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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
Samuels CA, Ewy R. Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. Br J Dev Psychol. 1985;3(3):221–8.
Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol. 1991;27(1):79–84.
Bernstein I, Lin T, McClellan P. Cross-vs. within-racial judgments of attractiveness. J Exp Child Psychol. 1982;32:495–503.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat. 1993;4:271–96.
Rubenstein AJ, Kalakanis L, Langlois JH. Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(3):848–55.
Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philoso Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571):1638–59.
Gangestad SW, Scheyd GJ. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:523–48.
Buss D. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989;12:1–49.
Schwarz S, Hassebrauck M. Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Hum Nat. 2012;23(4):447–66.
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.
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.
Olson IR, Marshuetz C. Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion. 2005;5(4):498–502.
Kampe KK, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Frith U. Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature. 2001;413(6856):589.
Galton F. Composite portraits. Nature. 1878;18:97–100.
Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199–226.
Langlois J, Roggman L, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychol Sci. 1994;5(4):214–20.
Langlois J, Roggman L. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990;1(2):115–21.
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.
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.
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.
Apicella CL, Little AC, Marlowe FW. Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. Perception. 2007;36:1813–20.
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.
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.
Walton G, Bower TGR. Newborns form ‘prototypes’ in less than 1 min. Psychol Sci. 1993;4:203–5.
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.
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.
Cooper PA, Maurer D. The influence of recent experience on perceptions of attractiveness. Perception. 2008;37(8):1216–26.
Anzures G, Mondloch CJ, Lackner C. Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects in 8-year-olds and adults. Child Dev. 2009;80(1):178–91.
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.
Webster MA, Kaping D, Mizokami Y, Duhamel P. Adaptation to natural facial categories. Nature. 2004;428(6982):557–61.
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.
Alley T, Cunningham MR. Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci. 1991;2:123–5.
Rhodes G, Sumich A, Byatt G. Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psycholol Sci. 1999;10 52–8.
Jones B, DeBruine L, Little A. The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Percept Psychophys. 2007;69:1273–7.
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.
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.
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.
Rhodes G, Tremewan T. Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 1996;7(2):105–10.
Shackelford T, Larsen R. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72:456–66.
Møller A, Swaddle J. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
Simmons LW. Are human preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behav Ecol. 2004;15(5):864–71.
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.
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.
Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Yeo R. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethol Sociobiol. 1994;15:73–85.
Møller A, Thornhill R. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat. 1998;151(2):174–92.
Waitt C, Little AC. Preferences for symmetry in conspecific facial shape among Macaca mulatta. Int J Primatol. 2006;27(1):133–45.
Jansson L, Forkman B, Enquist M. Experimental evidence of receiver bias for symmetry. Anim Behav. 2002;63:617–21.
Symmeter 2002. http://www.symmeter.com/. Accessed 22 Oct 2014.
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.
Kowner R. Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996;22(3):662–75.
Samuels CA, Butterworth G, Roberts T, Graupner L, Hole G. Facial aesthetics: babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception. 1994;23(7):823–31.
Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC. Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc Biol Sci. 1995;261(1360):111–6.
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.
Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady J, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon Bull Rev. 1998;5(4):659–69.
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.
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.
Hume DK, Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evol Hum Behav. 2001;22(2):93–112.
Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc Biol Sci. 1999;266(1431):1913–7.
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.
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.
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.
Komori M, Kawamura S, Ishihara S. Averageness or symmetry: which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychol. 2009;131(2):136–42.
Weeden J, Sabini J. Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: a review. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(5):635–53.
Fink B, Penton-Voak I. Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2002;11:154–8.
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.
Penton-Voak I, Chen J. High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25(4):229–41.
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.
Johnston VS, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14(3):183–99.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Keating C. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Soc Psychol Q. 1985;48(1):61–70.
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.
Swaddle JP, Reierson GW. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1507):2285–9.
Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav. 2000;21(2):39–48.
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.
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.
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.
Bjorntorp P. The associations between obesity, adipose tissue distribution and disease. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1988;723:121–34.
Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1993;65(2):293–307.
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.
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.
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.
Kirschner MA, Samojlik E. Sex hormone metabolism in upper and lower body obesity. Int J Obes. 1991;15 (Suppl 2):101–8.
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.
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.
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.
Henss R. Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness: evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personal Individ Differ. 2000;28:501–13.
Furnham A, Lavancy M, McClelland A. Waist-to-hip ratio and facial attractiveness: a pilot study. Personal Individ Differ. 2001;30:491–502.
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.
Morris D. Bodywatching, First edition. New York: Random House Value Publishing; 1985.
Garner DM, Garfinkel PE, Schwartz D, Thompson M. Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychol Rep. 1980;47(2):483–91.
Mazur A. U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. J Sex Res. 1986;22:281–330.
Connolly JM, Slaughter V, Mealey L. The development of preferences for specific body shapes. J Sex Res. 2004;41(1):5–15.
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.
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.
Tovee MJ, Maisey DS, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL. Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proc Biol Sci. 1999;266(1415):211–8.
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.
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.
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.
Mehrabian A, Blum JS. Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of emotions. Curr Psychol. 1997;16(1):20–42.
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.
Samson N, Fink B, Matts PJ. Visible skin condition and perception of human facial appearance. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2010;32(3):167–84.
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.
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.
Jones B, Little A, Burt D, Perrett D. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception. 2004 33:569–76.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorokowski P, Pawlowski B. Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(2):86–91.
Frederick DA, Haselton MG. Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(8):1167–83.
Hensley WE. Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence. 1994;29(114):469–74.
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.
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.
Euklid. The elements, book I-XIII. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 1991.
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.
Green CD. All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception. 1995;24(8):937–68.
Jefferson Y. Facial beauty–establishing a universal standard. Int J Orthod. 2004;15(1):9–22.
Levin EI. Dental esthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;40(3):244–52.
Ricketts RM. Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg. 1982;9(4):401–22.
Pancherz H, Knapp V, Erbe C, Heiss AM. Divine proportions in attractive and nonattractive faces. World J Orthod. 2010;11(1):27–36.
Danikas D, Panagopoulos G. The golden ratio and proportions of beauty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(4):1009.
Habbema L. Facial esthetics and patient selection. Clin Dermatol. 2004;22(1):14–7.
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.
Ferring V, Pancherz H. Divine proportions in the growing face. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):472–9.
Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N. Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:428250.
Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN. The use of three-dimensional techniques in facial esthetics. Semin Orthod. 1995;1(2):94–104.
Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG. Dentists’ preferences of anterior tooth proportion–a web-based study. J Prosthodont. 2000;9(3):123–36.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(3):757–74; discussion 75—6.
Kim YH. Easy facial analysis using the facial golden mask. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(3):643–9.
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.
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.
Pallett PM, Link S, Lee K. New “golden” ratios for facial beauty. Vision Res. 2010;50(2):149–54.
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.
Tiggemann M, Kenyon S. The hairlessness norm: the removal of body hair in women. Sex Roles. 1998;39:873–5.
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.
Barber N. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 1995;16(5):395–424.
Henss R. Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1991;21(11):933–46.
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.
McArthur L, Apatow K. Impressions of baby-faced adults. Soc Cognit. 1984;2:315–42.
Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994;368(6468):239–42.
Hamermesh DS. Beauty pays: why attractive people are more successful. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013. 232 p.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)