 |
|
On Beauty
Evolution, Psychosocial Considerations, and Surgical Enhancement
Murad Alam, MD;
Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, FRCPC
Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:795-807.
INTRODUCTION
Beauty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a combination of qualities, including grace of form and charm of coloring that delights the sight or other senses."1(p8) In practice, beauty may be easier to recognize than to define. We may each know it when we see it, hear it, or smell it, but to accurately describe beauty or the features that impart it to a face, song, or scent can be daunting. Aaron Spelling, the Hollywood producer, explains that he "can't define it, but [he] know[s] it when it walks into the room."2(p8) Physiological reactions may be triggered by the sudden apprehension of the beautiful object, as one modeling agent has noted: "It's when someone opens the door and you almost can't breathe."2(p8) In narrow usage, as applied to persons, beauty may be characterized as an individual or societal assessment of attractiveness influenced by cultural standards (Figure 1).
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Classical Greek and Roman sculpture, rediscovered and revitalized during the Renaissance, has been the model for the ideal human form in Western civilization. (Michelangelo Buonarroti [1475-1564], David 1504, Italian. Marble, 4.34 m tall. Courtesy of the Digital Michelangelo Project, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.)
|
|
|
HISTORY AND MEASUREMENT
The power of beauty in human affairs has been expounded since the advent of writing. Plato understood that to be beautiful was 1 of the 3 wishes of every man, the other 2 being good health and riches acquired by honest means. Aristotle concurred, conceding that "beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction."2(p31) Female beauty, in particular, has inspired poets and philosophers and has been seen as a gift that provides entrée into secret domains. Jean de la Bruyere wished in 1688 "to be a girl and a beautiful girl from the age of 13 to the age of 22 and then after that to be a man."2(p9) Dire conditions have not deterred people from practicing culturally mandated beautification activities. Even during famines, the Kalahari bushmen of southern Africa apply animal fats as skin moisturizers.3 Similarly, the insistence of the 18th century French nobility to use flour to powder ornamental wigs precipitated food shortages and rioting.4 While in contemporary Western society beauty may be exploited for socioeconomic gain, beauty itself is not a new cultural construct.
Formally measuring beauty is a human enterprise, and one that also has historical antecedents. The early Greeks were among the first to appreciate aesthetic perfection in terms of numeric symmetries and proportions. Phidias the sculptor based his creations on golden sections or rectangles; he used divisions of a line to create ratios of proportion in which the smaller was to the larger segment as the larger was to the whole (1:1.618).5 Later Europeans accepted the relations between limb size, torso, and facial features seen in classical sculptures as the 3-dimensional representation of the ideal human form. Durer,6 during the Renaissance, developed a new system of physical proportions that used as a benchmark the length of his finger. Other criteria for beauty required dividing the face into quadrants or thirds, and then mandating that the height of the ear and the nose be equal, the distance between the eyes be the width of the nose, the mouth be 1 times the width of the nose, and the inclination of the nasal bridge parallel the main axis of the ear. Although these various systems were not necessarily compatible with each other, in each, beauty was equated with symmetry and defined in terms of immutable ratios.
Provided that his or her measurements were as prescribed, it was believed, a person would of necessity be perceived as beautiful. Modern attempts to verify the validity of these schemes by analysis of photographs of attractive people have not been successful. Apparently, fixed proportions are not essential for beauty, and the proposed ratios are even less likely to occur in the facial features of nonwhite beautiful individuals (Figure 2).7-8
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Renaissance artists learned to better depict the muscular elegance of the healthy body. In this drawing, da Vinci was aided by information gleaned from postmortem dissections. (Leonardo da Vinci [1452-1519], Study of Proportions From Vitruvius' De Architectura, c1485-1490, Italian. Pen and ink, 34.3 x 24.5 cm. Courtesy of Accademia, Venice, Italy.)
|
|
|
EVOLUTIONARY BASES
While beauty may not be reducible to a few simple ratios, it is also not an accident of nature. The existence of beauty is at least on 1 level an evolutionary adaptation for ensuring the survival of the species. Darwin,9 in the Descent of Man and Selection With Relation to Sex, agreed that the plumage of peacocks conferred to the best-endowed a reproductive advantage rather than a survival advantage.
The situation is the same for humans. Beautiful people may be more likely to be relatively healthy and able to reproduce because beauty is a physiologic burden that only a strong body can support.10-11 According to the pathogen-resistance theory of beauty, beauty is a marker for pathogen-free status in a potential mate.12 Indeed, in cultures with numerous pathogens and high disease prevalence, physical attractiveness is rated as more vital in mate selection than in cultures without so many pathogens.13 Average size and shape,14-15 bilateral symmetry,16-17 and skin free of blemishes suggest the absence of acquired or inherited health disorders. Hourglass figures are more consistent with reproductive and general health in women than are body shapes with relatively larger waists. 18-19
Differences in standards of beauty for men and women can also be seen in terms of an evolutionary argument. Size and muscle power is valued among men as they were once needed to obtain and defend resources. Now there are financial and political proxies for physical strength, but in the words of Henry Kissinger, "power [remains] the ultimate aphrodisiac."20(p78) Young, fair, curvaceous women are perceived as beautiful because they are more likely to be nulliparous and hence fertile.21-23 Women's hair and skin is permanently darkened following pregnancy,24-25 and waist-to-hip ratios in excess of 0.8 are associated with a diminished chance of pregnancy.26-27 That "beauty is not so much in the eye of the beholder as on the brain circuitry of the beholder" is demonstrated by the behavior of infants.28 Three- to 6-month-olds stare longer at photographs of attractive, unfamiliar faces than at unattractive unfamiliar faces and play for relatively longer durations with attractive dolls and attractive strangers than with less attractive dolls and strangers.29-31 The features most attractive in young women, as Konrad Lorenz32 has noticed, may be those that remind us of babies' soft, clear skin and hair, big eyes and cheeks, and small noses. In short, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but those eyes and the minds behind the eyes have been shaped by millions of years of human evolution.33 Nancy Etcoff, in Survival of the Prettiest, explains that beauty is a universal part of human experience that promotes pleasure, rivets attention, and impels action that helps ensure survival of our genes.2(p233) People value beauty in a mate because other qualities essential for parenting, such as fidelity, reliability, kindness, and intelligence have no physical markers.
The importance of beauty in social discourse is thus not accidental or a cultural construct. Rather, the survival of the species depends on individuals making accurate assessments regarding the suitability of a potential mate. To this end, beauty is interpreted as implying health, and health as ensuring reproductive capacity. At a deep biological level, we prefer beautiful mates because we want viable offspring.
The evolutionary bases of beauty are confirmed by cross-cultural investigations that reveal similar standards of beauty in diverse cultures.34-36 One oft-cited study entailed interviews of more than 10 000 individuals from 37 cultures indigenous to 6 continents.37-38 In each case, physical attributes suggestive of youth and health such as smooth, unscarred skin and muscular physique were associated with physical attractiveness. Although skeptics have suggested that obsession with physical attractiveness is a product of popular culture in the West, in this study one third of the non-Western cultures examined actually emphasized physical attractiveness more than a subset of US college students. Other work has yielded consistent results, with beauty more highly regarded than personality traits such as dependability, emotional stability, and maturity.39-41 Specific features associated with beauty vary slightly, and agreement is greatest among cultures that are racially matched.42-44
Indeed, notwithstanding the evolutionary foundations of beauty, its expression is modified by cultural factors. Facial features associated with a dominant or socially successful group may be deemed more attractive.45-46 One study suggests that the criteria for beauty may possibly be subtly altered by prevailing economic conditions. Prosperous times may breed increased attraction to baby-faced, dependent-looking individuals; lean years, to mature faces more associated with security (Figure 3).47
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. The beautiful face has been defined in terms of ratios. Perfect facial features have been described as proportionate to each other and separated by ostensibly "correct" distances. (The measurements of the ideal face, as envisioned by plastic surgeon Stephen Marquardt, MD, who superimposed the lines over Beauty Mask, a photograph by Jodi Cobb. Copyright 1992, reprinted with permission of the National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.)
