Key Points
Questions
Are objects in the face ideally organized into 3 oblique and parallel relationships and their size based on multiples of the iris width?
Findings
In this survey study of 419 respondents evaluating 43 digitally adjusted pictures and line drawings of faces, the ears’ ideal position was found to support the oblique relationships found in the face. Ideal lip, nose, and eye aesthetics are based on the iris width, horizontal aperture of the eye, and the total distance between the eyes.
Meaning
Facial shapes appear to be ideally related to each other through 3 oblique relationships; size and positioning also appear to be defined progressively by the iris width, horizontal aperture of the eye, and total distance between the eyes.
Abstract
Importance
A theory on facial beauty might allow clinicians to achieve better results.
Objectives
To find the ideal vertical position of the ears, total lip length, lip pucker length, distance between the irises, and starting point for the nasal radix.
Design, Setting, and Participants
In this subjective survey, 11 sets of 43 total digitally adjusted pictures (DAPs) and line drawings of actual faces were ranked based on attractiveness by 419 clients at a facial plastic surgery clinic. The data were collected from July 13 to August 29, 2015, and were analyzed from September 17, 2015, to March 21, 2016.
Main Outcomes and Measure
Six groups of line drawings and 5 groups of DAPs of an actual person were used to test the ideal position of the ears to determine whether the face is organized into oblique and parallel relationships and whether the total lip length and the lip pucker length are associated with multiples of an iris width (IW), and to determine the start of the nasal radix and its association with the superior margin of the iris and distance between the irises.
Results
Of the 419 survey respondents, the ear aligned with the second oblique was considered the most ideal by the participants. The preferred total lip length was 4.0 IWs in the DAPs and 5.0 IWs in the line drawings. For the lip pucker length, 2.0 and 3.0 IWs were considered the best. The ideal start of the nasal radix was tangential with the superior margin of the iris. The distance of 5.5 IWs from iris to iris and 3.0 IWs from the horizontal level of the iris to the nasal tip was preferred.
Conclusions and Relevance
The face may be ideally organized into 3 parallel obliques. The IW, horizontal aperture of the eye, and then iris to iris distance may best determine the size and shape of progressively larger objects in the face. The absolute position of the eye was considered important by the participants in the ideal positioning of other objects in the face.
Level of Evidence
NA.
This survey study evaluates the relationships between various measures of the face considered attractive by clients at a facial plastic surgery clinic to assess the circles of prominence theory on facial beauty.
Introduction
Previous theories on what constitutes beauty have concentrated on external landmarks that had little importance to viewers.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Other theories have revealed certain objects in the face that dominate a viewer’s attention.1,8,9,10 The circles of prominence (COP) theory suggests that the iris width (IW) may determine the ideal anatomy of many aspects of the face (Figure 1).1,8,10 To further this thought, the author wanted to see if the IW influenced the shapes of other objects in the face that were greater than 1.0 IW.8,10,11 Specifically, the study was designed to determine whether the total lip and lip pucker length were best determined by multiples of an IW or by some other factor.
Figure 1. The Primary Circles of Prominence.
The brow height, nasal dorsum, nasal tip, alae, lateral ear extension, and height of the lower lip are all 1.0 iris width (indicated with circles) in dimension or distance. The original thought with the circles of prominence hypothesis8 is that all distances and dimensions are ideally based on the diameter of the iris.
The COP theory also hypothesized that the relationship of the iris and nasal tip initiates a relationship that other objects ideally follow. In such a relationship, the first oblique (FO) would line up the iris, nasal tip, and lateral brow highlight, as well as the arch of the eyebrow, into a straight line that other objects relate to in a parallel manner.8 The second oblique (SO) is in parallel to the FO and lines up the lower lip, upper cheek shadowing, and top of the ear. The SO explains why people prefer the ears in a certain vertical position. The third oblique, ideally parallel to the other 2 obliques, lines up the mentum with the lowest point on the earlobe. In this study, the SO was tested by varying the vertical position of the ear.
