You’ve probably scrolled past this kind of content on social media. Someone digs up an old photo from a few years back and sighs: "Look at how vibrant the style was back then—bold makeup, full of life."
Then they compare it to today. Low saturation, gray tones, quiet luxury, understated elegance. It looks good, sure. But something’s missing.
What’s missing is what people online now call "economic upswing beauty."
Here’s the thing. Most people chalk this up to pure aesthetic preference. But there’s actually a solid body of research behind it. Scholars have spent years measuring Hollywood actresses’ faces, Billboard chart-toppers’ tempos, skirt lengths, and even how much people retouch their photos on social platforms.
The studies vary in scope and angle, but they all converge on a single conclusion: the faces you find attractive, the clothes you wear, the music you listen to—these preferences are subtly shaped by the economic cycle.
Terry Pettijohn, a psychology professor at Coastal Carolina University, has spent the last two decades on this exact question. He coined a term for it: the "Environmental Security Hypothesis."
His basic idea: when the economy is good, people gravitate toward "baby-faced" features. When it’s bad, they prefer "mature-faced" ones.
Consider Hollywood. Pettijohn and his team measured the facial features of the most popular actresses from 1932 to 1995—eye size, jaw width, face shape. Then they cross-referenced this data with economic indicators like unemployment, CPI, and disposable income.
The pattern was clear. In boom years, the hottest actresses had big eyes, delicate features, a youthful look. In bust years, the stars had sharper lines, smaller eyes, broader jaws—faces that looked experienced.
Put simply: when times are good, audiences vote for a face that makes them happy. When times are tough, they vote for a face that makes them feel safe.
The same pattern shows up in music.
In 2009, Pettijohn’s team published a study in Psychology of Music. They analyzed every Billboard #1 single from 1955 to 2003—measuring tempo, key, and how listeners emotionally rated the songs.
Boom year hits: faster tempo, brighter keys, lighter lyrics. Songs that made you want to get up and dance.
Bust year hits: slower tempo, more mellow melodies, deeper lyrics. Songs that made you sit still and feel something.
They also found something extra: songs from tough economic times were consistently rated as "more meaningful" in their lyrics. In good times, people use music to celebrate. In bad times, they use it to heal.
By 2012, the team added more dimensions—measuring BPM, the number of beats per minute. Same conclusion. More beats in good years. Fewer beats in bad years. More major keys in good years. More minor keys in bad years.
By 2014, they went even further. This time, they measured the faces of country music stars on the Billboard year-end charts from 1946 to 2010. Same method, same result.
Here’s the practical takeaway.
This isn’t just an interesting academic observation. It’s a lens for understanding your own reactions. You might have felt that "something is missing" in current aesthetics without being able to name it. Now you can.
The thing is, your brain is constantly running a security check. When the external environment feels uncertain, it recalibrates your preferences—toward faces, sounds, and styles that signal stability and depth. When the environment feels safe, it opens up toward playfulness and novelty.
You don’t choose these preferences consciously. They choose you.
And that’s the real insight: your aesthetic taste isn’t just about beauty. It’s about your brain’s ongoing negotiation with the world around you.
So the next time you catch yourself nostalgic for a certain "look" from the past, ask yourself: was that look really about the clothes and makeup, or was it about something else entirely?