How attractive we find a person’s face might depend on more than just their looks. A new study published in Brain Imaging and Behavior found that learning biographical details—such as someone’s job, mental health history, or political views—can significantly change how their face is rated in terms of attractiveness. The research also revealed that these shifts in perception are reflected in distinct patterns of brain activity.
The researchers behind the study wanted to better understand how non-visual cues affect how we perceive faces. While people often think of attractiveness as something based purely on visual features, past studies have shown that judgments about a person’s character, mood, or even profession can influence perceptions of beauty. This study asked whether learning personal information about someone — even a fictional someone — could alter how attractive their face seems, and whether these changes are reflected in brain activity.
To explore this, the researchers conducted two experiments. The first was a behavioral study in which 132 participants rated the attractiveness of 108 AI-generated faces. Each face was shown twice — once on its own and once with a short piece of biographical information. The information varied by face and included occupational status (such as street sweeper or university professor), political alignment (left-wing or right-wing), or a mention of psychiatric illness. Each participant saw a randomized set of faces and information pairings.
The researchers wanted to ensure a diverse sample of faces, so they selected an equal number of male and female faces, representing different racial backgrounds and age groups, with most of the images showing people smiling. The faces were created using StyleGAN technology, which produces realistic human portraits that do not belong to real individuals. The participants rated each face on a scale from 1 to 10.
In this first study, biographical information led to significantly different attractiveness ratings in 34 out of 108 faces — roughly 31 percent. In some cases, the information caused participants to rate faces as more attractive, while in others, the ratings decreased. For example, faces described as having a psychiatric history tended to be rated as less attractive, although a few were rated more positively. Occupational information also had an impact, with faces associated with lower-status jobs generally receiving lower scores. Political information had less of an effect, with smaller and more mixed changes in ratings.
Interestingly, the researchers found that whether the face was smiling or neutral made a difference — particularly in the psychiatric history category. Faces with smiling expressions were less likely to be rated lower even when the biographical information mentioned mental illness. This suggests that positive facial expressions might reduce some of the negative impact that stigmatized biographical information can have on attractiveness judgments.
In the second part of the study, 20 participants completed a similar task while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). During the scan, participants viewed and rated 20 AI-generated faces, each shown twice: once alone and once with added biographical information. This allowed the researchers to track how the brain responded during evaluations influenced by personal details.
The brain imaging results showed increased activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus and the left middle temporal gyrus when participants evaluated faces with biographical information. These areas are known to play roles in language processing and extracting meaning, suggesting that participants were integrating the new information to make more nuanced judgments about the faces they were seeing. This shift in neural activation was especially strong when the biographical details involved occupation or psychiatric history, but not politics.
While the researchers also looked at brain regions known to be involved in visual face processing — such as the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala — these areas did not show significant changes based on the presence or absence of biographical information. This suggests that the core face-processing mechanisms remained stable, while higher-level cognitive areas responded to the added context.
Importantly, the study found that the type of biographical information did not consistently lead to better or worse attractiveness scores. Whether the added detail was positive, neutral, or potentially stigmatizing, just the act of providing more information seemed to shift perception in many cases. This suggests that facial beauty judgments are not only based on appearance but are also shaped by what we think we know about a person.
These findings carry potential implications for understanding how social biases and stereotypes operate. For example, stigma related to mental illness might affect how people are perceived — even when their appearance remains unchanged. The study also hints at the brain’s capacity to incorporate abstract social meaning into rapid visual judgments.
The researchers caution that the results should be interpreted with care. One limitation is that the faces used were AI-generated rather than real. While none of the participants suspected this during the study, and the images activated standard face-processing areas in the brain, it’s unclear if responses to real faces would be the same. Also, the sample for the brain imaging study consisted of young adults, so the findings may not apply to older populations.
Another potential limitation is that the biographical information presented to participants varied in length, especially for political details, which had higher word counts than occupational or psychiatric information. Although this difference did not appear to affect attractiveness ratings significantly, it could have influenced the amount of language processing required, possibly affecting brain activity in related regions.
The study did not assess participants’ own political views, education levels, or mental health backgrounds — all factors that might influence how they interpret biographical information. Future research could explore whether people’s personal beliefs or experiences shape their responses to this kind of contextual detail.
Even with these limitations, the study opens up new questions about how our brains integrate social information and how subtle cues can influence our perceptions of others. The involvement of brain regions related to language and meaning suggests that attractiveness judgments are not just visual or instinctive but also shaped by knowledge, assumptions, and values.
The study, “Biographical information influences on facial attractiveness judgment,” was authored by Sajina Rodríguez, Estefanía Hernández‑Martín, and Julio Plata‑Bello.
