We're So(cial Media) Vain
In which we think this is all about us
I.
Vanity is ingrained in human nature. Early Homo sapiens used pigments to decorate their bodies, and makeup, jewelry, flashy clothing, and complicated hairstyles were part and parcel of the upper classes of ancient civilizations to enhance one’s appearance.
Several evolutionary-tinted hypotheses try to explain the importance of ‘appearance enhancement’, and in reality, it’s probably a complex mix of several of the following, many of which overlap as well:
Mating market: The mating market hypothesis suggests that human preferences for physical attractiveness are driven by the desire to obtain a high-quality mate with traits that are in high demand, such as physical attractiveness. Think women with symmetrical faces, clear skin, and a low waist-to-hip ratio, or men with broad shoulders, a muscular physique, and a deep voice. (And let’s not forget, over 6 feet tall…)
Pathogen prevalence: The pathogen prevalence hypothesis suggests that human preferences for physical attractiveness are driven by the need to avoid pathogens in the environment. For example, symmetrical faces and clear skin might be associated with health and resistance to disease.
Biosocial role: The biosocial role hypothesis suggests that human preferences for physical attractiveness are shaped by the social environment in which you find yourself. For example, if having a conventionally attractive partner is something your friends and family attach a lot of importance to, you’re more likely to prioritize physical attractiveness.
Cultural media: The cultural media hypothesis suggests that human preferences for physical attractiveness are influenced by the images and messages that are portrayed in the media. Kind of an expansion of the previous point. TikTok trends will often portray specific images of what ‘beauty’ is supposed to look like, for example.
Genes, cultures, and personal preferences do not evolve in isolation, so all of the above will probably play a role to some extent. For example, some culturally ‘attractive’ traits will become highly valued on the mating market and they might as well represent favorable genetics. Likewise, context matters; in some situations, different selection pressures will have the upper hand.
But how vain are we, really?
II.
A recent study tried to make some headway into quantifying how look-obsessed we are and why.
The study’s thumbs-up characteristics:
93,158 participants, across age groups, body types, and so on.
93 countries, so a pretty good cultural spread.
Every study, though, has caveats. It’s internet survey data, which is not unusual given the size of the study, but still: people lie. Perhaps tracking their look-based activities makes people self-conscious. Also, because it’s internet-based, less-modernized countries are less represented. Also number two, participants were 67% female and 65% had a bachelor's or more advanced degree. Most participants were cisgender and heterosexual.
In other words, extrapolating from this study to your personal situation might be more or less relevant depending on how much you skew in the direction of the study’s participants (which goes for any study).
Examples of behaviors tracked through the survey are applying makeup or using other cosmetics, hair grooming, picking specific clothing styles, caring for body hygiene, and exercising or following a diet for the specific purpose of improving one's physical attractiveness.
Of course, these behaviors may not only be about ‘appearance enhancement’. Caring for hygiene or going to the gym can also be for (mental) health reasons on top of the specific purpose of being more attractive asked about in the survey, for example.
Anyway, on to the interesting stuff:
99% of people that took the survey spent >10 minutes on look-improving behaviors.
On average, women spend 4 hours per day on appearance improvement, and men 3.6 hours. (Kind of debunks the ‘women spend way more time getting ready’ narrative.) That’s about a sixth (!) of our day and our adult lives, in other words. The only exception is in countries with a large gender inequality, where women spend significantly more time (roughly two hours) on their looks than men.
Except for the previous point, no major cultural differences.
Young adults and the elderly spend the most time on their looks, less so for the middle-aged among us.
Similarly, early on in a relationship, we try harder to look better. Captain Obvious reports for duty.
III.
Despite all of the above, there was one factor that far outstripped all the others when it came to correlating with time spent on appearance improvement. I’m sure you can guess it. Social media use.
People who are active on social media invest an average of two hours more on their appearance than those who are not or hardly active on Facebook (sorry, I mean Meta) and the like. Those who pursue unrealistic beauty ideals or are concerned when their photos receive fewer likes, in particular, spend more time and energy trying to look as ‘beautiful’ as possible. (Then again, beautiful as defined by social media standards is a narrow view of beauty, but that’s another discussion.)
Socrates would like to have a word:
Beauty is a short-lived tyranny.
Damn. Curmudgeon. He may have had a point, though. By definition, chasing unrealistic beauty standards is - duh - unrealistic. This doesn’t mean you can’t make changes to your appearance, or can’t aim high for what you want to achieve, but don’t fall for the tyranny of social media pressure.
The conclusion of the study reads:
Our results seem to corroborate those of previous studies highlighting an exceptionally strong negative link between social media usage and well-being, which is particularly worrisome given the stark rise in social media usage in the past decade.
To me, this suggests that the relative ‘weight’ of the cultural (social) media pressure is increasing, both through its prevalence and its unrealistic standards. Still, I think the study’s authors are a bit too one-sided. Social media can also be a tool for connection. It can help you find interesting people and learn new things, perhaps even forge friendships with people on the other side of the world. (Though recent developments in the social media ecosystem might provide hurdles for this...)
But, as the emphasis shifts from content to appearance, things get murky. Add to that the ubiquitous filters and, even more recently AI, that turn social media influencers into picture-perfect cartoons, and the impact on their followers’ self-image can (or will definitely?) be detrimental. If I put on my official behavioral and evolutionary biologist hat, I can’t help but be intrigued but this rapid development of an extra cultural ‘selection pressure’ of social media that offers us a distorted view of a heavily edited world that is presented as aspirational. I think this is especially true for people who have to grow up surrounded by feeds and timelines that implicitly tell them what/who to be.
I don’t think we need to abolish social media but move to a balanced approach in which we prioritize quality information and (mental) health over appearance. Good luck with that, I suppose.
If you feel insecure about your appearance, remember what Audrey Hepburn once said:
The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman is seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It's the caring that she lovingly gives, the passion that she shows and the beauty of a woman only grows with the passing years.
Easy for her to say, I know. (Ever noticed how it’s mostly beautiful people telling everyone that appearance doesn’t matter? Odd how that works, isn’t it?)
Hey, you. Yeah, you. You’re beautiful. Go and have a wonderful day.
Related thoughts:
