Peer-Reviewed Research

The Science Behind Your Score

RateByFresh is built on peer-reviewed research from leading journals in psychology, dermatology, and plastic surgery — not AI guesswork.

147+
Studies Reviewed
52+
Journals Referenced
40+
Years of Research

Facial Structure & Proportions

The science behind facial proportions, symmetry, and their relationship to attractiveness

Research Findings

  • The golden ratio has no convincing evidence linking it to facial beauty
  • Miss Universe contestants' facial ratios were different from the golden ratio
  • Pallett et al. found actual optimal ratios: 36% vertical, 46% horizontal
  • Faces closer to population averages tend to be rated more attractive

Practical Application

Use evidence-based proportions (36% eye-to-mouth, 46% interocular) rather than phi. Focus on deviation from average rather than matching an ideal template.

Caveats & Limitations

  • -Most studies used Western participants
  • -Static images don't capture dynamic attraction
  • -Proportions aren't everything - skin quality and individual features matter independently

Sources

Research Findings

  • Facial thirds are almost NEVER equal in any population
  • Only 1-40% of people fit classical canons depending on ethnicity
  • Separate norms needed for each ethnic group
  • Lower third typically exceeds middle third, especially in males

Practical Application

Use canons to identify major asymmetries, not to score attractiveness. Frame measurements as population statistics, not ideal targets.

Caveats & Limitations

  • -Upper third measurements unreliable due to hairline variation
  • -Proportions shift with age
  • -Photography distortion affects apparent proportions

Sources

Research Findings

  • Symmetry preference is universal across all studied cultures
  • Averageness preference found in Japanese, Chinese, and African populations
  • Hadza hunter-gatherers showed STRONGER symmetry preferences than UK participants
  • Infant preferences suggest biological rather than learned preferences

Practical Application

Focus on universal factors (symmetry, averageness, dimorphism) while acknowledging cultural variation exists at the margins.

Caveats & Limitations

  • -Most research conducted on Western populations
  • -Individual variation within cultures is substantial
  • -Beauty standards shift over time

Sources

Research Findings

  • Higher fWHR correlates with perceived masculinity (r=.35) and threat (r=.46)
  • fWHR negatively correlates with attractiveness (r=-.26) to women
  • Masculine features signal dominance but may also signal aggression risk
  • Women who consider themselves more attractive prefer higher masculinity

Practical Application

Assess masculine features as signals of development and dominance, but avoid suggesting more masculine = always better.

Caveats & Limitations

  • -Individual variation in preferences is enormous
  • -fWHR controversy - some question if it's truly testosterone-linked
  • -2D photos may not capture masculinity perception accurately

Sources

See the Science in Action

Get your personalized analysis powered by this research. Your results are backed by real peer-reviewed studies, not generic AI output.

Get Your Free Analysis