The COP theorizes that the absolute position of the iris plays a role in ideally positioning other objects on the face outside of the oblique relationships described above. The forehead and vertical shadowing in the cheek should converge at the vertical plane of the iris, emphasizing the importance of the iris (Figure 1). Specifically for this study, the nasal radix should start at the superior margin of the irises. This point is logical because viewers track from the iris to the nose in their assessment of beauty in the face.
Methods
Line drawings representing a face and digitally adjusted pictures (DAPs) of a real patient for each group were prepared. The line drawings were created with PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp) and Photoshop (Adobe Inc). The DAPs were created with MarketWise, version 7.0 (Professional MarketWise Consulting Group Inc). As a private practice without an institutional review board, no review board approval for this study was obtained. A total of 419 clients were approached as a convenience sample, and all agreed to participate in the survey. The survey participants did not provide any personal information or receive financial compensation.
Between July 13 and August 29, 2015, the line drawings and DAPs were presented to 174 survey participants (groups 1-4), 190 survey participants (group 5), or 55 survey participants (group 6). For group 1, the vertical positioning of the ear was set as parallel to the SO (0 IW), 2.0 IWs superior, 1.0 IW superior, and 1.0 IW inferior to the SO. For group 2, the total lip length was set to be 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 IWs. For group 3, the lip pucker length was set to be 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 IWs. For group 4, the ideal starting point of the nose was varied to line up with the top of the iris (0 IW) or to be 1.0 IW superior, 1.0 IW inferior, or 2.0 IWs inferior to this point. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show all the DAPs for the vertical ear positioning and all the line drawings for the total lip length. The full selection of the pictures is included in eFigure 1 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement). For group 5, the iris to iris distance and distance from the horizontal level of the iris to the nasal tip (HIN) ratios were varied between 6.0/3.0, 5.0/4.0, 5.0/3.0, and 6.0/4.0 IWs. For group 6, group 5 distances were further studied by setting group 5 ratios to 5.0/3.0, 5.5/3.0, and 6.0/3.0 IWs (Figure 4; the full selection of the pictures is included in eFigure 3 in the Supplement).
Figure 2. Digitally Altered Ear Position Pictures Selected by the 174 Survey Participants .
IW indicates iris width. The number beneath each panel is the average of the 190, 174, and 55 surveyors judging the pictures as 1 most attractive to 4 least attractive, with the circled number representing the winner. The other parts of the study are shown in eFigure 1 in the Supplement.
Figure 3. Line Drawings of Total Lip Length Selected by the 419 Survey Participants.
IW indicates iris width. The number beneath each panel is the average of the 190, 174, and 55 surveyors judging the pictures as 1 most attractive to 4 least attractive, with the circled number representing the winner. The other parts of the study are shown in eFigure 2 in the Supplement.
Figure 4. Digitally Adjusted Pictures Selected by the 190 Participants Showing the Ratio of the Distance Between the Irises Over the Distance From the Horizontal Level of the Iris to the Nasal Tip (HIN).
IW indicates iris width. The numbering above each picture refers to position of each figure in eFigure 3 in the Supplement. The number beneath each panel is the average of the 190, 174, and 55 surveyors (3 different groups) judging the pictures as 1 most attractive to 4 least attractive. The other parts of the study are shown in eFigure 3 in the Supplement.
Each surveyor was asked to rate each picture from 1 to 4, where 1 was the most aesthetically pleasing and 4 was the least aesthetically pleasing picture. The scores for each picture were then averaged to find the most pleasing picture with the lowest average.
