Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan;50(2):149-54.
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.003. Epub 2009 Nov 6.

New "golden" ratios for facial beauty

Pamela M Pallett  1 , Stephen Link, Kang Lee
Affiliations

New "golden" ratios for facial beauty

Pamela M Pallett et al. Vision Res. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

In four experiments, we tested the existence of an ideal facial feature arrangement that could optimize the attractiveness of any face given its facial features. Participants made paired comparisons of attractiveness between faces with identical facial features but different eye-mouth distances and different interocular distances. We found that although different faces have varying attractiveness, individual attractiveness is optimized when the face's vertical distance between the eyes and the mouth is approximately 36% of its length, and the horizontal distance between the eyes is approximately 46% of the face's width. These "new" golden ratios match those of an average face.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example faces with different length and width ratios; faces with an average length or width ratio are framed in black.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2A. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios in Experiment 1. Figure 2B. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of width ratios while holding the length ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 3. Figure 2C. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios while holding the width ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 4.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2A. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios in Experiment 1. Figure 2B. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of width ratios while holding the length ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 3. Figure 2C. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios while holding the width ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 4.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2A. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios in Experiment 1. Figure 2B. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of width ratios while holding the length ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 3. Figure 2C. Thurstonian attractiveness scores as a function of length ratios while holding the width ratio constant at the optimal level in Experiment 4.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Atalay B. Math and the Mona Lisa: The Art & Science of Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Harper Collins Publishers; 2006.
    1. Danel D, Pawloski B. Eye-Mouth-Eye Angle as a Good Indicator of Face Masculinization, Assymetry, and Attractiveness (homo sapiens) Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2007;121(2):221–225. - PubMed
    1. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1972;24(3):285–290. - PubMed
    1. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good but...: A Meta-Anatytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype. Psychologyical Bulletin. 1991;110(1):109–128.
    1. Green CD. All That Glitters: A Review of Psychological Research on the Aesthetics of the Golden Section. Perception. 1995;24:937–968. - PubMed

Publication types