Universal Concepts of Beauty and Their Implications on Clinical Approach to Female Cosmetic Patient

  • Marina Landau


Beauty is easy to recognize and difficult to define. Mathematicians, philosophers, digital processing specialists, sociologists–all had developed different approaches to assess human harmony and beauty.

Profound understanding of attractiveness is needed to achieve desired beautification when using minimally invasive procedures, such as dermal fillers or neuromodulator injections. These procedures are gender-specific, enhancing specific “reproductive signals” typical for males or females.

Lips and cheekbones augmentation is used to increase feminine traits, while injecting the chin and jawline creates a more masculine look. Basic guidelines are provided regarding the techniques to be used to enhance sexual dimorphism.


Attractiveness Sexual dimorphism Symmetry Averageness Harmony Minimally invasive procedure 


  1. 1.
    Hatfield E, Sprecher S. Mirror, mirror: the importance of looks in everyday life. New York: SUNY Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;24:285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good: a meta-analytic reviewof research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull. 1991;110:109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myth of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000;126:390–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seidman G, Miller OS. Effects of gender and physical attractiveness on visual attention to Facebook profiles. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(1):20–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR. A natural substance of prediction and reward. Science. 1997;275:1593–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kampe KW, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Frith U. Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature. 2001;413:589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farkas LG, Kolar JC. Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14:599–616.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang D, Qian G, Zhang M, Farkas LG. Differences in horizontal, neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North American Caucasian populations. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1997;21:265–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Livio M. The golden ratio: the story of phi: the world’s most astonishing number. New York: Broadway Books; 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Available at: Accessed Sept 2017.
  12. 12.
    Berry DS. Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 32. San Diego: Academic; 2000. p. 373–42.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Etcoff N. Survival of the prettiest: the science od beauty, vol. 325. New York: Anchor-Doubleday; 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu C-H. Their ideas of beauty are, on whole, the same as ours: consistence and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68:261–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Casey RJ, Ritter JM, Reiser-Danner LA, Jenkins VY. Infent preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of stereotype? Dev Psychol. 1987;23:363–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol. 1991;27:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rhodes G, Simmons L, Peters M. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol Hum Behav. 2005;26:186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prum RO. Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin’s really dangerous ides. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012;367:2253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary, cognitive and social perspectives. Westport: Ablex; 2002. p. 311.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999;3:452–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubenstein AJ, Langlois JH, Roggman LA. What makes a face attractive and why: the role of averageness in defining facial beauty. In: Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, editors. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives, Advances in visual cognition, vol. 1. Westport: Ablex; 2002. p. 1–33.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990;1:115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Light LL, Hollander S, Kayra-Stuart F. Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1981;7:269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris PR, Wickham LHV. Typicality and face recognition a critical re-evaluation of the two factor theory. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001;54:863–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Toole AJ, Price T, Vetter T, Barlett JC, Blanz V. 3D shape and 2D shape surface textures of human faces: the role of “averages” in attractiveness and age. Image Vis Comput. 1999;18:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rhodes G, Tremewan T. Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 1996;7:105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum Nat. 1993;4:237–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thornhill A, Moller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1997;72:497–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gangestad SW, Buss DM. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perret DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav. 1999;20:295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moller AP, Swaddle JP. Developmental stability and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leung B, Forbes MR. Fluctuating asymmetry in relation to stress and fitness: effect of trait type as revealed by meta-analysis. Ecoscience. 1996;3:400–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moller AP. Developmental stability and fitness: a review. Am Nat. 1997;149:916–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moller AP, Thornhill R. A meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability. J Evol Biol. 1997;10(1):16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moller AP, Thornhill R. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am Nat. 1998;151:174–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychol Sci. 1994;5:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Manning JT, Scutt D, Lewis-Jones DI. Developmental stability, ejaculate size, and sperm quality in men. Evol Hum Behav. 1998;19:273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Waynforth DC. Male mating strategies among the Mayas of Belize (men). Ph.D. thesis, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico; 1999.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady JM, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonom Bull Rev. 1998;5:659–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rhodes G, Roberts J, Simmons L. Reflections on symmetry and attractiveness. Psychol Evol Gend. 1999;1:279–95.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Little AC, Hancock PJ. The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness. Br J Psychol. 2002;9:451–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bashour M. History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:741–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farkas LG. Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. Springfield: Charles C Thomas; 1981.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Perret DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshkawa S, et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998;394:884–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Penton-Voak IS, Jacobson A, Trivers R. Population differences in attractiveness judgments of male and female faces: comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evol Hum Behav. 2004;25:355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L. Sex typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? Br J Psychol. 2000;191:125–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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 Cogn. 1998;26:146–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnston VS, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14:183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Penton-Vaok IS, Perret DI. Consistency and individual differences in facial attractiveness judgements: an evolutionary perspective. Soc Res. 2000;67:219–44.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Henns R. Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1991;21:933–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mathes EW, Brennan SM, Haugen PM. Ratingsof physical attractiveness as a function of age. J Soc Psychol. 1985;125:157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zebrowitz LA, Olson K, Hoffman K. Stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the life span. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;64:453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Eibl-Ebesfeldt I. Human ethology. New York: Aldine De-Gruyter; 1989.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical and physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50:925–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Swift A, Remington K. BeautiPHIcation™: a global approach to facial beauty. Clin Plast Surg. 2011;38:347–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rhodes G, Lee K, Palermo R, Weiss M, Yoshikawa M, McLean I. Attractiveness of own-race, other-race and mixed-race faces. Perception. 2005;34:319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liew S, Wu WT, Chan HH, Ho WWS, Kim H-J, Goodman GJ, Peng PHL, Rogers JD. Consensus on changing trends, attitudes, and concepts of Asian beauty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wu WT. Botox facial slimming/facial sculpting: the role of botulinum toxin-A in the treatment of hypertrophic masseteric muscle and parotid enlargement to narrow the lower facial width. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2001;18:133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jayaratne YS, Deutsch CK, McGrath CP, Zwahlen RA. Are neoclassical canons valid for southern Chinese faces? PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rho NK, Chang YY, Chao YY, Furuyama N, Huang PY, Kerscher M, Kim HJ, Park JY, Peng HL, Rummaneethorn P, Rzany B, Sundaram H, Wong CH, Yang Y, Prasetyo AD. Consensus recommendations for optimal augmentation of the Asian face with hyaluronic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite fillers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:940–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    de Maio M. Ethnic and gender consideration in the use of facial injectables: male patient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:40s–3s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wollina U. Perioral rejuvenation: restoration of attractiveness in aging females by minimally invasive procedures. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:1149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Popenko NA, Tripathi PB, Devcic Z, Karimi K, Osann K, Wong BJF. A quantitative approach to determining the ideal female lip aesthetic and its effect on facial attractiveness. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19:261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sarnoff DS, Gotkin RH. Six steps to the “perfect” lip. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11:1081–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    de Maio M, Wu WTL, Goodman GJ, Monheit G. Facial assessment and injection guide for botulinum toxin and injectable hyaluronic acid fillers: focus on the lower face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:393e–404e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sudaram H, Cassuto D. Biophysical characteristics of hyaluronic acid soft-tissue fillers and their relevance to aesthetic applications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:5s–21s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    de Maio M, BeBulle K, Braz A, Rohrich RJ. Facial assessment and injection guide for botulinum toxin and injectable hyaluronic acid fillers: focus on the midface. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:540e–50e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    de Maio M, Swift A, Signorini M, Fagien S. Facial assessment and injection guide for botulinum toxin and injectable hyaluronic acid fillers: focus on the upper face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:265e–76e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Landau
    • 1
  1. 1.Dermatology UnitWolfson Medical CenterHolonIsrael

Personalised recommendations