Key Takeaways
- People look better when seen next to less attractive faces.
- Emotional contrast—not just looks—shapes first impressions.
- The effect appears in dating, hiring, and everyday social settings.
- Advertisers use this tactic to make products (and people) stand out.
We often believe that first impressions are based on our own qualities—how we look, act, or present ourselves. But research suggests our perceived traits, like warmth or likability, might be influenced just as much by the people around us. A 2025 study published in Current Psychology found that moderately attractive individuals were more likely to be judged favorably when shown next to someone less attractive. And it’s not just about visual contrast—emotional reactions in the brain help drive this effect.
How the Study Was Set Up
The researchers recruited 46 young, heterosexual college students and asked them to evaluate digital images of paired female faces. One face—the “target”—was always of moderate attractiveness. The other varied: either more or less attractive. After each image pair, participants were asked whether a trait (e.g., “kind,” “rigid”) applied to the target face. At the same time, brain activity was tracked using event-related potentials (ERPs), which allowed researchers to measure not just what participants decided, but how their brains arrived at those judgments.
What makes this study unique is its focus on real-time neural responses. Previous research has shown how people look more attractive in groups (known as the “cheerleader effect”; Walker & Vul, 2014), but this study goes further by showing why that happens, pinpointing emotional and semantic processing in the brain.
The Role of Emotional Contrast
The findings were clear: when a moderately attractive face appeared next to someone less attractive, participants judged it more positively and did so more quickly. This wasn’t just a visual reaction—it was emotional and cognitive.
The N400 brainwave, which spikes when the brain encounters something that feels off or mismatched, was larger when participants were asked to apply negative traits to target faces paired with less attractive background faces. This suggests that their brains felt internal resistance—an emotional conflict—when trying to associate something “bad” with someone they’d already subconsciously deemed “good.”
In contrast, the Late Positive Potential (LPP)—a measure of emotional involvement—was stronger when participants saw the target face next to someone less attractive. This implies deeper emotional engagement with the comparison, rather than just noticing who looked better. Crucially, early-stage brain signals like the N170 (face detection) and EPN (early emotional processing) did not change, indicating the effect arises at a higher-level interpretive stage, not from basic visual processing.
Where This Shows Up in Everyday Life
Though tested in a lab, this bias likely plays out constantly in real life—on dating apps, in job interviews, and across social media. A group photo might make someone seem more likable or trustworthy, depending on who else is in the frame. In professional settings, a candidate might stand out—or fade—based on the visual company they keep, even if all resumes are equal.
These findings align with Festinger’s social comparison theory (1954), which posits that individuals determine their value and traits by comparing themselves with others. In this case, a moderately attractive face gains an emotional edge when positioned beside a less attractive one, not because it changed, but because our perception shifts through contrast. It also ties into processing fluency (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004), where the brain favors what’s easy to emotionally interpret. A moderately attractive face placed beside a less attractive one creates a smoother emotional narrative, making positive traits seem to “fit.”
Why Kindness Can Change How Someone Looks
One of the study’s most interesting implications is the interaction between perceived personality and appearance. We already know from earlier research that generosity and warmth can enhance someone’s perceived attractiveness. In one large-scale analysis using national U.S. datasets, researchers found that people who engaged in giving behaviors were also rated as more physically attractive, and vice versa, suggesting a “good-looking giver” effect that operates independently of halo bias (Konrath & Handy, 2020). This means that social context could kickstart a feedback loop: someone may appear warmer by comparison, leading observers to assign positive traits that influence later impressions, though the study does not establish a causal link between these stages. Over time, these small visual dynamics may accumulate into reputational advantages—or disadvantages—for reasons that have little to do with character..
The Ethical Dilemma: Contrast as a Social Strategy
While the findings offer valuable insight into human cognition, they also open the door to ethical questions. Could this contrast effect be used intentionally? In marketing and branding, we already see examples of contrast-based framing: “before and after” transformations, product lineups that spotlight one standout item, or influencer photos where the central figure is polished and those around them are more casual.
If individuals begin to apply this logic socially, choosing who to be seen with based on how it affects perception, it raises troubling concerns. Someone might routinely benefit from being the “most attractive” in a group, while others unintentionally serve as visual foils. While this might not be deliberate, repeated exposure to that dynamic could erode confidence in those always cast in the less favorable light.
