L. Léveque†, P Pineau† *Psychology Department, ASSH Faculty, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, Queen Alexandra Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2JZ. Telephone: +44 14 94 60 31 85 Fax: +4414 94 46 17 04 E-mail: bmulhe01@bcuc.ac.uk; george.fieldman@bcuc.ac.uk; trevor.hussey@bcuc.ac.uk . †Centre de Recherche Charles Zviak, L’Oreal Recherche, 90 Rue du Général Roguet, 92583 Clichy Cedex, France. Telephone: +33 47 56 74 32 SUMMARY This study sought to investigate whether cosmetics do improve female facial attractiveness, and to determine whether the contribution of different cosmetic products are separable, or whether they function synergistically to enhance female beauty. Ten volunteers were made-up by a beautician under five cosmetics conditions: i) no make-up, ii) foundation only, iii) eye make-up only, iv) only lip make-up and v) full facial make-up. Male and female participants were asked to view the ten sets of five photographs, and rank each set from most attractive to least attractive. As predicted, faces with full make-up were judged more attractive than the same faces with no make-up. Sex differences within the results were also apparent. Women judged eye make-up as contributing most to the attractiveness. Men rated eye make-up and foundation as having a significant impact on the attractiveness of a full facial makeover. Surprisingly lipstick did not appear to contribute to attractiveness independently. Key words: Cosmetics; Attractiveness; Skin Texture. INTRODUCTION Women use a number of means to manipulate their looks, whether through clothing, adornments or, to the extreme, scarification or cosmetic surgery. There is evidence that make-up has been a pervasive cosmetic recourse throughout history [1, 2, 3]. Furthermore, the belief that cosmetics do improve female attractiveness is so pervasive, that it has led the cosmetic industry to be one of the most successful worldwide [1, 4]. Feeling confident about one's appearance has a beneficial impact on one's mood and well-being[5, 6]. Cosmetics can be used in a number of ways to manipulate facial appearance, and therefore becomes a useful tool in enhancing a woman's attractiveness [7]. The intent of this study was to explore the relationship between make-up and Caucasian female attractiveness. More specifically it aimed to evaluate the separate contributions of three main products used by this group: foundation, eye make-up, and lipstick. Foundation was used originally to change the colour of the skin, to provide a rosy glow [8]. More recently however, it primarily matches skin tone and is employed to homogenize skin texture, by reducing the appearance of oiliness for example. It also conceals imperfections such as spots, scars, eye shadows or redness of skin, promoting smoothness and skin clarity [6, 7, 8]. Eye make-up is usually comprised of several products that act together to define and enhance the eyes. Predominantly these are: eyeliner, eye shadow and mascara. As used in ancient Eastern cultures, eyeliner can be used to shape and accentuate the eyes [8]. Eye shadow increases prominence, and contrasting colours can enhance eye colour [7]. Mascara elongates and darkens eyelashes, which makes the eyes look larger. The combination of these three products can dramatically change the size and emphasis of the eyes. They can lighten eyes that are deep-set or that have heavy lids, or broaden small, narrow, or close-set eyes [6, 7, 8]. Lipsticks of different shades and textures (glossy, matte) have diverse effects on the overall appearance and character of a face [7]. It is an important cosmetic component for balancing the face, particularly when the eyes are heavily made-up [8]. Lipstick can also have a significant impact on the structure of the mouth, evening out shape and texture. It can reduce overbearing full lips, plump up thin ones and add balance to irregular shaped lips [6, 7, 8]. Interestingly, foundation, eye make-up and lipstick appear to focus on facial characteristics that have been found to be salient to men when assessing female beauty. Facial neoteny – the retention of childlike features over adult ones, such as large eyes and full lips - increases the perception of female facial attractiveness [9, 10, 11]. It is possible that both eye and lip make-up mimic neoteny, by enlarging the eyes and rendering lips darker and fuller, which may have a favorable impact on attractiveness. Uniform skin texture has also been found to improve the perception of female beauty [12]. In addition many studies have revealed that faces of