This is the kind of quantitative study that I really like. There is so much anecdotal talk and debate about whether people from this region/country/continent/class/religion etc. are more beautiful/attractive/intelligent/etc. but with the exception of IQ and personality traits, I have seen very little quantitative evidence for these assertions.
Like g where an individual's correlated performance in multiple test items allows us to extract a common underlying intelligence factor, correlated measures of attractiveness across many observers could in principle allow us to extract an individuals BQ (beauty quotient) in a controlled social science experiment.
Personality and Individual Differences doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.005
A beauty-map of London: Ratings of the physical attractiveness of women and men in London’s boroughs
Viren Swami and Eliana G. Hernandez
In 1908, Francis Galton discussed anecdotal data he had collected for the compilation of a ‘beauty-map of the British Isles’. Based on his discussion, the present study attempted to compile a more empirical beauty-map of London. A community sample of 461 Londoners completed a questionnaire in which they rated the physical attractiveness of women and men in London’s 33 boroughs, as well as their familiarity with those boroughs. Results showed a significant interaction between borough and rated sex, with women being rated as more attractive across boroughs, and three boroughs in particular (the City of London, the City of Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea) being rated high in physical attractiveness. Overall, ratings of attractiveness were significantly positively correlated with familiarity of boroughs, as well as objective measures of borough affluence (specifically, annual gross pay and average house prices) but not of borough health (life expectancy). These results are discussed in relation to the association between wealth and attractiveness, as well as Galton’s original beauty-map.