Statistical Analysis
The number 1 choice by each respondent was identified from their ranking of the 4 pictures. Let { fi }i = 14 denote the observed number of times that each of the pictures was the first choice, and define N = ∑ i = 14 fi. Consider the null hypothesis (NH) that there is equal preference for the 4 pictures. Under this NH, the expected value for each of the observed frequencies is ei = N/4, (i = 1,…,4). The NH can be tested using the statistic χ 2 = ∑ i = 14 (fi − ei)2 / ei . Under the equal preference NH, χ2 analysis has a distribution with 3 df. The P values and χ2 test statistics are reported in the Table. In all cases, the NH of equal preference for the 4 pictures was rejected at a significance level of <.05.
Table. Analysis of Ideal Facial Images .
| Area | Picture | All Equala | Top 2 Equala | Best Picture | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | χ2 Testb | P Value | χ2 Test | P Value | ||
| Digitally Altered Vertical Ear Position (Group 1 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 147 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 128.53 | <.001 | 67.91 | <.001 | 1 |
| P value | .86 | .03 | .047 | .07 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.802-0.907 | 0.004-0.054 | 0.015-0.078 | 0.032-0.108 | |||||
| Line Drawing Vertical Ear Position (Group 1 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 28 | 3 | 37 | 93 | 55.33 | <.001 | 11.81 | <.001 | 4 |
| P value | .17 | .02 | .23 | .58 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.115-0.232 | 0.000-0.040 | 0.165-0.295 | 0.501-0.654 | |||||
| Digitally Altered Lip Length (Group 2 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 0 | 43 | 105 | 19 | 77.53 | <.001 | 12.71 | <.001 | 3 |
| P value | NA | .23 | .63 | .11 | |||||
| 95% CI | NA | 0.191-0.324 | 0.555-0.702 | 0.066-0.162 | |||||
| Line Drawing Lip Length (Group 2 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 5 | 93 | 10 | 57 | 69.93 | <.001 | 3.911 | .048 | 2 |
| P value | .03 | .56 | .06 | .35 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.004-0.056 | 0.488-0.639 | 0.024-0.097 | 0.273-0.418 | |||||
| Digitally Altered Lip Pucker (Group 3 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 1 | 88 | 57 | 19 | 663 | <.001 | 2.931 | .09 | 2 and 3 |
| P value | .006 | .53 | .35 | .12 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.000-0.018 | 0.457-0.609 | 0.273-0.418 | 0.066-0.164 | |||||
| Line Drawing Lip Pucker (Group 3 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 85 | 76 | 1 | 2 | 99.33 | <.001 | 0.151 | .70 | 1 and 2 |
| P value | .52 | .463 | .006 | .01 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.442-0.595 | 0.387-0.540 | 0.000-0.018 | 0.000-0.029 | |||||
| Digitally Altered Nose Position (Group 4 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 8 | 11 | 57 | 87 | 58.53 | <.001 | 2.751 | .10 | 3 and 4 |
| P value | .049 | .07 | .35 | .53 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.016-0.082 | 0.029-0.106 | 0.276-0.423 | 0.457-0.610 | |||||
| Line Drawing Nose Position (Group 4 [n = 174]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 69 | 27 | 30 | 36 | 11.93 | .008 | 13.71 | .003 | 1 |
| P value | .43 | .17 | .19 | .22 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.350-0.502 | 0.109-0.224 | 0.125-0.245 | 0.158-0.286 | |||||
| Digitally Altered Ratio of IID and HIN (Group 5 [n = 190]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 16 | 2 | 144 | 0 | 356.423 | <.001 | 102.41 | <.001 | 3 |
| P value | .10 | .01 | .89 | NA | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.053-0.145 | 0-0.029 | 0.840-0.937 | NA | |||||
| Line Drawing Ratio of IID and HIN (Group 5 [n = 190]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 66 | 40 | 10 | 37 | 41.123 | <.001 | 6.381 | .01 | 1 |
| P value | .43 | .26 | .07 | .24 | |||||
| 95% CI | 0.353-0.510 | 0.192-0.331 | 0.026-0.105 | 0.174-0.310 | |||||
| Line Drawing Ratio With HIN Set With Variable IID (Group 6 [n = 55]) | |||||||||
| No. of people who chose picture | 27 | 16 | 5 | 15.133 | <.001 | 2.811 | .09 | 1 and 2 | |
| P value | .56 | .33 | .10 | ||||||
| 95% CI | 0.422-0.703 | 0.200-0.467 | 0.0178-0.191 | ||||||
Abbreviations: HIN, horizontal level of the iris to the nasal tip; IID, iris to iris distance; NA, not applicable.
According to the null hypothesis.
The χ2 test includes 3 df.
The conclusion from the above analyses was that each area has at least 1 winner. The top 2 pictures in each area are those corresponding to the 2 largest fi values. Consider the NH in which there is equal preference for these 2 pictures. To make things concrete, consider area 1, where the second and third pictures were the top 2 preferred. Under that NH, the expected value for the observed frequencies of these 2 pictures is e2 = e3 = (f2 + f3) / 2N, and the expected values for the observed frequencies of the other 2 pictures are e = f / N and e = f / N, respectively. With these definitions, the test statistic is again χ2 = ∑ i = 14 (fi − ei)2 / ei, but now the df for determining the P value was 1. There was a clear winner (ie, best picture) in all areas except 5, 6, 7, and 11, where the top 2 pictures were equally liked (Table). The total number of preferences, predicted probability of preferences, and 95% CIs of probability of preference for each picture are also presented in the Table. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 17, 2015, to March 21, 2016.
Results
In group 1 (vertical ear position, n = 174 participants), the data showed in the DAPs that the ear positioned in line with the SO (Figure 2 picture 1 and picture 1 in eFigure 1A in the Supplement) was the most ideal, with a 1.25 average. Both NHs (all equal and top 2 equal) showed that picture 1 was the highest rated (Table). The LD in group 1 showed also that the 0 IW had the best rating, at a 1.62 average (picture 4 in eFigure 2A in the Supplement). These results were also statistically significant (DAPs, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 128.5; top 2 equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 67.9; line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 55.3; top 2 equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 11.8).
In group 2 (lip length, n = 174 participants), the data showed in the DAP that the total length of the lips of 4.0 IWs was found to be most ideal, with an average rating of 1.62 (picture 3 in eFigure 1B in the Supplement). Both NHs showed that picture 3 was the best (Table). Conversely, the LD in group 2 showed that 5.0 IWs for the total length of the lips had the best rating at a 1.58 average (Figure 3 picture 2 and picture 2 in eFigure 2B in the Supplement). These results were also statistically significant (DAPs, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 77.5; top 2 equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 12.7; line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 69.9; top 2 equal NH, P = .05; χ2 = 3.91).
In group 3 (lip pucker length, n = 174 participants), the data showed in the DAP that the pucker of the lips at 3 IWs was found to be most ideal with an average rating of 1.56 (picture 2 in eFigure 1C in the Supplement). The 2-IW length of the pucker of the lips was the next most preferred picture with an average rating of 1.98 (picture 3 in eFigure 1C in the Supplement). The all-equal NH showed that picture 2 (3 IWs) was the best and this was statistically significant. When the top 2 pictures were compared, 2.0 and 3.0 IWs were found to be equal (DAPs, top 2 equal NH, P = .09; χ2 = 2.93) (Table). The LD in group 3 showed that 3 IWs for the length of the pucker in the lips had the best rating at a 1.51 average (picture 1 in eFigure 2C in the Supplement). The 2.0-IW length of the pucker in the lips was again the next more-preferred picture with an average rating of 1.60 (picture 2 in eFigure 2C in the Supplement). The statistical findings were similar (line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 99.3; top 2 equal NH, P = .70; χ2 = 0.15). When all pictures were compared, the 3-IW picture was found to be ideal in a statistically significant manner (DAPs, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 66.0; line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 99.3). However, when the top 2 were compared (2.0 and 3.0 IWs) the data lost their significance (DAPs, top 2 equal, P = .09; χ2 = 2.93; line drawings, top 2 equal P = .70; χ2 = 0.15) (Table), indicating that the more preferred pucker length might be between 2.0 and 3.0 IWs.