greater symmetry are judged as more attractive than asymmetrical faces [13, 14, 15, 16]. It has been proposed that asymmetry may in part reflect repeated exposure to environmental stressors, such as infection or disease [17, 18]. It may be then, that by homogenizing skin texture, foundation contributes to the perception of female attractiveness. It was hypothesized that because cosmetics manipulate specific features that are salient to the perception of female attractiveness, fully made-up faces would be rated as more attractive than the same faces without make-up. This study further sought to measure the independent contribution of different cosmetic products (foundation, eye make-up and lipstick) on overall attractiveness. In so doing, it could be established whether the three make-up types work synergistically to enhance attractiveness, or whether they make an individualistic contribution. METHODOLOGY Volunteers The effect of make-up on female facial attractiveness may be independently variable. For instance it may improve one person's looks but not another. Therefore, the effect of make-up on attractiveness was assessed using 10 Caucasian female volunteers between the ages of 31 and 38. The volunteers were prepared by a professional beautician and photographed under 5 conditions: i) no make-up, ii) foundation only, iii) eye make-up only, iv) lip make-up only, v) full facial make-up. The beautician ensured that the application of products under single conditions matched that of the full make-up category. To ensure that all faces were as similar as possible from the outset, the beautician started by cleansing and moisturizing the volunteers' faces with ‘all skin type’ products. The beautician then treated each volunteer individually, applying make-up in a way that enhanced the attractiveness of each individual. It was considered that different colours suited different people. Appendix I provides an itemized list of the products used on each volunteer. Volunteers were photographed in colour under each condition using a high-resolution digital camera. They were asked to wear a white headband to keep their hair away from their face, a black bib to hide their clothing, and took off any jewellery. They were also asked to sustain a relaxed neutral expression as they were photographed. Procedures The photographs obtained were split into 10 sets of five photographs, each depicting the same volunteer under the 5 make-up conditions. The interest of this study was to measure the effects of cosmetic products on attractiveness. It was considered that the individual attractiveness (or beauty) of volunteers could act as a confounding variable. For instance more attractive volunteers may have received higher scores regardless of the type of make-up employed. A fixed ranked scale (1st to 5th choice) was therefore selected to ensure homogeneity in participant responses. Participants were recruited via a web-based survey. They began the survey by answering a number of personal questions, including sex, age, nationality and sexual orientation. Subsequently, they viewed each photograph set sequentially. Participants were requested to rate the 5 pictures in each set in order of attractiveness. Each choice could only be used once. The presentation sequence of volunteer sets and the pictures within the sets were counterbalanced to prevent any order effects. Participants There was the possibility that homosexual participants could perceive female attractiveness in a different way to heterosexual respondents. Therefore in order to increase the homogeneity of the sample, only heterosexual respondents over the age of 17 were included. One hundred male and 100 female responses were included in the final analysis. All male participants were Caucasian (mean age = 36.44 years), and only 6 female respondents were of non-Caucasian ethnic origin (mean age = 34.32 years). RESULTS The 10 ranked scores from each of the volunteers for each make-up condition were amalgamated. Each participant had five final scores, one for each condition. The mean scores indicate that on average, both male and female participants judged volunteers with all make-up more attractive than when they were presented with none (Table: I). Table I: Mean attractiveness rating and standard deviation for female and male participants. Female Participants Male Participants Make-up Mean Standard Mean Standard Conditions Deviation Deviation All 36.54 7.69 36.94 7.40 Eyes 34.41 4.88 33.14 4.04 Foundation 31.18 6.61 31.99 6.27 Lips 25.03 4.82 24.62 4.48 None 22.81 6.29 23.31 5.74 Despite having