|
|
|
OPTIMAL FEATURES
Certain body shapes are universally accepted as beautiful. Female faces are judged most attractive when they have small chins, delicate jaws, full lips, small noses, high cheekbones, and large and widely spaced eyes.48 Relative facial proportions among beautiful women in their late teens and early 20s have been assessed by computers to be very close to those typically observed at a chronological age of 6 to 7 years.41 Waist-to-hip ratios approximating 0.7, the extreme gynoid shape seen in supermodels, are considered most desirable.49-53 For men, the ideal face is a dominant, rectangular one, replete with prominent chin, deep-set eyes, and a heavy brow. Taller, muscular men with a V-shaped torso (with waist-to-hip ratio of approximately 0.9) are preferred,54-61 but hypermasculine facies can appear threatening.62-63 Lustrous, abundant hair and clear skin are signs of beauty in both men and women.64
Averageness of features is, paradoxically, consistent with above-average attractiveness.65-67 Sir Francis Galton,68 a cousin of Darwin and inventor of fingerprinting, accidentally discovered this while creating composite photographs of criminals in an attempt to elucidate any commonalities. The composite images were invariably better looking than the original portraits from which they had been derived. Much later, in 1979, Don Symons15 pursued this finding, and asserted that average faces are relatively more beautiful. The conclusion is intuitive, to the extent that the average face or facial feature is by definition less likely to be too large or small to meet criteria for beauty. Symmetry, especially with regard to the left and right sides of the face, is associated with beauty for the same reasons. Bilateral symmetry additionally seems to be inherently pleasing to the human eye. Still, averageness and symmetry are insufficient to produce outstanding beauty. One-of-a-kind beauty is not average, but rather entails a constructive magnification or diminution of at least 1 feature (Figure 4).75
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Noses have been associated with ethnic and religious affiliations. Members of minority groups have obtained nasal reconstruction to camouflage their group identity. The nose, and its ideal appearance, was one of the first topics studied by early cosmetic surgeons. (Scale of the Nose from Jacques Joseph. Nasenplastik und sonstige Gesichtsplastik [Leipzig, Germany: Kabitizsch, 1931]; figure courtesy of the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md).
|
|
|
Among faces that have equivalent features at rest, those with more positive expressions are judged more attractive than those with less positive expressions.76-80 Welcoming and open appearance, however, influences perceptions of attractiveness only to a limited degree. Smilers are regarded as only slightly more attractive than non-smilers.79
Considerable research demonstrates that people prefer familiar faces.81-82 We like our own images better when we view them in a mirror rather than in a photograph. Close friends, conversely, prefer our photographic images, the likenesses that are most familiar to them.83 Manipulations that render faces more familiar increase attractiveness.84
Despite the existence of universal, cross-cultural standards for beauty, there is no precise recipe. Moreover, standards have changed subtly over time. Western cultures are now less likely to associate facial hair and large wigs with beauty than were the Romans or the "big wig" European aristocrats of the 17th and 18th centuries.85-87 Recent decades have witnessed a gradual yet inexorable decline in the ideal female hip-to-waist ratio, and a concomitant increase in the thinness and height of female models.88-91 These trends seem to be plateauing because the recommended ratios have collided with the bounds of the physically possible (Figure 5).53, 92
|
|
|
|
Figure 5. Body habitus can be too large, too small, or just right. For women, the concept that the ideal waist-to-hip ratio is "gynoid" (waist tapered relative to hips) has remained remarkably stable over time. (Image of the Healthy and Therefore Beautiful Female Form from Anna Fischer-Duckelmann. Die Frau als Hausartzin: Ein arztliches Nachschlagebuch der Gesundheitspflege und Heilkunde in der Familie. 1901; reprint: Stuttgart, Germany: Suddeutsches Verlags-Institut, 1905; figure courtesy of the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.)
|
|
|
PREJUDICE AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
The evolutionary foundations of the features that constitute beauty are important, but they only begin to explain the startlingly pervasive role of beauty in human society. Simply put, we do not perceive beauty as merely a pleasant form, or a beautiful person as merely an eligible mate. Beauty is, instead, unconsciously widely accepted as a marker for other positive attributes. Sappho's observation that "what is beautiful is good"93 may be philosophically debatable, but in practice the beautiful is routinely judged to be qualitatively superior. Mental acuity, interpersonal skills, employability, and moral goodness are all associated with physically beautiful individuals.94-95 The magnitude of the effect is, in most cases, small to moderate. Teachers presented with report cards and photographs of students expect the better looking to be more intelligent, sociable, and popular when academic performance is objectively equivalent.96 Actual classroom grades are higher for more attractive students, and this difference disappears on standardized tests.97 Beautiful people are believed by others to have better lives, including happier marriages and more rewarding jobs. They are, all else being equal, more often judged to be kind, decent, and honest.
In general, the positive attributes ascribed to beautiful people result in their obtaining preferential treatment. Early in life, more attractive babies are rewarded with greater overt maternal affection.98-99 Later, this social success is extended as others try to please the good looking, with the latter more likely to win arguments or be told secrets.100-106 Like the very tall, the very attractive are honored with a greater amount of personal space, and others are reluctant to approach as close to them as they might to those of ordinary appearance.107-108 Intimate relations are better for the beautiful as well.109 The best-looking women in high school are 10 times as likely to marry as the least attractive, and they are more likely to marry sooner and marry persons of greater wealth or social status.110-114 Sexual encounters are more numerous and varied for attractive people.115 Better treatment for the better-looking extends to the workplace. West Point graduates with facial features more suggestive of dominance are more likely to achieve high rank.116-117 In the private sector, the good-looking are more likely to be hired, given a higher salary, and promoted sooner.118-125 For male business school graduates, height is positively correlated with income, and almost all chief executive officers of large companies are significantly taller than average (Figure 6).126-128
|
|
|
|
Figure 6. The desire to have a more perfect physique is not new. Advertisements touting beauty treatments predate the recent boom in cosmetic surgery. Cramp AJ. Develop Your Bust in 15 Days from Cramp AJ. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1911.
|
|
|
Procuring aid in times of need is also easier for attractive people.129-135 Strangers are more likely to assist better-looking people experiencing health problems in a public venue. Even professional helpers, like psychologists, are more likely to offer therapeutic services to the attractive.136-137 Furthermore, bad behavior is often forgiven when perpetrated by the good-looking.138 The pretty or handsome are less likely to be reported, caught, accused, or punished for a minor or major crime.139-143 Only when good looks are employed to dupe others are the good-looking treated more harshly than the homely.144-145 Attractiveness is recognized as a special gift, and its misuse is not tolerated.