There’s also the risk that people who consistently benefit from this effect begin to internalize inflated traits—believing they’re more warm or likable because others treat them that way, not realizing the perception is situational. In both directions, the consequences of contrast-based judgment extend far beyond appearances.
Why These Findings Come With Caveats
Like any study, this one has limitations. The sample was narrow—young, heterosexual college students—and the stimuli were simplified digital faces lacking hair, expression, or cultural variation. The absence of a solo-face control condition also leaves an important question unanswered: are judgments improved by contrast with less attractive faces, or simply suppressed when next to more attractive ones?
These constraints mean the results may not generalize across all demographics or real-world conditions, where personality, facial expression, and non-verbal cues play a larger role.
FAQs
What was the main finding of the study?
People judged faces more positively when they appeared next to someone less attractive.
Was it just about appearance?
No. Brain data showed emotional contrast shaped how people formed impressions.
What kind of brain activity was measured?
Researchers tracked ERPs—especially the N400 (linked to conflict) and LPP (linked to emotion).
Who participated in the study?
46 young, heterosexual college students viewed pairs of standardized female faces.
Did the study include other age groups or genders?
No. The sample was limited, so the results might not apply to everyone.
Was there a solo-face control condition?
No. So we don’t know if faces looked better by contrast or worse by comparison.
Is this the same as the ‘cheerleader effect’?
It’s related. That effect shows people look better in groups; this study shows why, through emotional contrast in the brain (Walker & Vul, 2014).
Where does this show up in everyday life?
In job interviews, dating apps, social media photos, and even casual group settings.
Could this happen in hiring decisions?
Yes. A candidate might seem stronger if interviewed after someone less polished.
What about dating?
Someone might get more attention if their group photo includes less attractive friends.
Are brands using this effect already?
Yes. Advertisers often place “hero” products beside less desirable options to increase appeal.
Do people ever use this effect intentionally?
Possibly. Social media curation and photo selection may unconsciously (or deliberately) rely on contrast.
Does being kind make you look better, too?
Yes. A separate study found that generous people are rated as more attractive (Konrath & Handy, 2020).
Should we be worried about this?
It’s not about panic—it’s about awareness. These biases are common, but knowing they exist helps us judge more fairly.
What’s the takeaway for everyday interactions?
Slow down first impressions. Ask if you’re reacting to someone, or to who they happen to be standing next to.
Related Reading:
Study Reveals Women Feel More Hurt When Excluded by Unattractive Women Rather Than Attractive Ones
Handsome Men Receive More Privileges from Women, while Unattractive Men Get Less Leeway
Study: Men Who Had Facial Plastic Surgery Considered More Attractive and Trustworthy
Study Shows People Prefer Feminine Faces Across Cultures — But Would That Change in Times of Crisis?
Search attractive gener People Who Are Generous Are Perceived to Be More Attractive Study Shows
Final Thoughts: Who Are We Really Seeing?
Have you ever noticed someone looked more charming in one group photo than another, simply because of who they stood beside? This study highlights just how much our impressions of others are shaped by subtle contrasts, often without us realizing it. Emotional contrast, not just appearance, shapes how we assess traits like warmth, trustworthiness, or competence—often without realizing it.
This kind of framing is already used in marketing. Retailers often place premium products next to basic ones to enhance their appeal. But the same mechanism may quietly influence human perception. In hiring, for example, a candidate might appear more confident or capable if they’re interviewed after someone less composed. Not because their qualifications are stronger, but because of how contrast affects emotional judgment.
We also see this in curated social media images, team presentations, or group introductions. Someone may stand out more favorably depending on the visual company they keep. These effects may be subtle, but for the individuals consistently seen as “the comparison,” the impact can be long-term on self-esteem, professional evaluation, and how others interpret their personality.
This doesn’t mean we can eliminate these unconscious influences. But it does suggest a need for a pause. When forming an impression—especially in settings with real stakes—we should ask: are we seeing the person clearly, or just more clearly than the person beside them?
References
Han, S., Hu, C., Su, W. et al. (2025). Getting close to beauty makes you better: the influence of background facial attractiveness on trait inferences. Current Psychology, 44, 3979–3991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07401-1
Konrath, S., & Handy, F. (2020). The good-looking giver effect: The relationship between doing good and looking good. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020950835
Walker, D., & Vul, E. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive. Psychological Science, 25(1), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497969
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