In group 4 (nose position, n = 174 participants), the data show with the DAP indicated that the most possibly best starting point of the nose was tangential to the superior margin of the irises set at 0 IW with the highest and lowest average rating of 1.75 (picture 4 in eFigure 1D in the Supplement). The all-equal NH was statistically significant, supporting that picture 4 was preferred. When the top 2 equal NHs were performed, both 0 IW and 1.0 IW above the superior margin of the irises (picture 3 in eFigure 1D in the Supplement) were found to be the best pictures (DAPs, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 58.5; top 2 equal NH, P = .10; χ2 = 2.75). The LD in group 4 showed also that the nose starting at the superior margin of the irises (0 IW) was the most preferred picture with the best rating at a 2.12 average (picture 1 in eFigure 2D in the Supplement). Conversely, both NHs showed that picture 1 was the best, and this finding was statistically significant (line drawings, all equal NH, P = .008; χ2 = 11.9; top 2 equal NH, = 0.003; χ2 = 13.7) (Table).
In group 5 (ratio of iris to iris distance and HIN, n = 190 participants), the data shown with the DAP indicated that the image with the iris to iris distance set at 5.0 IWs and the HIN distance set at 3.0 IWs was found to be most ideal, with an average rating of 1.22 (Figure 4 picture 3; picture 3 in eFigure 3A in the Supplement). Both NHs showed that picture 3 was the most preferred (Table). In the LD for group 5, the data showed that 5.0/3.0 IWs again had the best rating, at a 1.78 average (picture 1 in eFigure 3B in the Supplement). These results, based on both NHs, were also statistically significant (DAPs, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 356.42; top 2 equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 102.4; line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 41.12; top 2 equal NH, P = .012; χ2 = 6.38).
In group 6 (n = 55 participants), the 5.5-IW distance from iris to iris and 3.0-IW distance for HIN was found to be the ideal, with an average and lowest rating of 1.55 (picture 1 in eFigure 3C in the Supplement). When all of the pictures were compared, 5.5/3.0 was shown to be the best (Table). However, when the top 2 pictures were compared, 5.5/3.0 IWs and 5.0/3.0 IWs were equally preferred (line drawings, all equal NH, P < .001; χ2 = 15.13; top 2 equal P = .093; χ2 = 2.81).
Discussion
Previous theories have fallen short of finding the answer to the question of what constitutes facial beauty.12,13 Farkas et al1 and others3,4,6 have shown that the neoclassical canons did not explain beauty. The golden ratio, although interesting, is really just the ratio of 3.0/2.0 that others have shown to be inaccurate.5 The theory of averageness13,14 has also been proven wrong and that there is something else that defines facial beauty. Most previous theories have failed because of their focus on external landmarks which people spend little time analyzing when assessing a new face. The COP theory and the data reported herein logically concentrate on what viewers spend the most time looking at and thus appear to have data supporting the COP’s theories.8,10,11 The iris, nasal tip, and center of the lower lip start this basic order of elements that people look at when they see a face. The results presented in this study suggest that people might also organize the face into what are considered to be more beautifully arranged oblique relationships. The results continue to support that the size of the iris is important in relationship to other shapes and sizes. After this, the width of the eye aperture and then the iris to iris distance dominate progressively larger facial structures as discussed herein and not multiples of an IW, which the author originally hypothesized.