To the extent that the fair of form come to expect better treatment, the comforts that accrue to them are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Attractive people are not used to being bothered or kept waiting, and they show it.146 Confronted with an absent-minded sales clerk, the beautiful wait for only a few minutes before demanding attention.147 Less attractive people are habituated to surly service and wait correspondingly longer. Expectations can also be harnessed to help those who are less beautiful. In one experiment, men were asked to speak to women they had not met over the phone. When the men were told that the women were beautiful, they were more likely to be warm and animated, and to elicit similarly charming behavior from the women.148
There are some differences between how men and women perceive and are affected by beauty. In 1989, American men rated the importance of good looks in a partner as 2.1 on a scale from 0 to 3 compared with a 1.5 for women rating men. Fifty years ago, the ratings were 1.5 and 0.94, respectively.33 This gap is seen across cultures, although the size of the gap may be somewhat smaller. Likewise, there is cross-cultural persistence of the tendency of women to judge men on a mixture of physical attractiveness and financial prospects, whereas men are more prone to rely exclusively on beauty in selecting a mate. Being with a beautiful woman increases a man's status more than a beautiful male companion enhances a woman's.149 In corporate America, good-looking women may be hired readily, but promotion to senior management positions may be difficult for the extremely beautiful woman. Such a standout may be perceived as being appropriately socially adept and competent in a midlevel job but lacking the determination and brilliance required for high-level leadership. Extreme beauty is so overpowering a signal that it may at times outshine other qualities and so paradoxically impair career advancement (Figure 7).117, 120, 150-151
|
|
|
|
Figure 7. While beauty has an evolutionary foundation, cultural norms can affect its manifestations. Body ornamentation, including makeup and jewelry, is culture specific. A, Huli warrior (National Geographic Society, January 2000; reprinted with permission). B, Audrey Hepburn (image courtesy of Steven W. Hill; available at http://www.shillpages.com).
|
|
|
PSYCHOSOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND COSMETIC SURGERY
Self-beautification, because of the power of beauty to modify perception and behavior, is a growth industry.152-153 Tens of billions of dollars are spent annually on makeup, fragrances, hair and nail care, and diet products. Cosmetics salespeople indignantly demand "Would you let $50 stand between you and true beauty?" (personal communication overheard at a department store cosmetics counter in Boston, Mass, January 10, 2001). Furthermore, millions of cosmetic surgical procedures are being performed each year, with baby boomers now accounting for almost half of these.
A range of motivations, operating together, may lead to the decision to pursue maximum improvements in beauty by undergoing cosmetic surgery.154-155 External motivators include avoidance of ethnic prejudice, fear of age discrimination, or coercion by a spouse, parent, or boss. Internal motivators are typically emotions, with patients wanting to diminish unpleasant feelings like depression, shame, or social anxiety. Many patients wish to alter a specific physical feature that they especially dislike. Women are predisposed to desire a youthful, healthy look that signals fertility, and men may be more interested in developing a strong, powerful look that may facilitate career advancement.156
Age and life experiences may determine which motivators are important. A study of patients undergoing face-lift and blepharoplasty noted that those aged 29 to 39 years were struggling with childhood conflicts and difficulty assuming parental roles; those aged 40 to 50 years were desirous of occupational advancement secondary to a youthful appearance; and most of those older than 50 had lost a close relative within the past 5 years and wanted surgery to erase the physical stigmata of their grief.157 Patients undergoing cosmetic surgery have been described as assigning high valence but low value to their opinion of their own attractiveness.158-159 That is, patients may view beauty as an important quality (high valence) but yet not find themselves particularly attractive (low value). "Relentless improvers" are thus driven to obtain surgery to diminish the mismatch between their desire for beauty and their self-assessment.160 Patients undergoing cosmetic surgery have also been described as "action-oriented."158-159 Unwilling to simply be displeased about their appearance, they research the options and seek a cold-steel intervention to ameliorate the ostensible problem.
Methodological problems preclude a definitive answer to the question of whether patients undergoing cosmetic surgery are, collectively, psychologically abnormal. Initial investigations pointed to a strong link between mental illness and the quest for physical self-improvement. Psychiatrists and plastic surgeons collaborating in the 1950s and 1960s at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Md, used psychoanalytic techniques to interview such patients and found that most had significant psychopathologic characteristics (often personality disorders and less frequently neuroses or psychoses).161-164 Interview research in the 1970s similarly suggested that depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem might be relatively more enduring in those requesting cosmetic surgery.165-167 Objective pencil-and-paper tests conducted more recently have partially undermined the earlier pessimistic findings of significant psychopathologic characteristics. In these recent investigations, patients undergoing rhinoplasty, rhytidectomy, and breast augmentation seem to be no more emotionally disturbed than the general population.168-173
The truth may be between the extremes: consumers of cosmetic surgery may not be mentally ill as a group, but they may suffer from greater-than-average dissatisfaction with their bodies and possess the resources to do something about it. Some among them may additionally be diagnosable with primary psychiatric disorders. In fact, body dissatisfaction is a relatively novel concept that is believed to explain much of the impetus toward cosmetic surgery.117-120,174-175 Such dissatisfaction occurs when body image, the internal representation of the self's outer appearance, is impaired.176 Poor body image, in turn, derives from a harsh self-assessment of the body's size and shape, and is exacerbated by stereotypical appearance-related teasing and unrealistic media or cultural standards. The greater the importance of body image to self-esteem, the greater is the attendant body dissatisfaction. Women who undergo cosmetic surgery report high levels of body dissatisfaction preoperatively, with improvements in their body image after surgery. Statistically, body dissatisfaction is a burgeoning problem.177 The proportion of men dissatisfied with their bodies rose from 15% in 1972 to 43% in 1996. For women, the comparable figures were 23% and 56%. Overweight people are so severely distressed that 24% of women and 17% of men would surrender 3 years of their lives to be thinner.
Ironically, most people seem unable to accurately judge their own attractiveness. Correlations between self-ratings and objective measures of individual attractiveness are remarkably low; 0.24 for men and 0.25 for women.106 Only 6% of variance in attractiveness among persons is thus explained by internal representations of beauty.176 High self-ratings of physical attractiveness are generated among those with relatively greater self-esteem, emotional stability, and capacity for dominance. Favorable ratings by others are more likely when the individual being rated has good social skills and is not self-conscious. Popular, sexually experienced people are rated as attractive by both themselves and others.
To the extent that cosmetic surgery can improve a person's perception of his or her attractiveness, such surgery may reduce psychosocial distress.155 Interview studies have often found a diminution in depression and anxiety in patients following cosmetic surgery.166, 178 The data from standardized tests of the same population are more mixed, but at least in some situations, cosmetic enhancement seems to invigorate interpersonal discourse by reducing feelings of inadequacy.155, 159, 168-170,172, 179-187 Psychotic patients, provided they have concurrent psychological therapy, may benefit emotionally from well-planned cosmetic surgery.188
Other subgroups may be less suited to receive cosmetic procedures, or may be potentially more impaired after surgical intervention. Patients with body dysmorphic disorder can be insatiable, fixating on a minor defect that is objectively correctable yet that, despite the surgeon's best efforts, they regard as unimproved.189-191 Frustrated with purportedly inadequate outcomes, such patients can respond with violent acts targeted at themselves or the surgeon. Prospective patients suffering from eating disorders should also be evaluated cautiously before a decision is made to proceed to surgery. Particularly among women requesting liposuction or breast augmentation, anorexia or bulimia may be a contraindication, and surgery may be postponed until the underlying psychological illness is ameliorated.192-194 Adolescents, tempting subjects for the surgeon's scalpel owing to their generally good health and likelihood of long-term benefit from any procedure, may be similarly problematic as patients undergoing cosmetic surgery.154 Teenagers' preferences, including those for physical enhancement, may be changeable, but the procedures designed to correct these supposed imperfections may not be entirely reversible. A pervasive sense of invulnerability may, moreover, render adolescents unable to adequately weigh the risks of surgery. Consultation with young patients' parents can provide insight into the appropriateness of any intervention.
Clearly, screening candidates for cosmetic surgery is important. Patients may have motives and expectations beyond mere improvement in physical appearance. Rapport between the patient and the surgeon can illuminate previously concealed aspects of the patients' psyche, create good will, and ensure that the patient has a complete understanding of the risks, benefits, and probable outcomes of surgery.
