An Objective System for Measuring Facial Attractiveness

Background: Research over the past 20 years has shown that judgments of facial attractiveness are universal; people from all cultures and backgrounds rank and rate faces for attractiveness the same. As such a model for objectively rating facial attractiveness is theoretically plausible, if designed, it would have many uses, including outcomes analysis in plastic surgery of the face. The authors tested a schematic facial composite/prototype mathematical model (the phi mask created by Dr. Stephen Marquardt) as a method for measuring facial attractiveness in an objective manner. Methods: Thirty-seven male and 35 female faces of 18- to 30-year-old whites of European extraction were rated, as were 31 composite faces of each sex using both Internet and direct survey judges. The faces were tested against the phi mask model analyzing deviations of facial anthropometric points from corresponding phi mask nodal points using equivalent weightings, and weightings arrived at by way of multiple linear regression. Results: The deviation from the phi mask significantly correlates with attractiveness, explaining from 25 to 75 percent of the variance in attractiveness judgments, depending on the methodology used. Conclusions: The phi mask model supports averageness or prototypicality of the face as being the major component of the facial attractiveness gestalt and is a first step in producing an objective system for measuring facial attractiveness.

[1]  Carl Vogel,et al.  Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet , 1996, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers.

[2]  R. Ricketts.  The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[3]  Richard Carling,et al.  Composites: Computer-generated portraits , 1986 .

[4]  U D Reips.  The Web Experimental Psychology Lab: Five years of data collection on the Internet , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[5]  P K Commean,et al.  Quantification of Facial Surface Change Using a Structured Light Scanner , 1994, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[6]  Matila C. Ghyka,et al.  The geometry of art and life , 1946 .

[7]  M Sakuda,et al.  Application of a New Method for Anthropometric Analysis of the Nose , 1996, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[8]  R. Ricketts.  The golden divider. , 1981, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[9]  H I Weber,et al.  Numerical modeling of facial aging. , 1998, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  Duncan Rowland,et al.  Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color , 1995, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[11]  D I Perrett,et al.  Extracting Prototypical Facial Images from Exemplars , 1993, Perception.

[12]  K. Grammer,et al.  Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. , 1994, Journal of comparative psychology.

[13]  J. Langlois,et al.  Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Lori A. Roggman,et al.  Article Commentary: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Reply to “On the Difficulty of Averaging Faces” , 1991 .

[15]  David I. Perrett,et al.  Synthesising continuous-tone caricatures , 1991, Image Vis. Comput..

[16]  C. Laredo,et al.  A review of 685 rhytidectomies: a new method of analysis based on digitally processed photographs with computer-processed data. , 1999, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[17]  R M Ricketts,et al.  Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. , 1968, American journal of orthodontics.

[18]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Are Average Facial Configurations Attractive Only Because of Their Symmetry? , 1999 .

[19]  R M Ricketts,et al.  Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. , 1981, The Angle orthodontist.

[20]  D'arcy W. Thompson,et al.  On Growth and Form , 1917, Nature.

[21]  M. J. SEGHERS,et al.  THE GOLDEN PROPORTION AND BEAUTY , 1964 .

[22]  J. Sanger,et al.  The Nasolabial Fold: A Photogrammetric Analysis , 1994, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[23]  D. Perrett,et al.  Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness , 1994, Nature.

[24]  P. Hancock,et al.  The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness. , 2002, British journal of psychology.

[25]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Averageness, Exaggeration, and Facial Attractiveness , 1996 .

[26]  R. Alsarraf,et al.  Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery. , 2002, Facial plastic surgery : FPS.

[27]  D. Perrett,et al.  What Gives a Face its Gender? , 1993, Perception.

[28]  D. Perrett,et al.  Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness , 1998, Nature.

[29]  L. Farkas,et al.  Is photogrammetry of the face reliable? , 1980, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[30]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[31]  J. Langlois,et al.  Attractive Faces Are Only Average , 1990 .

[32]  W. Larrabee,et al.  Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. , 2001, Archives of facial plastic surgery.

[33]  G. Rhodes,et al.  The Attractiveness of Average Faces: Cross-Cultural Evidence and Possible Biological Basis , 2002 .

[34]  C. Cacou.  Anthropometry of the head and face , 1995 .

[35]  M. Cunningham.  Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty , 1986 .

[36]  R M Ricketts,et al.  Divine proportion in facial esthetics. , 1982, Clinics in plastic surgery.

[37]  V. Johnston,et al.  Human facial beauty: current theories and methodologies. , 2003, Archives of facial plastic surgery.

[38]  M. Cunningham,et al.  Article Commentary: Averaged Faces Are Attractive, but Very Attractive Faces Are Not Average , 1991 .

[39]  Martin M Antony,et al.  Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. , 2003, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[40]  R. Alsarraf,et al.  Outcomes Research in Facial Plastic Surgery: A Review and New Directions , 2000, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

[41]  John L. Smith,et al.  Research on the Internet: Validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[42]  J. Langlois,et al.  What Is Average and What Is Not Average About Attractive Faces? , 1994 .

[43]  Mario Gonzlez-ulloa.  A QUANTUM METHOD FOR THE APPRECIATION OF THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE FACE , 1964 .

[44]  T. Buchanan,et al.  Internet research: Self-monitoring and judgments of attractiveness , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[45]  D. Perrett,et al.  Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  S. Hamra.  The role of orbital fat preservation in facial aesthetic surgery. A new concept. , 1996, Clinics in plastic surgery.

[47]  John H. Krantz,et al.  Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness , 1997 .