The aim of using the LD, in contrast to DAP, was to isolate key structures in the face thereby removing confounding influences. One variable could be tested in the LD in contrast to a DAP of a real face where more variables would be affected. Moreover with DAPs, changing the face using computer imaging often led to faces looking less natural. Conversely, by using DAPs, the author was able to get a sense of what humans see, which would include the variables of lighting and 3 dimensions. In addition, the DAP had an iris to iris distance of 5.0 vs 6.0 IWs in the LD, which would provide data to explain facial beauty in faces with different iris to iris distances. As noted with total lip length in group 2 (Figure 2 and Figure 3), having the 2 basic iris to iris distances of 5.0 and 6.0 IWs allowed elucidation of other elements in the face that seemed to be more important to the viewers than the IW. Namely, in this situation the iris to iris distance was more important than multiples of an iris width in determining total lip length.
Finding the ideal vertical position of the ear alone was important for aesthetic procedures involving the ear. In this study, the vertical position of the ear was further used to test that the face is ideally organized into 3 oblique relationships. The hypothesis is that when the iris, nasal tip, and lateral brow highlight appear in a straight line, a basic level of beauty is reached (FO). When all 3 obliques are parallel, further beauty is achieved. When the top of the ear lines up with the SO and indirectly with the other obliques in a parallel relationship, this picture with this relationship was the most preferred.
The data for total lip length began to raise questions regarding the hypothesis that all distances were best related to the IW or multiples of an IW. The author estimated that 5.0 IWs would be ideal for total lip length as it was the next distance inside the 6.0 IWs between nasolabial folds based on previous data. This seemed logical and was found to be true for the LD. However, with the DAP, the 4.0-IW total lip length was found to be most ideal. At first, these findings seemed contradictory. Further examination revealed that, instead of the total length being dictated by multiples of an IW, it seemed that the ideal pictures were consistently the ones whose total lip length was 1.0 IW shorter than the iris to iris distance. Each preferred picture seemed to have total lip length line up vertically with the medial limbus, which is 1.0 IW less than the iris to iris distance. Because the DAP had an iris to iris distance of 5.0 IWs, the most preferred picture with total lip length of 4.0 IWs was 1.0 IW less than the iris to iris distance, which was consistent with and similar to the LD. Based on the data, it seems that it is not multiples of an IW that are the determinant for ideal total lip length; instead, the iris to iris distance appeared to dominate.
For the lip pucker, I hypothesized that the pucker would be 1.0 IW inside the ideal total lip length (5.0 − 2.0 IWs = 3.0 IWs) on each side. Hence, 3.0 IWs seemed to be a logical width for this ideal. The data showed that 3.0 IWs were ideal and statistically significant when all of the pictures were compared in both DAPs and line drawings. But this level lost its significance when the top 2 pictures were compared. In both DAPs and line drawings, the picture with the 2.0-IW lip pucker was the confounding image. Closer examination of the pictures showed that if the ideal pictures are between 2.0 and 3.0 IWs, the horizontal aperture of the eye is the distance that might determine the best width of the lip pucker rather than multiples of an IW. In the DAPs and line drawings, a lip pucker in between 2.0 and 3.0 IWs seemed to be approximately the same size as the horizontal aperture of the eye.
These studies on the lip were able to show some support for the idea postulated earlier that as the sizes of the objects in the face become larger, their ideal size is associated with the IW, then the horizontal aperture of the eye, and then the iris to iris distance.
The study of the ideal start of the nasal radix was able to illustrate that the absolute position of the iris may influence many elements in the face,8 such as cheek and forehead shadowing. The data showed that the ideal starting point for the nasal radix was tangential to the superior margin of the irises as predicted, and this finding was statistically significant in 3 of 4 NHs.