Nonetheless, it is vital for the surgeon to appreciate that deep-seated psychopathologic characteristics are not lurking within most people who present for cosmetic enhancement. Reasonable people, confronted with acute cruelty and dismissiveness related to their aged appearance, react quite rationally in attempting to erase the physical manifestations of aging. Social mores in contemporary Western society include a startling bias against aging and the elderly. Ratings of physical attractiveness decline with advancing age for both men and women, with the decrease more steep for women.195 Older women are regarded as less feminine. Those who appear aged beyond their years complain of being repeatedly told that they look tired or unwell. As Ambrose Phillips poignantly observed, "the flowers anew, returning seasons bring! But beauty faded has no second spring."2(p38)
In a downsizing, competitive, technocratic job market, a youthful appearance is a marker for a vigorous, creative employee. Close relationships, given the context of a high rate of divorce and successive remarriage, may likewise be more prone to survive if partners are perceived as more desirable by each other. Couples tend to be well matched in looks, with the obvious implication that greater beauty can entice a more attractive other.196-197 Even individuals who do not feel specifically threatened in their personal or professional lives are surrounded by media-generated standards of the ideal face and body and are susceptible to the desire to emulate these. Economic prosperity, coupled with increased technological sophistication, availability, and acceptance of aesthetic surgery, is culminating in the routinization of elective surgery. An ongoing commitment to a cosmetic enhancement plan featuring carefully selected and graded interventions may therefore be no more psychologically deviant than the resolution to periodically brush one's teeth, get a haircut, or select age- and environment-appropriate clothing (Figure 8).
|
|
|
|
Figure 8. Beauty can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Early in childhood, beautiful children are labeled as such. A, "Perfect baby" contests started in Iowa in 1911. They were supported by the American Eugenics Society, which sought to identify families that were genetically superior in various respects, including physical attractiveness (adjudged the most perfect baby in the Panama Canal Zone from Harry H. Laughlin Archives, Truman State University, Kirksville, Mo; c 1920). B, Contestants in a Regional Beauty Pageant (Image courtesy of Steven W. Hill, available at http://www.shillpages.com).
|
|
|
ATTRACTIVE PERSONALITIES
Beyond the urge to attain and maintain physical beauty is the concept that beauty may in fact be more than "skin deep." Inclusive definitions of beauty have included personality characteristics that purportedly increase the individual's attractiveness. As early as 1920, Knight Dunlap198 described beauty in terms of stature, bodily proportions, features, hair, and fat, but also noted that "without poise, beauty is the beauty of the marble statue and the painted canvas."198(p235) Poise he explained as the sum of mental and emotional qualifications complementing physical perfection. More modern commentators have extolled the beautifying effects of confidence, which Sophia Loren believes "you can build by knowing yourself,"199(p11) and Georgette Mosbacher asserts a woman must "exude . . . if she wants to be beautiful."200(p169) Helen Gurley Brown, the founder and long-time editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, is less sanguine about the value of such advice, wondering "where are we getting this confidence if we aren't beautiful."200(p169)
Warm temperament also seems, in some psychological studies, to correlate with perceptions of attractiveness. College instructors are judged to have a more appealing physical appearance if they behave in a friendly manner or are described as being friendly.201-203 Effects of personality on ratings of attractiveness may in rare instances be sufficient to outweigh the large effect of objective physical appearance, with warm unattractive women judged as equivalent to cold, average-looking women, and warm average-looking women equivalent to cold, attractive women.203 Alluring facial features, including bigger eyes, shorter noses, fuller lips, and smoother skin, are recorded more frequently in appraisals of the same photographs when the individuals judged have been described as kind rather than as mean. The generalizability of these contrived experiments to real situations is less clear.204
Better concealed even than confidence and kindness are other personality traits such as integrity, loyalty, generosity, determination, and courage. While beauty is often seen as implying coexistence of such positive characteristics, there is a widespread suspicion that the comely may somehow be less reliable than the homely. Studies suggest that observers expect the beautiful to be more prone to seek divorce, less able to be faithful to a spouse, and less competent at parenting.205-206 Unfortunately, on balance, physical beauty is so much easier to assess than other desirable qualities that in daily life we are often unable or unwilling to examine what lies beneath.
DISTRIBUTIVE FAIRNESS
The unequal distribution of personal beauty and the benefits that accrue from it seem inherently unjust. However, Elaine Scarry,207 a Harvard professor expert in aesthetics and ethics, has championed the alternative view that the unequal distribution of beauty may not always be antithetical to fairness. If fairness is a utilitarian construct requiring the greatest benefit for the greatest number, then the existence of beauty may actually be in society's collective best interest. Scarry conceives of the pursuit of beauty as a unique, fundamental drive, continually inspiring and delighting people. Unlike hunger, which is quenched with food, the desire for beauty is not coterminous with its satisfaction. Art, music, and literature are motivated by beauty, or more specifically, the impulse toward replication that is stimulated in the presence of beauty. Admitting that personal beauty may be inequitably disbursed, Scarry notes that this is true of most genetic endowments, yet we do not regard similar gifts, for instance exceptional mathematics talent, as unfair in the same way (Figure 9).
|
|
|
|
Figure 9. Ugliness is often understood as the absence of beauty. Expressive and functional faces may not be attractive in the conventional sense. (Louis Leopold Boilly [1761-1845], Reunion of 35 Diverse Heads, 1823-1828, French. Colored lithograph, 40 x 50 cm. Courtesy of the Clements Fry Print Collection, Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Library, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.)
|
|
|
Beauty may also be politically valuable to the extent that it is consistent with balance and harmony. Here Scarry207 offers the highly theoretical argument that if the mechanism of social justice is impaired under the jurisdiction of a coercive government, the surviving beauty and symmetry of nature208-209 may inspire reformers to agitate for change. Perhaps the strongest defense of beauty is that, when confronted by John Rawls' hypothetical veil of ignorance,210 unaware if they themselves will have access to beauty, people still overwhelmingly want beauty in their universe. Those living far from natural wonders, and unlikely to ever visit them, nonetheless demand ecological preservation; similarly, those who are less beautiful and not necessarily benefiting from the perks of personal beauty would not want their progeny to grow up in a world devoid of beauty.
Heroic though Scarry's efforts may be, justifying beauty on philosophical grounds is difficult. The so-called "problem of lateral disregard"207(pp65-67) is all too intractable. Briefly, the beautiful individual attracts a disproportionate amount of attention, and once observed, makes others seem less attractive by comparison. People may enjoy art or want beauty in their world; there is no reason to believe, however, that they would not also wish to be beautiful themselves, if they could.
Beauty, not counting its practical benefits, is worth having. It is thought provoking to consider that the highly successful are not immune to wistfully imagining that they may have been better looking. Once asked if she had any regrets, Eleanor Roosevelt offered only one. She wished she had been prettier.211 Or as Joan Rivers crisply observed, "No matter how they lie to us and tell us that Barbra Streisand is beautiful, if you woke up without her enormous talent, would you rather look like her or Michelle Pfeiffer?"28(p108)
FUTURE AND FANTASY
In the future, beauty will likely increase in importance as a desirable attribute for both sexes.212-214 The early 20th century emergence of mass-market cosmetics,215-216 post–World War II refinement of aesthetic surgery techniques,217-219 and current middle-class affluence have led to gradual but inexorable societal acceptance of beauty enhancement.220-221 Gone is the guilt instilled by the medieval Catholic church, which opposed cosmetic operations on the grounds that they opposed Divine Will. Classical thinkers such as Cornelius Celsus (25 BCE–50 CE), author of De Medicina and inventor of a technique for removing excess skin from "relaxed eyelids," are thus vindicated by the resurgence of science in the service of beauty. 152, 222-223
The modern compulsion for physical perfection also has been fueled by advances in communication and transportation. Visual media and the ease of travel make the beautiful other a nearby object against which the self may repeatedly be compared. The world has become smaller, more competitive, and more reliant on first impressions, an inevitable currency when professional and personal contacts are often strangers. Sander Gilman describes the resulting desire to "pass,"224-225 to relieve the anxiety of being placed in a negative, visible category, as the primary motivation for cosmetic surgery. Paradoxically, by more closely resembling everyone else's ideal of beauty, we are freed from adverse scrutiny and stereotyping, and more able to be free, unique, and happy.
