
6 Facial Features People Look At When Judging Attractiveness, According To New Research
What actually matters when our attractiveness is rated? According to new eye-tracking research, we ... More now have a definitive answer.
Intuition might tell you that attraction is a quick, instinctive reaction. However, according to recent research from The Laryngoscope, it's anything but an instant impression — a fact that our eyes can confirm in real time.
By means of state-of-the-art eye-tracking technology, the December 2024 study uncovered the exact facial regions individuals tend to focus on when deciding how attractive someone is. In turn, the researchers were able to determine how those patterns changed depending on who's looking.
Rather than showing participants digitally altered or highly stylized faces, the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine researchers used high-resolution photographs of real people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds; they had neutral expressions and no visible cosmetic enhancements.
As participants viewed each image, the eye-tracking system recorded precisely how long they looked at different facial regions, like the eyes, nose, mouth, hair, jawline, forehead and neck. Each face was shown for a mere ten seconds.
With the study's novel findings, we now know which features consistently draw our attention, as well as how those preferences vary by gender. Here's the six ways they were found to influence attractiveness ratings.
The participants unanimously tended to spend the most time looking at the region often referred to as the 'central triangle' of the face: the eyes, nose and mouth.
Since this area has long been considered crucial in social perception, participants likely focused their gaze on this region to gain clues on emotional expression, identity and intent. In fact, even the participants who weren't told to evaluate attractiveness were naturally fixated on the central triangle.
Likely, this suggests that our focus on this region isn't necessarily a conscious choice — it's simply the first place the brain starts when processing faces.
Overall, this suggests that humans are inclined to concentrate most on the regions that carry information that is socially and biologically relevant to them. Regardless of whether or not we're examining beauty, emotional cues or even trustworthiness, this region seems to be fundamental to how we form first impressions.
When participants were specifically asked to judge attractiveness, their eye movements revealed far more intentional, consistent patterns. Compared to the free-gazing participants, the attractiveness-rating participants spent considerably more time scanning the mouth, nose and cheeks.
Likely, focus on these areas serves to evaluate symmetry, skin quality and youthfulness. Symmetry, in particular, is known to play an important role when evaluating whether someone has 'good genes,' according to research from Evolution and Human Behavior.
In all likelihood, this specific finding suggests that our gaze becomes highly strategized when we're consciously evaluating someone's looks. We're not just absorbing the overall impression — we're analyzing. These regions offer us inferential clues about others' health or genetic fitness, which ample evolutionary theories suggest are drivers of physical attraction.
It's worth noting that participants judging attractiveness didn't simply 'look around' faces any more or less so than others. Rather, they looked differently; they directed their focus to facial regions that seemed to matter more for the task at hand.
One of the most clear-cut gendered differences emerged when researchers examined how male participants judged female faces. Specifically, men spent significantly more time staring at the mouth. In turn, prolonged attention to the mouth was associated with much higher attractiveness ratings.
From a psychological perspective, this finding aligns with previous research. A 2023 study from Personality and Individual Differences demonstrates that men tend to emphasize features associated with youth and fertility when evaluating women's attractiveness.
In this sense, the fullness of the lips or smoothness of the skin that surrounds them may be what draws their attention — given their integral role in facial expressiveness and sexual signaling.
While men honed in on the mouth, women focused much more attentively on men's eyes and hair. Similarly, prolonged attention to both of these features contributed to higher attractiveness ratings.
Classic research from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that women consider the eyes when rating attractiveness, largely in order to assess sociability and approachableness. This is highly plausible, given that they're very often considered as 'windows to the soul.'
Hair, on the other hand, might signal grooming habits and attention to self-care, whereas the hairline itself could be considered a measure of vitality.
Together, these two features could offer cues about a person's personality, social status or health. For women, these psychological and social factors play a major evolutionary role in the assessment of a potential partner's attractiveness.