In contradiction to previous data,11 the 6.0/3.0 ratio was not found to be most ideal; instead, the 5.0/3.0 ratio was preferred, and this finding was statistically significant in all 4 NHs. To further add to the confusion, in the second study the 5.0/3.0 ratio did not win outright; the 5.5/3.0 ratio seemed to dominate as the more ideal picture. Closer examination of the pictures indicates congruence with the general theme in this study that there may be 3 levels of importance when determining ideal distances and shapes (ie, IW, horizontal aperture of the eye, and total iris to iris distance). The most preferred pictures in this part of the study appeared to be present when the intercanthal distance was equal to the horizontal aperture of the eye. It appeared to be logical that, because the iris, nasal tip, and lower lip were the most important elements of the face, they should be evenly spaced from one another. This hypothesis did not seem to be true, as the 6.0/3.0 ratio was not found to be ideal.11 In previous publications, the iris to iris distance was set at 6.0 IWs and the distances from horizontal level of the iris to the nasal tip, to lower lip, and to mentum were tested.8,10,11 In the present study, the iris to iris distance and HIN distance were tested together. Although it may be reasonable that the 5.5/3.0 ratio was ideal, given that it is likely that the horizontal aperture could be used to explain these results, there does not appear to be an explanation why the nose length and the distance from nasal tip to lower lip and lower lip to the mentum were a certain longer length as suggested by both the 5.0/3.0 and the 5.5/3.0 ratios appearing to be more preferred.
Limitations
There are limitations to this research based on a survey. The participants represent a subset of the general population who are interested in plastic surgery. Thus, the sample is not generalizable and the findings may not represent human preferences as a whole. The digitally altered pictures and line drawings are also a representation of real faces and thus may not accurately represent humans’ preferences.
Conclusions
The COP theory8,10,11 and the data provided herein show that, as objects and distances increase in size, the IW, the horizontal aperture of the eye, and the iris to iris distance may be used as measures to find the ideal facial structure. The findings appear to suggest that the face is best organized into 3 parallel, oblique relationships. In addition, the absolute position of the eye also appears to determine the most-preferred positions of other objects in the face.
eFigure 1. Digitally Adjusted Pictures
eFigure 2. Line Drawings
eFigure 3. Digitally Adjusted Pictures (DAPs) and Line Drawings (LDs) Showing the Ratio of the Distance Between the Irises Over the Distance From the Horizontal Level of the Iris to Nasal Tip (HIN)
References
- 1.Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75(3):328-338. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198503000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Menick FJ. Artistry in aesthetic surgery: aesthetic perception and the subunit principle. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14(4):723-735. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Porter JP, Olson KL. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3(3):191-197. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.3.3.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Borman H, Ozgür F, Gürsu G. Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;42(3):280-288. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199903000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jefferson Y. Skeletal types: key to unraveling the mystery of facial beauty and its biologic significance. J Gen Orthod. 1996;7(2):7-25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Farkas LG, Kolar JC. Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14(4):599-616. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Tartaglia G. Facial morphometry of television actresses compared with normal women. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53(9):1008-1014. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(95)90115-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Young PA, Sinha U, Rice DH, Stucker F. Circles of prominence: a new theory on facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8(4):263-267. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.8.4.263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yarbus AL, Haigh B, Riggs LA. Eye movements, and vision. New York: Plenum Press; 1967. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-5379-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Young P. The COP, a new theory on beauty: ideal distances in the eyes, nose, ears, and lips. Am J Cosmet Surg. 2016;33(4):165-175. doi: 10.1177/0748806816672755 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Young PA. The circles of prominence: ideal ratios that determine the basis of facial beauty. Am J Cosmet Surg. 2015;32(1):24-30. doi: 10.5992/AJCS-D-14-00037.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Thomas JR, Dixon TK. A global perspective of beauty in a multicultural world. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(1):7-8. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Johnston VS, Solomon CJ, Gibson SJ, Pallares-Bejarano A. Human facial beauty: current theories and methodologies. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2003;5(5):371-377. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.5.5.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994;368(6468):239-242. doi: 10.1038/368239a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eFigure 1. Digitally Adjusted Pictures
eFigure 2. Line Drawings
eFigure 3. Digitally Adjusted Pictures (DAPs) and Line Drawings (LDs) Showing the Ratio of the Distance Between the Irises Over the Distance From the Horizontal Level of the Iris to Nasal Tip (HIN)