The sequencing of the human genome has brought the promise of genetic aesthetic enhancement closer.226-227 Genetic modification at conception may theoretically obviate the need for later corrective procedures. Physicians, as the purveyors of beauty, may additionally be able to better protect their patients from the "unavoidable betrayal of the body"228(p215) associated with aging. The best "hard" science fiction grapples with the social implications of such technology.229-236 Protagonists are often preserved in a vigorous, physically attractive young adulthood. Whole-body rejuvenation may be periodically sought from machines or medicines. The resulting life may span epochs, during which friends, family, jobs, and homes may change many times. In general, longevity is wanted only if accompanied by intellectual curiosity and a presentable, strong, and virile body. As Glogau237 has argued, wanting to be beautiful may not be a desire to look young but rather to "look the way that [we] feel."237(p1205) As lives become longer and healthier, people may be less willing to console themselves with the wisdom that "within I do not find wrinkles and used heart, but unspent youth"238(p474) or that "what time hath scanted men in hair, he hath given them in wit."239(p477) Instead, we may want and get it all.
CONCLUSION
For the present, for those of us who feel less beautiful, the optimal coping strategy may be humor combined with a determination to look as good as possible while focusing on excellence in areas in which we have unusual gifts. Racine, who described his "wrinkles as the imprints of exploits,"240(p431) and Anna Magnin, who enjoined "don't erase my wrinkles . . . they took me so long to earn,"240(p431) clearly accepted the visible signs of aging as evidence of a life fully lived. Reassuringly, the beautiful do not report being happier than the less well endowed.241 People who know us well are less likely to judge us based on beauty, and when beauty does proffer an advantage in the personal and professional spheres, the magnitude of the benefit is rarely more than small to moderate. With cosmetic surgery, moreover, we now have the means to improve structural deficiencies as well as the visible signs of normal aging. Finally, it is possible to transcend popular conceptions of beauty, as Henry James242 trenchantly observed in a letter to his father on meeting the unmarried, middle-aged 19th century novelist George Eliot:
She is magnificently ugly. She has a low forehead, dull gray eyes, a vast pendulous nose, a huge mouth of uneven teeth. . . . Now in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty, which, in a very few minutes, steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end as I ended, in falling in love with her.242(p104)
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication February 20, 2001.
The authors are deeply grateful to David Elpern, MD, for planting the "beauty" seed and to Tania Phillips, MD, for her continued encouragement, support, and reality testing. We would also like to thank David R. Bickers, MD, for his precise and insightful comments.
Reprints and primary corresponding author: Murad Alam, MD, 195 Davis Ave, Brookline, MA 02445 (e-mail: murad{at}alam.com). Secondary corresponding author: Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, FRCPC, SkinCare Physicians of Chestnut Hill, 1244 Boylston Street, Suite 302, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 (email: jdover{at}skincarephysicians.net).
From Skin Care Physicians of Chestnut Hill, Mass (Drs Alam and Dover); Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY (Dr Alam); and Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Simpson J, ed, Weiner E, ed. Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1989.
2. Etcoff N. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1999.
3. Brain R. The Decorated Body. London, England: Hutchinson; 1979.
4. Popkin JD. A Short History of the French Revolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
5. Ghyka M. The Geometry of Art and Life. New York, NY: Dover; 1977.
6. Koerner JL. The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1993.
7. Matory WE Jr. Definitions of beauty in the ethnic patient. In Matory WE Jr, ed. Ethnic Considerations in Facial Aesthetic Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
8. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportion of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: Revisions of neo-classical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:328-338.
ISI
| PUBMED
9. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1981.
10. Hamilton WD, Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982;218:384-387.
FREE FULL TEXT
11. Zuk M. Parasites and bright birds: new data and a new prediction. In Loye JE, Zuk M, eds. Bird-Parasite Interactions: Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1982.
12. Mitton JB, Grant MC. Associations between protein heterozygosity, growth rate and developmental homeostasis. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1984;15:479-499.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
13. Gangestad SW, Buss DM. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;14:89-96.
14. Koeslag JH. Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis and stabilizes social behavior. J Theor Biol. 1990;144:15-35.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
15. Symons D. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1981.
16. Moller AP. Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature. 1992;357:238-239.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
17. Markusson E, Folstad I. Reindeer antlers: visual indicators of individual quality? Oecologia. 1997;110:501-507.
FULL TEXT
18. Kirschner MA, Samojilik E. Sex hormone metabolism in upper and lower body obesity. Int J Obes. 1991;15:101-108.
19. Leibel DJ, Edens NK, Fried SK. Physiologic basis for the control of body fat distribution in humans. Annu Rev Nutr. 1989;9:417-443.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Kissinger H. In: Etcoff N. Survival of the Prettiest. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1999:78.
21. Symons D. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In Abramson PR, Pinkerton S, eds. Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1995.
22. Diaz S, Seron-Ferre M, Croxatto HB, Veldhuis J. Neuroendocrine mechanisms of lactational infertility in women. Biol Res. 1995;28:155-163.
PUBMED
23. Menken J, Trussel J, Larsen U. Age and infertility. Science. 1986;233:1389-1394.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Frost P. Human skin color: the social differentiation of its social perception. Mankind Q. 1989;30:3-16.
25. Wong RC, Ellis CN. Physiologic skin changes in pregnancy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10:929-943.
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Zaadstra BM, Sedell JC, Van Noord PAH, et al. Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ. 1993;306:484-487.
27. Wass P, Waldenstrom U, Hellberg D. An android body fat distribution in females impairs the pregnancy rate of in-vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2057-2060.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Newman C, Cobb J. The enigma of beauty. Natl Geographic. January 2000;106.
29. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Casey RJ, Ritter JM, Rieser-Danner LA, Jenkins VY. Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype. Dev Psychol. 1987;23:363-369.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
30. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol. 1991;27:79-84.
FULL TEXT
31. Samuels CA, Butterworth G, Roberts T, Graupner L, Hole G. Facial aesthetics: babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception. 1994;23:823-831.
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Lorenz K. On Aggression. New York, NY: MJF Books; 1996.
33. Buss DM. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1994.
34. Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50:925-935.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
35. Thakerar JN, Iwawaki S. Cross-cultural comparisons in interpersonal attraction of females toward males. J Soc Psychol. 1979;108:121-122.
36. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu CH. Their ideals of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68:261-279.
37. Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989;12:1-14.
38. Buss DM, Abbot M, Angleitner A. International preferences in selecting mates: a study of 37 cultures. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1990;21:5-47.
ABSTRACT
39. Jones D, Hill K. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Hum Nat. 1993;4:271-295.
40. Jones DM. The Evolutionary Psychology of Human Attractiveness: Results From Five Populations [dissertation]. Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Michigan; 1994.
41. Jones D. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny. Curr Anthropol. 1995;36:723-748.
FULL TEXT
42. Wagatsuma E, Kleinke CL. Ratings of facial beauty by Korean-American and Caucasian females. J Soc Psychol. 1979;109:299-300.
43. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature. 1994;368:239-242.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
44. Zebrowitz LA, Montepare JM, Lee HK. They don't all look alike: individuated impressions of other racial groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:85-101.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Gilman SL. Creating Beauty to Cure the Soul: Race and Psychology in the Shaping of Aesthetic Surgery. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1998.
46. Schemo DJ. Among glossy blondes, a showcase for Brazil's black faces. New York Times. October 18, 1996:A13.
47. Pettijohn II TF, Tesser A. Popularity in environmental context: facial feature assessment of American movie actresses. Media Psychol. 1999;1:229-247.
FULL TEXT
48. Johnston VS, Franklin M. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethol Sociobiol. 1993;13:183-199.
49. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female sexual attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:293-307.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
50. Singh D. Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69:1089-1091.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
51. Singh D, Luis S. Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women's attractiveness. Hum Nat. 1995;6:51-65.
52. Singh D. Body-fat distribution and perception of desirable body shape by young black men and women. Int J Eat Disord. 1994;16:289-294.
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Tovee MJ, Mason SM, Emery JL, McCluskey SE, Cohen-Tovee EM. Supermodels: stick insects or hourglasses? Lancet. 1997;350:1474-1475.