Overall, the study found that the longer participants spent looking at the mouth, hair and central triangle, the higher associated their given attractiveness ratings were — regardless of the participant's gender.
Throughout the study, it became evident that these features played a central role in participants' formation of positive first impressions. This is most likely due to the fact that they may provide insight that other facial regions can't.
Hair reflects grooming, the mouth signals health and vitality and the central triangle is a strong indicator of symmetry. All of these factors seem to be appealing across different observers.
This isn't to say that attractive people simply have 'good features.' Rather, it likely means that when we consider someone attractive, these features tend to naturally draw our attention; they naturally stand out during our evaluations.
(Sidebar: While facial features can play a large role in how attractiveness is evaluated, they certainly aren't the only features people consider. See here to learn about non-physical signals of attractiveness.)
Most interestingly, the study notes that not all visual attention is associated with attractiveness. More specifically, individuals whose faces drew more attention to the forehead or neck received significantly lower attractiveness ratings.
The authors of the study suggest that these areas could be perceived as visual distractions, particularly if they're prominent. That is, when our gaze moves away from the central triangle and starts to linger on eye-catching features that are less informative or less symmetrical, it may reflect that something 'feels off' — even if we can't articulate what that is.
Do you spend a lot of time thinking about your facial features or appearance? Take this science-backed test to learn how your body image may be affecting your mental health: Body Image Questionnaire
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Researchers trace drugs and diseases from DNA drifting through city air
DNA is in the air, and scientists are finally learning how to read it. In Dublin — a city known for its cozy pubs, flowing Guinness, and music that spills into cobbled streets — researchers have discovered something far less visible drifting through the air: traces of cannabis, poppy, and even psychedelic mushrooms. Not the plants themselves, but their DNA. A groundbreaking study by scientists at the University of Florida reveals that environmental DNA, or eDNA, vacuumed straight from the air, can offer stunning insights into the world around us. These range from identifying endangered wildlife and tracking human pathogens to detecting allergens and illicit drugs. 'The level of information that's available in environmental DNA is such that we're only starting to consider what the potential applications can be, from humans, to wildlife to other species that have implications for human health,' said David Duffy, Ph.D., lead author of the study and professor of wildlife disease genomics. Originally designed to study sea turtles, the technique developed by Duffy and his team has since transformed into a powerful tool for decoding the biological fingerprints of nearly any environment, including air, oceans, or forests. And all it takes is an air filter and a day in the lab to detect signs of nearly every living thing that's grown, passed through, or shed cells nearby. 'When we started, it seemed like it would be hard to get intact large fragments of DNA from the air. But that's not the case. We're actually finding a lot of informative DNA,' Duffy said in a release. 'That means you can study species without directly having to disturb them, without ever having to see them. It opens up huge possibilities to study all the species in an area simultaneously, from microbes and viruses all the way up to vertebrates like bobcats and humans, and everything in between.' In Dublin, researchers found DNA signatures from hundreds of sources, including human pathogens, bacteria, and allergens like peanut residue and pollen. In another striking demonstration of eDNA's potential, the researchers were able to trace the origins of bobcats and spiders by analyzing DNA captured from the air in a Florida forest. This powerful analysis also came with remarkable speed and efficiency. The team showed that a single researcher could process DNA from every species in a given area in just a day, using compact, low-cost equipment and cloud-based software. When trying to save and conserve wildlife, knowing where an animal originates from can be as important as knowing where it currently is. 'It seems like science fiction, but it's becoming science fact,' Duffy said. 'The technology is finally matching the scale of environmental problems.' The researchers say the implications of the study are vast. The method could help track disease outbreaks, identify endangered species, and even detect drug activity, all silently captured by the breeze. However, the same tools can also reveal sensitive human genetic information. The researchers have called for ethical guidelines to keep pace with the fast-moving science of study has been published in Nature, Ecology and Evolution.


Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.


Medscape
26 minutes ago
- Medscape
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.