Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania explored how facial scars influence social perception, revealing nuanced effects on friendliness and overall appeal. The findings suggest that a well-healed scar on the face can enhance perceived friendliness, while certain scar placements may dampen attractiveness. The study was published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, putting a spotlight on how facial marks are interpreted in everyday interactions and in professional settings alike.
In this investigation, the team used a controlled set of facial images to minimize bias. They selected 50 faces displaying neutral expressions and digitally added scars to several key areas: the forehead, lower eyelid, cheek, and upper lip. To gauge social judgments, approximately 1,800 volunteers evaluated the scarred versus scarless versions of each face. Participants provided ratings on perceived attractiveness, trustworthiness, and sincerity, offering a broad view of how different scar placements might shift social impressions in a population that mirrors real-world viewers in North America.
Overall outcomes showed that attractiveness and trustworthiness did not differ significantly between scarred and non scarred faces. Yet, faces bearing scars tended to be rated as friendlier on average. Among the scar locations, foreheads and nearby regions were associated with higher perceptions of safety and warmth, reinforcing the idea that certain scar patterns can convey positive social signals. Conversely, scars running perpendicularly across the lower eyelid were linked to lower attractiveness, highlighting how the direction and placement of a scar can influence aesthetic judgments. These patterns emerged consistently across the large pool of volunteers, underscoring the potential impact of facial features on social perception in diverse communities within Canada and the United States.
The authors also discuss broader implications. They note that responses to facial scarring may be shaped by cultural norms, media portrayals, and individual experiences, all of which can color judgments of friendliness or trust. While the study provides empirical evidence about perceptual differences tied to scar location, it stops short of linking these perceptions to real-world behavior or long-term social outcomes. Still, the work contributes to a growing body of knowledge about how visible facial characteristics influence first impressions in everyday life, including in medical and cosmetic contexts where scar management and facial aesthetics are common concerns. In addition, it invites clinicians and researchers to consider how seemingly subtle facial features may affect interpersonal dynamics, workplace interactions, and patient satisfaction, especially in regions where social perception can influence opportunities and wellbeing. At the end of the day, the research emphasizes that human judgments about faces are complex and context-dependent, and that scar visibility is only one of many signals shaping how a person is perceived in social environments.