ISI
| PUBMED
54. Jackson LA, Ervin KS. Height stereotypes of women and men: the liability of shortness for both sexes. J Soc Psychol. 1991;132:433-445.
55. Graziano W, Brothen T, Berscheid E. Height and attraction: do men see women eye to eye? J Pers. 1978;46:128-145.
FULL TEXT
56. Rebuffe-Scrive M. Regional adipose tissue metabolism in men and women during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, lactation, and menopause. Int J Obes. 1987;11:347-355.
ISI
| PUBMED
57. Tahara Y, Tsunawake N, Yukawa K, Yamaski N, Nishiyama K, Urata H, et al. Sex differences in interrelationships between percent body fat (% fat) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in healthy male and female adults. Ann Physiol Anthropol. 1994;13:293-301.
PUBMED
58. Larrakas PJ. Female preference for male physiques. J Res Pers. 1975;9:324-334.
FULL TEXT
59. Maier RA, Larrakas PJ. Attitudes towards women, personal rigidity, and idealized physique preference in males. Sex Roles. 1984;11:425-433.
FULL TEXT
60. Horvath T. Correlates of physical beauty in men and women. Social Behav Pers. 1979;7:145-151.
FULL TEXT
61. Davis C, Brewer H, Weinstein M. A study of appearance anxiety in young men. Soc Behav Pers. 1993;21:63-74.
FULL TEXT
62. Morselli PG. The minotaur syndrome: plastic surgery of the facial skeleton. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1993;17:99-102.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
63. Rosa RA, Kotkin HC. That acquired masseteric look. J Dent Child. 1996;2:105-107.
64. Glamour Magazine and the American Beauty Association. The Beauty Salon Study. New York, NY: Glamour Magazine and the American Beauty Association; 1993.
65. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci. 1990;1:115-121.
66. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol. 1994;108:233-242.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
67. Rhodes G, Tremewan T. Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 1996;7:105-110.
68. Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London, England: Macmillan; 1883.
69. McManus IC, Humphrey NK. Turning the left cheek. Nature. 1973;243:272.
70. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Yeo RA. Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethol and Sociobiol. 1994;15:73-85.
71. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum Nat. 1993;4:237-269.
72. Rhodes G, Profitt F, Grady JM, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bull Rev. 1998;5:659-669.
73. Kowner R. Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgments in developmental perspective. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996;22:662-675.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
74. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces. Psychol Sci. 1994;5:214-220.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
75. Rhodes G. Superportraits: Caricatures and Recognition. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press; 1996.
76. Zebrowitz LA, Rhodes G. Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: the multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In: Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, eds. Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, Cultural, and Motivational Perspectives. Westport, Conn: Ablex Publishing; 2001.
77. Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. What do women want? facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:61-72.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
78. Mueser KT, Grau BW, Sussman MS, Rosen AJ. You're only as pretty as you feel: facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;46:469-478.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
79. Reis HT, Wilson IM, Monestere C, et al. What is smiling is beautiful and good. Eur J Soc Psych. 1990;20:259-267.
80. Rhodes G, Sumich A, Byatt G. Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychol Sci. 1999;10:52-58.
81. Bornstein RF. Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychol Bull. 1989;106:265-289.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
82. Zajonc RB. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968;9(suppl 2):1-7.
83. Mita TH, Dermer M, Knight J. Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977;35:597-601.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
84. Rhodes G, Hickford C, Jeffery L. Sex-typicality and attractiveness: are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive. Br J Psychol. 2000;91:125-140.
85. Sebesta JL, Bonfonte L. The World of Roman Costume. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press; 1994.
86. Corson R. Fashions in Hair: The First Five Thousand Years. London, England: Peter Owen Publishers; 1991.
87. Trasko M. Daring Do's: A History of Extraordinary Hair. Paris, France: Flammarion; 1994.
88. Fallon A. Culture in the mirror: sociocultural determinants of body image. In: Cash TF, Pruzinsky T, eds. Body Images: Development, Deviance, and Change. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1990:80-109.
89. Garner DM, Garfinkel PE, Schwartz D. Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychol Rep. 1980;47:483-491.
ISI
| PUBMED
90. Morris A, Cooper T, Cooper PJ. The changing shape of female fashion models. Int J Eat Disord. 1989;8:593-596.
FULL TEXT
91. Guillen EO, Barr SI. Nutrition, dieting, and fitness messages in a magazine for adolescent women, 1970-1990. J Adolesc Health. 1994;15:464-472.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
92. Wiseman CV, Gray J, Mosimann JE, Aherns AH. Cultural expectations of thinness in women: an update. Int J Eat Disord. 1992;11:85-89.
93. Sawyer B, Grossbart TA, Didie ER. Beauty and society. In: Sappho. Fragment 101. In: G. Davenport, trans-ed. Poems and Fragments. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Quoted in: Sarwer DB, Grossbart TA, Didie ER. Beauty and society. In: Kaminer MS, Dover JS, Arndt KA, eds. Atlas of Cutaneous Aesthetic Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2001.
94. Dion KK, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;24:285-290.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
95. Webster M, Driskell JE. Beauty as status. Am J Sociol. 1983;89:140-165.
FULL TEXT
96. Clifford MM, Walster E. Research note: the effects of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociol Educ. 1973;46:248-258.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
97. Clifford MM. Physical attractiveness and academic performance. Child Stud J. 1975;4:201-209.
98. Mann J. Nurturance or negligence: maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm infants. In: Barkow JK, Cosmides L, Tooby J, eds. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992.
99. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Casey RJ, Sawin DB. Infant attractiveness predicts maternal behavior and attitudes. Dev Psychol. 1995;31:464-472.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
100. Kleck RE, Richardson SA, Ronald L. Physical appearance cues and interpersonal attraction in children. Child Dev. 1974;45:305-310.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
101. Lerner RM, Lerner JV. Effects of age, sex, and physical attractiveness on child-peer relations, academic performance, and elementary school adjustment. Dev Psychol. 1977;13:585-590.
FULL TEXT
102. Horai J, Naccari N, Fatoullen E. The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Sociometry. 1974;37:601-606.
FULL TEXT
103. Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37:1387-1397.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
104. Brundage LE, Berlega VJ, Cash TF. The effects of physical attractiveness and need for approval on self-disclosure. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1977;3:63-66.
105. Cash TF, Soloway D. Self-disclosure and correlates of physical attractiveness: an exploratory study. Psychol Rep. 1975;36:579-586.
ISI
| PUBMED
106. Feingold A. Good looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:304-341.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
107. Hartnett JJ, Bailey KG, Hartley C. Body height, position, and sex as determinants of personal space. J Psychol. 1974;87:129-136.
108. Dabs M, Stokes NA. Beauty is a power: the use of space on the sidewalk. Sociometry. 1975;38:551-557.
FULL TEXT
109. Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996:4:508-516.
110. Holmes S, Hatch CE. Personal appearance as related to scholastic records and marriage selection in college women. Hum Biol. 1938;10:65-76.
111. Kalick S, Zebrowitz LA, Langlois J, Johnson RM. Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychol Sci. 1998;9:8-13.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
112. Udry JR, Eckland BK. Benefits of being attractive: differential payoffs for men and women. Psychol Rep. 1984;54:47-56.
113. Taylor PA, Glenn ND. The utility of education and attractiveness for female status attainment through marriage. Am Sociol Rev. 1976;41:484-498.
FULL TEXT
114. Elder GH. Appearance and education in marriage mobility. Am Sociol Rev. 1969;34:519-533.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
115. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, Comer R. Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behav. 1995;50:1601-1615.
FULL TEXT
116. Mazur A, Mazur J, Keating C. Military rank attainment of a West Point class: effects of cadet's physical features. Am J Sociol. 1984;90:125-150.
FULL TEXT
117. Mueller U, Mazur A. Facial dominance in West Point cadets as a predictor of later military rank. Soc Forces. 1996;74:823-850.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
118. Hamermesh DS, Biddle JE. Beauty and the labor market. Am Econ Rev. 1994;84:1174-1194.
ISI
119. Cash TF, Kilicullen RN. The aye of the beholder: susceptibility to sexism and beautyism in the evaluation of managerial applicants. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1985;15:591-605.
120. Frieze IH, Olson JE, Good DC. Perceived and actual discrimination in the salaries of male and female managers. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20:46-67.
121. Heilman ME, Saruwatari LR. When beauty is beastly: the effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1979;23:360-372.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
122. Cash TF, Gillen G, Burns DS. Sexism and "beautyism" in personnel consultant decision making. J Appl Psychol. 1977;62:301-310.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
123. Dipboye RL, Fromkin HL, Wiback K. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60:39-43.
FULL TEXT
124. Dipboye RL, Arvey RD, Terpstra DE. Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. J Appl Psychol. 1977;62:288-294.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
125. Waters J. Cosmetics and the job market. In: Graham J, Kligman A, eds. The Psychology of Cosmetic Treatments. New York, NY: Praeger; 1985:113-124.
126. McGinnis J. The Selling of the President. New York, NY: Andre Deutsch; 1976.
127. Kurtz DL. Physical experience and stature: important variables in sales recruiting. Personnel J. 1969;48:981-983.
128. Loh ES. The economic effects of physical appearance. Soc Sci Q. 1993;74:420-438.
ISI
129. Zebrowitz LA. Reading Faces: Window to the Soul? Boulder, Colo: Westview Press; 1997.
130. Sroufe R, Chaiken A, Cook R, Freeman V. The effects of physical attractiveness on honesty: a socially desirable response. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1977;3:59-62.
131. Athanasiou R, Greene P. Physical attractiveness and helping behavior: proceedings of the 81st annual convention of the American Psychological Association. Psychol Rep. 1973;8:289-290.
132. Sigall H, Aronson E. Liking for an evaluator as a function of her physical attractiveness and nature of the evaluations. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1969;5:93-100.
133. Patzer GL. The Attractiveness Phenomenon. New York, NY: Plenum Press: 1985.
134. Benson PL, Karabenick SA, Lerner RM. Pretty pleases: the effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1976;12:409-415.
135. Barocas R, Vance FL. Physical appearance and personal adjustment counseling. J Counsel Psychol. 1974;21:96-100.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
136. Martin PJ, Friedmeyer MH, Moore JE. Pretty patient—healthy patient? a study of physical attractiveness and psychopathology. J Clin Psychol. 1977;33:990-994.
ISI
| PUBMED
137. Farina A, Fischer EH, Sherman S, Smith WT, Grob T, Mermin P. Physical attractiveness and mental illness. J Abnorm Psychol. 1977;86:510-517.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
138. Dion KK. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;24:207-213.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
139. Hatfield E, Sprecher S. Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1986.
140. DeSantis A, Kayson WA. Defendant's characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychol Rep. 1997;81:679-683.
141. Mace KC. The "overt-bluff" shoplifter: who gets caught? J Forensic Psychol. 1972;4:26-30.
142. Steffensmeier DJ, Terry RM. Deviance and respectiability: an observational study of reactions to shoplifting. Soc Forces. 1973;5:417-426.
FULL TEXT
143. Stewart JE. Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: an observational study. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1980;10:348-361.
FULL TEXT
144. Sigall H, Ostrove N. Beautiful but dangerous: effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;31:410-414.
FULL TEXT
145. Mazella R, Feingold A. The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: a meta-analysis. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1994;24:1315-1244.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
146. Anderson R. Physical attractiveness and locus of control. J Soc Psychol. 1978;105:213-216.
147. Jackson DJ, Huston TL. Physical attractiveness and assertiveness. J Soc Psychol. 1975;96:79-84.
ISI
| PUBMED
148. Snyder M, Tanke ED, Berscheid E. Social perception and interpersonal behavior: on the fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977;35:656-666.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
149. Sigall H, Landy D. Radiating beauty: effects of having a physically attractive partner on person perception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1973;28:218-224.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
150. Jackson LA, Cash TF. Components of gender stereotypes and their implications for inferences on stereotypic and nonstereotypic dimensions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1985;11:326-344.
ABSTRACT
151. Gutek BA. Sex and the Workplace: The Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harrassment on Women, Men, and the Organization. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1985.
152. Sullivan DA. Cosmetic Surgery: The Cutting Edge of Commercial Medicine in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2001.
153. Haiken E. Venus Envy: A History of Cosmetic Surgery. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1997.
154. Grossbart TA, Sarwer DB. Psychosocial issues and their relevance to the cosmetic surgery patient. In: Kaminer MS, Dover JS, Arndt KA, eds. Atlas of Cutaneous Aesthetic Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2001. In press.
155. Grossbart TA, Sarwer DB. Cosmetic surgery: surgical tools—psychosocial goals. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 1999;18:101-111.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
156. Sarwer DB, Grossbart TA, Didie ER. Beauty and society. In Kaminer MS, Dover JS, Arndt KA, ed. Atlas of Cutaneous Aesthetic Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2001. In press.
157. Webb WL, Slaughter R, Meyer E, Edgerton M. Mechanisms of psychosocial adjustment in patients seeking "face-lift" operation. Psychosom Med. 1965;27:183-192.
FREE FULL TEXT
158. Sarwer DB, Pertschuk MJ, Wadden TA, Whitaker LA. Psychological investigations of cosmetic surgery patients: a look back and a look ahead. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1136-1142.
ISI
| PUBMED
159. Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. The psychology of cosmetic surgery: a review and reconceptualization. Clin Psychol Rev. 1998;18:1-22.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
160. Schouten JW. Selves in transition: symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction. J Consum Res. 1991;17:412-425.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
161. Edgerton MT, Jacobson WE, Meyer E. Surgical-psychiatric study of patients seeking plastic (cosmetic) surgery: ninety-eight consecutive patients with minimal deformity. Br J Plast Surg. 1960;13:136-145.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
162. Edgerton MT, Meyer E, Jacobson WE. Augmentation mammaplasty, II, further surgical and psychiatric evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1961;27:279-301.
163. Edgerton MT, Webb WL, Slaughter R, Meyer E. Surgical results and psychosocial changes following rhytidectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1964;33:503-521.
164. Meyer E, Jacobson WE, Edgerton MT, Canter A. Motivational patterns in patients seeking elective plastic surgery. Psychosom Med. 1960;22:193-202.
FREE FULL TEXT
165. Beale S, Lisper H, Palm B. A psychosocial study of patients seeking augmentation mammaplasty. Br J Psychiatry. 1980;136:133-138.
FREE FULL TEXT
166. Ohlsen L, Ponten B, Hambert G. Augmentation mammaplasty: a surgical and psychiatric evaluation of the results. Ann Plast Surg. 1979;2:42-52.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
167. Sihm F, Jagd M, Pers M. Psychological assessment before and after augmentation mammaplasty. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;12:295-298.
ISI
| PUBMED
168. Baker JL, Kolin IS, Bartlett ES. Psychosexual dynamics of patients undergoing mammary augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974;53:652-659.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
169. Goin MK, Burgoyne RW, Goin JM, Staples FR. A prospective psychological study of 50 female face-lift patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:436-442.
ISI
| PUBMED
170. Goin MK, Rees TD. A prospective study of patients' psychological reactions to rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;27:210-215.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
171. Schlebusch L. Negative bodily experience and prevalence of depression in patients who request augmentation mammoplasty. S Afr Med J. 1989;75:323-326.
ISI
| PUBMED
172. Shipley RH, O'Donnell JM, Bader KF. Personality characteristics of women seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;60:369-376.
ISI
| PUBMED
173. Wright MR, Wright WK. A psychological study of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol. 1975;101:145-151.