the highest mean of all groups, the full make-up conditions also had the highest standard deviation (female participants SD = 7.69, male participants SD = 7.40) of all 5 conditions. This suggests that not all participants (both male and female groups) concurred that all volunteers were most attractive when they were fully made-up. The same may also be true of the foundation and no make-up conditions where SD was also relatively high. The percentages of first choice ranks that were awarded to each make-up condition are illustrated in figure 1. These demonstrate that more than half the respondents of both sexes chose the all make-up category as their first choice (51.40% for women and 54.80% for men). Figure 1: Percentage of first choice ranks for 5 make-up conditions. For women the next preferred first choice was eyes (29.50%), followed by foundation (17.10%). Very few respondents chose the lips and none conditions as their first choice (both 1%). This could indicate that lips contribute very little to the overall attractiveness of the full make-up condition. Unlike women, men showed a surprising preference for foundation (22.10%) as a first choice after the all make-up condition, followed by the eyes (18.30%). A very small percentage of men chose the no make-up condition (3.80%) as their first choice, which was more frequent than lips (1%). Statistical analysis found that both sexes judged fully made-up faces as significantly more attractive than the same faces with no make-up (Friedman’s analysis of variance: female data χr² < 170.250, p < 0.001; male data χr² < 177.328, p < 0.001). Friedman’s analysis of variance demonstrates that there was an overall difference in the attractiveness of the five conditions. The five conditions were further compared against one another using Friedman’s two-way rank pairwise comparison to establish which attractiveness scores were significantly different from the other. The pairwise comparison of male scores (Table: II) showed no significant difference in attractiveness between foundation/eyes, between all/foundation and between all/eyes conditions. This implied that for men foundation and eye make-up contributed significantly to the attractiveness of the all make-up condition. Table II: Pairwise comparison across five make-up conditions for male participants. Eyes Foundation Lips No All 41.00 62.50 214.00** 230.00** Eyes 21.50 173.00** 189.00** Foundation 151.50** 167.50** Lips 16.00 Note. Significant difference ** p <0.001. Pairwise comparison of female scores (Table: III) revealed a significant difference in attractiveness between foundation/eyes and foundation/all, no but difference between all/eyes. This indicated that for women, eye make-up contributed significantly to the attractiveness of the all make-up group, but foundation was less significant. Table III: Pairwise comparison across five make-up conditions for female participants. Eyes Foundation Lips No All 15.50 88.50** 196.50** 227.00** Eyes 73.00* 181.00** 211.50** Foundation 108.00** 138.50** Lips 30.50 Note. Significant difference * p < 0.05, ** p <0.001. A surprising outcome was that with both sexes, there was no difference in attractiveness between the lips/none conditions. This suggested that lipstick does not contribute independently to the attractiveness of the all make-up category. DISCUSSION The experimental predictions were supported by the results. Men and women both rated fully made-up Caucasian female faces between the ages of 31 to 38 as more attractive than the same faces with no make-up. The extrapolated data demonstrated that some cosmetic products contributed to attractiveness more than others. Sex differences were also observed. For women eye make-up was judged to enhance looks most effectively. For men both eye make-up and foundation has a significant impact on facial beauty. Surprisingly, both sexes did not judge lipstick to contribute significantly to attractiveness. That men rated foundation as a valuable contributor to attractiveness was of interest. Plausibly, foundation created an effective mask that increased facial symmetry and improved skin texture and tone. These two factors have been argued as indicators of health and fitness, and have been found to influence the perception of female facial attractiveness [12, 13, 14]. Furthermore, research has suggested that age is a highly influential factor to men, but not women, when rating female attractiveness [19, 20]. Foundation may reduce the appearance of age by concealing fine lines and wrinkles, which may have influenced the male attractiveness ratings for this make-up condition. The significant contribution of eye make-up to female attractiveness could be interpreted in terms of its effect on facial neoteny. Eye make-up generally makes eyes appear larger and more prominent, a characteristic found in infant faces [10]. However, the prediction that lipstick could also simulate neoteny was not supported. This could indicate that other motivations other than neoteny may be involved in finding eye make-up attractive. An alternative explanation could be that as the eyes are the focal point of the face, particularly in terms of communication, emphasizing their size and prominence renders a face more captivating, and thus more attractive. Finding that lipstick did not independently add to attractiveness was surprising. It is conceivable that lipstick may only contribute to looks when used in conjunction with other products, creating a balance to made-up eyes for example [8]. However, this would seem inconsistent with the profound cultural importance of lipstick to western women [4]. This unexpected outcome could have resulted from the unnatural pose held by volunteers. When presented alone, lipstick may appear contrived and unusual (particularly for darker and redder shades), and this may be exacerbated by the unsmiling stance of volunteers. Other factors should be considered whilst assessing the current results. All volunteers expressed pleasure when fully made-up and this appeared to be reflected in their behaviour. It is plausible that the experience of a professional makeover had an effect on volunteers’ self-esteem, and this may have been unconsciously reflected in the final photographs, rendering this group more attractive. It is equally feasible that the volunteers had become accustomed to having their photo taken at such close proximity by the time they reached the final make-up application. This could have had some bearing on their demeanor and therefore their attractiveness. Methodological constraints must also be addressed when assessing the validity of data. The use of a fixed rank scale to assess attractiveness does restrict the results. Though it was beneficial in controlling the measurement of attractiveness in response to cosmetic conditions independently of volunteers’ own beauty, participants were forced to rate the pictures sequentially. This not only prevented parametric testing but also the independent assessment of attractiveness. Supplementary studies are being undertaken, using independent measures to assess the attractiveness of each make-up condition. This alternative design should also allow the assessment of the effect of cosmetics on the perception of other female characteristics such as age, health and confidence. The data collection of this experiment was performed through an Internet survey. It must therefore be considered that the presentation of stimuli to participants may not have been homologous. The resolution at which the photographs were presented may have differed and this may have affected the validity of data. This may also be a causal explanation of the surprising lipstick scores. In conclusion it remains that women between the ages of 31 to 38 can employ make-up to enhance their facial attractiveness, and can most successfully increase their desirability to the opposite sex by the use of eye make-up and foundation. APPENDICES I: List of cosmetic products used for each volunteer. The cosmetic products employed were from a L’Oreal high street range. Volunteer 1 Foundation: Visible Lift – Light Beige 15. Powder: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Rouge Resist – Iced Coffee 850. Eyes: Colour Appeal – Golden Shimmer 23, Brun Metal 42, White 10. Eyeliner: Upper lash – Black 201, Lower lash – Brown 204. Mascara: Longitude – Black . Volunteer 2 Foundation: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Powder: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Colour Riche – Praline Beige 102, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – Smokey Beige 22, Hot pink 53, Metallic Brown 42, Matt Brown 43. Eyeliner: Brown 204. Mascara: Voluminous – Black. Volunteer 3 Foundation: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Powder: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Rouge Resist Liquid – Café Latte 817, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – Rose Beige 20, Brown 43, Golden Shimmer 23. Eyeliner: Black 201. Mascara: Intensifique – Brown. Volunteer 4 Foundation: Ideal Balance – Beige Rose 18. Powder: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Colour Riche – Rosewood 302, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – Lilac 52, Hot Pink 53, Brun 42, White 10. Eyeliner: Upper lash – Grey 203, Lower lash – Khaki 208. Mascara: Voluminous – Black. Volunteer 5 Foundation: Air Wear – Light Beige 15. Powder: Translucide – Soft Ivory 14. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Colour Riche – Soft Rose 003. Eyes: Colour Appeal – White 10, Colour Crème – Prune 13. Eyeliner: Platinum 203. Mascara: Intensifique – Black. Volunteer 6 Foundation: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Powder: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Colour Riche – Chocolate 123, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – White 10, Brown 43, Colour Crème – Solar Gold 02. Eyeliner: Upper lash – Black 201, Lower lash – Khaki 208. Mascara: Longitude - Black. Volunteer 7 Foundation: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Powder: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Invincible – Crimson Extreme 320, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – White 10, Hot Pink 53, Colour Crème – Solar Gold 02. Eyeliner: Upper lash – Black 201, Lower lash – Khaki 208. Mascara: Longitude - Black. Volunteer 8 Foundation: Ideal Balance – Beige Rose 18. Powder: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Invincible – Plum Fury 725, Gloss Rouge Pulp – Cristal Integral. Eyes: Colour Appeal – White 10, Rose Beige 20, Colour Crème – Solar Gold 02. Eyeliner: Black 201. Mascara: Voluminous – Black. Volunteer 9 Foundation: Ideal Balance – True Beige 23. Powder: Translucide – Sand Beige 22. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Colour Resist Liquid – Purple shine 340. Eyes: Colour Appeal – White 10, Brun Metal 42, Colour Crème – Solar Gold 02. Eyeliner: Black 201. Mascara: Intensifique - Black. Volunteer 10 Foundation: Air Wear – Nude Beige 16. Powder: Translucide – Nude Beige 16. Concealer: Maqique – Beige 3. Lips: Invincible – Orange Flame 413. Eyes: Colour Appeal – Golden Shimmer 23, Brun Metal 42, White 10. Eyeliner: Khaki 208. Mascara: Intensifique – Brown. REFERENCES 1 Etcoff N. Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. London: Little, Brown & Company (1999). 2 Marwick A. Beauty in History. Great Britain, Thames & Hudson (1988). 3 Walter P., Martinetto P., Tsoucaris G., Bréniaux R., Lefebvre M., Richard G., Talabot J., & Dooryhee E. Making make-up in ancient Egypt. Nature, 397: 483-484 (1999). 4 Cohen Ragas M. & Kozlowski K. Read my lips: A cultural history of lipstick. San Francisco: Chronicle Books (1998). 5 Graham J.A. Psychology of cosmetic treatments. London, Prager (1986). 6 Johnson Gross K. & Stone J. Woman’s face: Make-up and skin care. London: Thames & Hudson (1997). 7 Quant M. Classic make-up & beauty book. London, Dorling Kindersley (1996). 8 Aucoin K. Making faces. London, Prion (1997). 9 Johnston V. & Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 183-199 (1993). 10 Jones D. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness and facial neoteny. Cross cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36 (5): 723-748 (1995). 11 Perrett D., Lee K., Penton-Voak I., Rowland D., Yoshikawa S., Burt D., Henzi S., Castles D. & Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394 (27): 884-887 (1998). 12 Fink B., Grammer K. & Thornhill R. Human facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and colour. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115 (1): 92-99 (2001). 13 Perrett D., Burt D., Penton-Voak I., Lee K., Rowland D. & Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20: 295-307 (1999). 14 Thornhill R. & Grammer K. The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution & Human Behaviour, 20: 109-120 (1999). 15 Thornhill R. & Gangestad S.W. The scent of symmetry: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Evolution & Human Behaviour, 20: 175-201 (1999). 16 Tovée M.J., Tasker K. & Benson P.J. Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body? Evolution & Human Behaviour, 21: 191-200 (2000). 17 Thornhill R. & Møller A. The relative importance of size and symmetry in sexual selection. Behavioural Ecology, 9 (6): 546-551 (1998). 18 Gangestad S.W. & Buss D.M. Pathogen prevalence and mate preferences. Ethology & Sociobiology, 14: 89-96 (1993). 19 Henss R. Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (11), 933-946 (1991). 20 Mulhern R., Fieldman G. & Hussey T. Female beauty: An example of human sexual selection by male choice. Poster presented at the International Conference: ‘Human Behaviour & Evolution Society’ at University College London (2001).