Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Objective Aspects of Beauty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Beauty and Body Dysmorphic Disorder

Abstract

In most categories of life deemed to be important, beautiful people achieve more desirable outcomes. Human beings prefer to associate with the most beautiful as these people are considered to be more successful, intelligent, and interesting than their unattractive counterparts. For much of history, it has been assumed that our preferences for beauty are gradually learned through cultural transmission and exposure to contemporary media. However, cross-cultural and infant studies have negated this and support the notion of the universality of beauty with some standards set by nature. Beauty preferences seem to be a result of a basic cognitive process that appears quite early in life, with humans having a near automatic tendency to categorize a person as attractive or unattractive. Although one can often articulate that a face is beautiful quite rapidly and from just small amounts of visual information, it is sometimes difficult to decipher the exact reasons as to what constitutes this beauty. Research suggests that the main attributes that humans find universally attractive in others include facial averageness, symmetry, sexual dimorphism, and skin homogeneity. In this chapter, these characteristics are defined and supported with research and evidence from the scientific community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O’Connor E, Breiter HC. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron. 2001;32(3):537–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Doherty J, Winston J, Critchley H, Perrett D, Burt D, Dolan R. Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(2):147–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grammer K, Fink B, Moller AP, Thornhill R. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003;78(3):385–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Samuels CA, Ewy R. Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. Br J Dev Psychol. 1985;3(3):221–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol. 1991;27(1):79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernstein I, Lin T, McClellan P. Cross-vs. within-racial judgments of attractiveness. J Exp Child Psychol. 1982;32:495–503.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham M. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the socio-biology of female facial beauty. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;50:925–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(3):390–423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cunningham M, Roberts A, Barbee A, Druen P, Wu C. “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1995;68(2):261–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sugiyama L. Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25:51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat. 1993;4:271–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rubenstein AJ, Kalakanis L, Langlois JH. Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(3):848–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philoso Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571):1638–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gangestad SW, Scheyd GJ. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:523–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buss D. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989;12:1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwarz S, Hassebrauck M. Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Hum Nat. 2012;23(4):447–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rhodes G, Lie HC, Thevaraja N, Taylor L, Iredell N, Curran C, et al. Facial attractiveness ratings from video-clips and static images tell the same story. PloS ONE. 2011;6(11):e26653.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Willis J, Todorov A. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(7):592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Olson IR, Marshuetz C. Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion. 2005;5(4):498–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kampe KK, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Frith U. Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature. 2001;413(6856):589.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Galton F. Composite portraits. Nature. 1878;18:97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Langlois J, Roggman L, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychol Sci. 1994;5(4):214–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Langlois J, Roggman L. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990;1(2):115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Winkielman P, Halberstadt J, Fazendeiro T, Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(9):799–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Trujillo LT, Jankowitsch JM, Langlois JH. Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: a neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2014;14(3):1061–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Halberstadt J, Rhodes G. The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychol Sci. 2000;11(4):285–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Apicella CL, Little AC, Marlowe FW. Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception. 2007;36:1813–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Lee K, R M, Akamatsu S. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western populations: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception. 2001;30:611–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rhodes G, Chan J, Zebrowitz L, Simmons L. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health?. Proc R Soc Lond B, 2003;270:S93–S5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Walton G, Bower TGR. Newborns form ‘prototypes’ in less than 1 min. Psychol Sci. 1993;4:203–5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vingilis-Jaremko L, Maurer D. The influence of averageness on children’s judgments of facial attractiveness. J Exp Child Psychol. 2013;115(4):624–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rhodes G, Jeffery L, Watson TL, Clifford CW, Nakayama K. Fitting the mind to the world: face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(6):558–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooper PA, Maurer D. The influence of recent experience on perceptions of attractiveness. Perception. 2008;37(8):1216–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Anzures G, Mondloch CJ, Lackner C. Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects in 8-year-olds and adults. Child Dev. 2009;80(1):178–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Short LA, Hatry AJ, Mondloch CJ. The development of norm-based coding and race-specific face prototypes: an examination of 5- and 8-year-olds’ face space. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011;108(2):338–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Webster MA, Kaping D, Mizokami Y, Duhamel P. Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature. 2004;428(6982):557–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rhodes G, Jeffery L, Watson TL, Jaquet E, Winkler C, Clifford CW. Orientation-contingent face aftereffects and implications for face-coding mechanisms. Curr Biol. 2004;14(23):2119–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Alley T, Cunningham MR. Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci. 1991;2:123–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rhodes G, Sumich A, Byatt G. Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psycholol Sci. 1999;10 52–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jones B, DeBruine L, Little A. The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Percept Psychophys. 2007;69:1273–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Valentine T, Darling S, Donnelly M. Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004;11(3):482–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. O’Toole A, Price T, Vetter T, Bartletta J, Blanz V. 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: the role of “averages” in attractiveness and age. Image Vis Comput. 1999;18:9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Little A, Hancock P. The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. Br J Psychol. 2002;93:451–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rhodes G, Tremewan T. Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 1996;7(2):105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shackelford T, Larsen R. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72:456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Møller A, Swaddle J. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Simmons LW. Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behav Ecol. 2004;15(5):864–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Borod JC, Bloom RL, Brickman AM, Nakhutina L, Curko EA. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Appl Neuropsychol. 2002;9(1):23–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pflüger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K. Cues to fertility: perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evol Hum Behav. 2012;33(6):708–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Yeo R. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethol Sociobiol. 1994;15:73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Møller A, Thornhill R. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat. 1998;151(2):174–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Waitt C, Little AC. Preferences for symmetry in conspecific facial shape among Macaca mulatta. Int J Primatol. 2006;27(1):133–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jansson L, Forkman B, Enquist M. Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim Behav. 2002;63:617–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Symmeter 2002. http://www.symmeter.com/. Accessed 22 Oct 2014.

  56. Hamermesh D, Tekin E. Reasons to not be ugly: full transcript. In: Dubner SJ, editor. Reasons to not be ugly: full transcript. Freakonomics. http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/30/reasons-to-not-be-ugly-full-transcript/. Accessed 7 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kowner R. Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996;22(3):662–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Samuels CA, Butterworth G, Roberts T, Graupner L, Hole G. Facial aesthetics: babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception. 1994;23(7):823–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC. Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc Biol Sci. 1995;261(1360):111–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Perrett D, Burt D, Penton-Voak I, Lee K, Rowland D, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 1999;20:295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady J, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon Bull Rev. 1998;5(4):659–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Penton-Voak IS, Jones BC, Little AC, Baker S, Tiddeman B, Burt DM, et al. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci. 2001;268(1476):1617–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol. 1994;108:233–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hume DK, Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evol Hum Behav. 2001;22(2):93–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc Biol Sci. 1999;266(1431):1913–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Fink B, Neave N, Manning JT, Grammer K. Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personal Individ Differ. 2006;41(3):491–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mealey L, Bridgstock R, Townsend GC. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1999;76(1):151–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Little AC, Apicella CL, Marlowe FW. Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proc Biol Sci. 2007;274(1629):3113–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Komori M, Kawamura S, Ishihara S. Averageness or symmetry: which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychol. 2009;131(2):136–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Weeden J, Sabini J. Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: a review. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(5):635–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Fink B, Penton-Voak I. Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2002;11:154–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, et al. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc Biol Sci Royal Soc. 2006;273(1583):135–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Penton-Voak I, Chen J. High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25(4):229–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998;394(6696):884–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Johnston VS, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14(3):183–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Koehler N, Simmons LW, Rhodes G, Peters M. The relationship between sexual dimorphism in human faces and fluctuating asymmetry. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271 (Suppl 4):S233–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. O’Toole AJ, Deffenbacher KA, Valentin D, McKee K, Huff D, Abdi H. The perception of face gender: the role of stimulus structure in recognition and classification. Mem Cognit. 1998;26(1):146–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L. Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? Br J Psychol. 2000;91 (Pt 1):125–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, et al. Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s masculinity. Proc Biol Sci. 2006;273(1592):1355–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Keating C. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Soc Psychol Q. 1985;48(1):61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Johnston V, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K. Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone medicated adaptive design. Evol Human Behav: Off J Hum Behav Evolu Soc. 2001;21:251–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Swaddle JP, Reierson GW. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1507):2285–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav. 2000;21(2):39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Madrigal L, Kelly W. Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: a test of the sexual selection hypothesis. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007;132(3):470–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Frost P. Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;79(1 Pt 2):507–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1496):1095–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Bjorntorp P. The associations between obesity, adipose tissue distribution and disease. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1988;723:121–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1993;65(2):293–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Rebuffe-Scrive M, Lonnroth P, Marin P, Wesslau C, Bjorntorp P, Smith U. Regional adipose tissue metabolism in men and postmenopausal women. Int J Obes. 1987;11(4):347–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Marti B, Tuomilehto J, Salomaa V, Kartovaara L, Korhonen HJ, Pietinen P. Body fat distribution in the Finnish population: environmental determinants and predictive power for cardiovascular risk factor levels. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991;45(2):131–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Zaadstra BM, Seidell JC, Van Noord PA, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Vrieswijk B, et al. Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ. 1993;306(6876):484–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Kirschner MA, Samojlik E. Sex hormone metabolism in upper and lower body obesity. Int J Obes. 1991;15 (Suppl 2):101–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Singh D, Randall PK. Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness. Personal Individ Differ. 2007;43(2):329–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Singh D, Young R. Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethol Sociobiol. 1995;16:483–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Streeter S, McBurney D. Waist–hip ratio and attractiveness New evidence and a critique of “a critical test”. Evol Hum Behav. 2003;24:88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Henss R. Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness: evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personal Individ Differ. 2000;28:501–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Furnham A, Lavancy M, McClelland A. Waist-to-hip ratio and facial attractiveness: a pilot study. Personal Individ Differ. 2001;30:491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Forestell C, Humphrey T, Stewart S. Involvement of body weight and shape factors in ratings of attractiveness by women: a replication and extension of Tassinary and Hansen (1998). Personal Individ Differ. 2004;36(2):295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Morris D. Bodywatching, First edition. New York: Random House Value Publishing; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Garner DM, Garfinkel PE, Schwartz D, Thompson M. Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychol Rep. 1980;47(2):483–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Mazur A. U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. J Sex Res. 1986;22:281–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Connolly JM, Slaughter V, Mealey L. The development of preferences for specific body shapes. J Sex Res. 2004;41(1):5–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Cornelissen PL, Tovee MJ, Bateson M. Patterns of subcutaneous fat deposition and the relationship between body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio: implications for models of physical attractiveness. J Theor Biol. 2009;256(3):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Dixson B, Li B, Dixson A. Female waist-to-hip ratio, body mass index and sexual attractiveness in China. Curr Zool. 2010;56(2):175–81.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Tovee MJ, Maisey DS, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL. Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci. 1999;266(1415):211–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Furnham A, Swami V, Shah K. Body weight, -to-hip ratio and breast size correlates of ratings of attractiveness and health. Personal Individ Differ. 2006;41(3):443–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Rozmus-Wrzesinska M, Pawlowski B. Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size. Biol Psychol 2005;68(3):299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Dixson AF, Halliwell G, East R, Wignarajah P, Anderson MJ. Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Arch Sex Behav. 2003;32(1):29–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Mehrabian A, Blum JS. Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of emotions. Curr Psychol. 1997;16(1):20–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Lindner M, Ryckman R, Gold J, Stone W. Traditional and nontraditional women and men’s perceptions of the personalities and physique of ideal men and women. Sex Roles. 1995;32:675–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Samson N, Fink B, Matts PJ. Visible skin condition and perception of human facial appearance. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2010;32(3):167–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Matts PJ, Fink B, Grammer K, Burquest M. Color homogeneity and visual perception of age, health, and attractiveness of female facial skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):977–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Fink B, Matts PJ, Klingenberg H, Kuntze S, Weege B, Grammer K. Visual attention to variation in female facial skin color distribution. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2008;7(2):155–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Jones B, Little A, Burt D, Perrett D. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception. 2004 33:569–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Fink B, Bunse L, Matts PJ, D’Emiliano D. Visible skin colouration predicts perception of male facial age, health and attractiveness. Int J of Cosmet Sci. 2012;34(4):307–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Fink B, Matts PJ, D’Emiliano D, Bunse L, Weege B, Roder S. Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of male facial skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(12):1486–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Fink B, Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. J Comp Psychol. 2001;115(1):92–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Fink B, Grammer K, Matts P. Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces. Evol Hum Behav. 2006;27(6):433–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Scott IM, Pound N, Stephen ID, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(10):e13585.