Beauty and the Mask

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 has profoundly changed society, culture, commerce, and perhaps most importantly, human interaction. As the citizens of the world followed government-imposed stay-at-home orders, and as the phrase “social distancing” became part of the daily lexicon in a matter of weeks, the public largely adopted the use of face coverings in public places to reduce potential transmission of the virus. The practice of using face coverings for the nose and mouth, whether with homemade fabrics or with surgical masks, undoubtedly has effects on facial perception. Although emotions such as intense fear can be communicated with contraction of the muscles of the brow and those around the eyes, communication of genuine happiness requires contraction of the muscles around the mouth, which is unlikely to be seen behind a face covering. 1 Additionally, the lower half of the face, and specifically the perioral area, has been shown to be vital for determinations of attractiveness. In the 1980s, Dr. Leslie Farkas, widely recognized as the father of craniofacial anthropometry, sought to define the facial measurements and proportions associated with attractive faces.2 When comparing attractive and unattractive faces, Dr. Farkas found that the greatest differences in facial measurements and proportions were centered around the perioral area, including but not limited to a narrow philtrum, a wider oral commissure distance, and a greater protrusion of the upper vermilion.3 With this in mind, it is interesting to consider how masks concealing the lower half of the face would affect perceived attractiveness, which has been shown to influence judgments of a range of interpersonal characteristics, such as competence and trustworthiness.1,4,5 The present study was undertaken to assess whether judgments of attractiveness differ when the lower face is covered by a surgical mask. We anticipated that faces covered with surgical masks would be judged as more attractive than faces not covered by a mask.