FREE FULL TEXT
174. Pertschuk MJ, Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Whitaker LA. Body image dissatisfaction in male cosmetic surgery patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1998;22:20-24.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
175. Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. Body image dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cosmetic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1644-1649.
ISI
| PUBMED
176. Thompson JK, Heinberg LJ, Altabe M, Tantloff-Dunn S. Exacting Beauty: Theory, Assessment and Treatment of Body Image Disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999;19-47.
177. Garner DM. The 1997 body image survey results. Psychol Today. 1997;31:30-87.
178. Goin MK, Goin JM, Gianini MH. The psychic consequences of a reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;59:530-534.
ISI
| PUBMED
179. Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. Changes in body image following cosmetic surgery. Paper resented at: 19th Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine; March 21-24, 1998; New Orleans, La.
180. Sarwer DB. Psychological considerations in cosmetic surgery. In: Goldwyn RM, Cohen M, eds. The Unfavorable Result in Plastic Surgery: Avoidance and Treatment. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
181. Hay GG, Heather BB. Changes in psychometric test results following cosmetic nasal operations. Br J Psychiatry. 1973;122:89-90.
ISI
| PUBMED
182. Rankin M, Borah GL, Perry AW, Wey PD. Quality-of-life outcomes after cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:2139-2145.
ISI
| PUBMED
183. Hollyman JA, Lacey JH, Whitfield PJ, Wilson JSP. Surgery for the psyche: a longitudinal study of women undergoing reduction mammoplasty. Brit J Plast Surg. 1986;39:222-224.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
184. Slator R, Harris DL. Are rhinoplasty patients potentially mad? Brit J Plast Surg. 1992;45:307-310.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
185. Meyer L, Ringberg A. Augmentation mammaplasty—psychiatric and psychosocial characteristics and outcome in a group of Swedish women. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1987;21:199-208.
ISI
| PUBMED
186. Glatt BS, Sarwer DB, O'Hara DE, Hamori C, Bucky LP, LaRossa D. A retrospective study of changes in physical symptoms and body image after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:76-82.
ISI
| PUBMED
187. Sarwer DB. The obsessive cosmetic surgery patient: a consideration of body image dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder. Plast Surg Nurs. 1997;17:193-209.
PUBMED
188. Edgerton MT, Langman MW, Pruzinsky T. Plastic surgery and psychotherapy in the treatment of 100 psychologically disturbed patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88:594-608.
ISI
| PUBMED
189. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press; 1994.
190. Phillips KA. The broken mirror: understanding and treating body dysmorphic disorder. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
191. Phillips KA, Diaz SF. Gender differences in body dysmorphic disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1997;185:570-577.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
192. Yates A, Shisslak CM, Allender JR, Wollman W. Plastic surgery and the bulimic patient. Int J Eat Disord. 1988;7:557-560.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
193. McIntosh VV, Britt E, Bulik CM. Cosmetic breast augmentation and eating disorders. N Z Med J. 1994;107:151-152.
ISI
| PUBMED
194. Willard SG, McDermott BE, Woodhouse LM. Lipoplasty in the bulimic patient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:276-278.
ISI
| PUBMED
195. Deutsch FM, Zalenski CM, Clark ME. Is there a double standard of aging. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1986;16:771-785.
FULL TEXT
196. Murstein BI. Physical attractiveness and marital choice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;22:8-12.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
197. Feingold A. Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: a meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychol Bull. 1988;104:226-235.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
198. Dunlap K. Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. In: Miller J, ed. Beauty. San Francisco, Calif: Chronicle Books; 1997:1920;220-236.
199. Loren S. Women and Beauty. New York, NY: Arrum Press: 1984.
200. Brown HG. The Late Show. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co; 1993.
201. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977;35:250-256.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
202. Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell L, Shebilski L, Lundgren S. Social influence, sex differences and judgments of beauty: putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:522-531.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
203. Gross A, Crofton C. What is good is beautiful? Sociometry. 1977:40:85-90.
204. Hassin R, Trope Y. Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:837-852.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
205. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good, but ... :a meta-analystic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull. 1991;110:109-128.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
206. Dermer M, Thiel DL. When beauty may fail. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;31:1168-1176.
FULL TEXT
207. Scarry E. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.
208. Weil S. Love of the order of the world. In: Crauford E, trans. Waiting for God. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1951:159.
209. Murdoch I. The sovereignty of good over other concepts. The Leslie Stephen Lecture. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press; 1967:2.
210. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1971.
211. Steinem G. Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem. Boston, Mass: Little Brown;1992:216.
212. Melamed E. Mirror, Mirror: The Terror of Not Being Young. New York, NY: Linden Press, Simon & Schuster; 1983.
213. Banner L. In Full Flower: Aging Women, Power, and Sexuality. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf; 1992.
214. Luciano L. Looking Good: Male Body Image in Modern America. New York, NY: Hill & Wang; 2001.
215. Peiss K. Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture. New York, NY: Henry Holt: 1998.
216. Banner L. American Beauty. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press: 1983.
217. Kirkham HLD, Mills JT, Potter LE. Plastic surgery as related to war surgery. Surg Clin NA. 1943;23:1603-1611.
218. Potter R. Farewell to ugliness. Am Weekly. March 31, 1946; April 7, 1946; April 14, 1946.
219. Conway H. Distribution of plastic surgeons in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965;35:183.
220. Alam M. Cosmetic surgery as a revenue engine for academic dermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:1096-1098.
FREE FULL TEXT
221. Alam M, Arndt KA, Dover JS. Aesthetic surgery: coming of age. Lancet. 2000;356:S60.
222. Rogers B. The development of aesthetic plastic surgery: a history. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1976;1:1-22.
223. Brown J. The history of plastic surgery: from ancient India to modern America. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1986;71:21-24.
224. Gilman SL. Making the Body Beautiful: A Cultural History of Aesthetic Surgery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.
225. Bickerton A. On passing. Documents. 1993;3:62-64.
226. Kimmelman M. Perfecting mankind: beauty? brains? place your orders. New York Times. February 16, 2001.
227. Squiers C, Curator. Perfecting mankind: eugenics and photography. Show presented at: the International Center of Photography; January 11-March 19, 2001; New York, NY.
228. Taylor MC. Nots. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1992:215.
229. Clarke AC. 2001: A Space Odyssey. New York, NY: Roc;2000.
230. Tevis WS. Mockingbird. New York, NY: Del Rey; 1999.
231. Van Vogt AE. The Empire of Isher. New York, NY: St Martin's Press; 2000.
232. Sturgeon T. Selected Stories. New York, NY: Vintage Books; 2000.
233. Wolfe G. The Fifth Head of Cerberus. New York, NY: Tor; 1994.
234. Lethem J. Gun, with Occasional Music. New York, NY: Tor; 1995.
235. Vinge V. A Deepness in the Sky. New York, NY: St Martin's Press; 1999.
236. Bisson T. In the Upper Room and Other Likely Stories. New York, NY: Tor; 2000.
237. Glogau RG. Cosmetic dermatology: no apologies, a few regrets. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1204-1206.
FREE FULL TEXT
238. Emerson RW. Journals, 1864. In: Ehrlich E, DeBruhl M, eds. The International Thesaurus of Quotations. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers; 1996:474.
239. Shakespeare W. The Comedy of Errors. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam; 1999:21.
240. Hruza GJ, Dover JS. Laser skin resurfacing. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:451-455.
FREE FULL TEXT
241. Myers DG, Diener E. Who is happy? Psychol Sci. 1995;6:10-19.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
242. James H, Edel L. Henry James: Selected Letters. Edel L, ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1987. Quoted in: Newman C, Cobb J. The enigma of beauty. Natl Geographic. 2000; January:104.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Circles of prominence: a new theory on facial aesthetics.
Young et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8:263-267.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)
Carruthers
Arch Dermatol 2002;138:1243-1244.
FULL TEXT
|