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Confer JC, Perilloux C, Buss DM. More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evol Hum Behav. 2010;31(5):348–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Sorokowski P, Pawlowski B. Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(2):86–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Frederick DA, Haselton MG. Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(8):1167–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Hensley WE. Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence. 1994;29(114):469–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Brown JR, van der Zwan R, Brooks A. Eye of the beholder: symmetry perception in social judgments based on whole body displays. I-Perception. 2012;3(7):398–409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Naini FB, Moss JP, Gill DS. The enigma of facial beauty: esthetics, proportions, deformity, and controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(3):277–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Euklid. The elements, book I-XIII. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Jahanbin A, Basafa M, Alizadeh Y. Evaluation of the divine proportion in the facial profile of young females. Indian J Dent Res. 2008;19(4):292–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Green CD. All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception. 1995;24(8):937–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Jefferson Y. Facial beauty–establishing a universal standard. Int J Orthod. 2004;15(1):9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Levin EI. Dental esthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;40(3):244–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Ricketts RM. Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg. 1982;9(4):401–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Pancherz H, Knapp V, Erbe C, Heiss AM. Divine proportions in attractive and nonattractive faces. World J Orthod. 2010;11(1):27–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Danikas D, Panagopoulos G. The golden ratio and proportions of beauty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(4):1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Habbema L. Facial esthetics and patient selection. Clin Dermatol. 2004;22(1):14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Medici Filho E, Martins MV, dos Santos da Silva MA, Castilho JC, de Moraes LC, Gil CT. Divine proportions and facial esthetics after manipulation of frontal photographs. World J Orthod. 2007;8(2):103–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Ferring V, Pancherz H. Divine proportions in the growing face. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):472–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N. Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:428250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN. The use of three-dimensional techniques in facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. 1995;1(2):94–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG. Dentists’ preferences of anterior tooth proportion–a web-based study. J Prosthodont. 2000;9(3):123–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Naini FB. Leonardo da Vinci’s portrait of a young woman in profile: studies of beauty and “ideal” proportions. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012;14(2):148–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Kiekens RM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van ’t Hof MA, van ’t Hof BE, Maltha JC. Putative golden proportions as predictors of facial esthetics in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):480–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Baker BW, Woods MG. The role of the divine proportion in the esthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2001;16(2):108–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Shell TL, Woods MG. Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical class II treatment. Aust Orthod J. 2004;20(2):51–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(3):757–74; discussion 75—6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Kim YH. Easy facial analysis using the facial golden mask. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(3):643–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Marquardt SR. Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt on the golden decagon and human facial beauty. Interview by Dr. Gottlieb. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36(6):339–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Holland E. Marquardt’s Phi mask: pitfalls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face. Aesthetic Plas Surg. 2008;32(2):200–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Pallett PM, Link S, Lee K. New “golden” ratios for facial beauty. Vision Res. 2010;50(2):149–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Hinsz VB, Stoesser CJ, Matz DC. The intermingling of social and evolutionary psychology influences on hair color preferences. Curr Psychol. 2013;32(2):136–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Tiggemann M, Kenyon S. The hairlessness norm: the removal of body hair in women. Sex Roles. 1998;39:873–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Jones D, Brace C, Jankowiak W, Laland K, Musselman L, Langlois J, et al. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: cross-cultural evidence and implications. Curr Anthropol. 1995;36(5):723–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Barber N. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 1995;16(5):395–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Henss R. Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1991;21(11):933–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Mathes EW, Brennan SM, Haugen PM, Rice HB. Ratings of physical attractiveness as a function of age. J Soc Psychol. 1985;125(2):157–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. McArthur L, Apatow K. Impressions of baby-faced adults. Soc Cognit. 1984;2:315–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994;368(6468):239–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Hamermesh DS. Beauty pays: why attractive people are more successful. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013. 232 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Cosmetic and Laser Center, Boston University, 609 Albany Street, J602, 02118, Boston, MA, USA

    Asst. Prof Neelam A. Vashi MD

Authors
  1. Asst. Prof Neelam A. Vashi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neelam A. Vashi MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Neelam A. Vashi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vashi, N. (2015). Objective Aspects of Beauty. In: Vashi, N. (eds) Beauty and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17867-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17867-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17866-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17867-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation