Journal archive · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2020
The Value of Averageness in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Humans Like Average Noses
van Zijl FVWJ, Perrett DI, Lohuis PJFM, Touw CE, Xiao D, Datema FR.
What this paper says
A composite nose averaged from 40 women was rated 4.2 out of 5 for attractiveness against 2.8 for the 80 individual noses, and the further an individual nose deviated from average, the lower it scored.
Overview
What makes a nose look attractive has resisted definition. Research on faces generally has found that averaged composites are rated attractive. This study tested whether that holds for the nose specifically, and whether measurable deviation from the average shape predicts lower ratings.
Sections of note
- Photographic series of the face were obtained from 80 Caucasian female volunteers aged 25 to 40.
- A mathematically averaged composite image was created from the first 40 volunteers.
- 41 panel members judged the attractiveness of each original nose and the composite on a 5-point scale from 1, very ugly, to 5, very pretty.
- Deviation of nasal shape from average was calculated by principal components analysis of standardized nasal landmarks.
- 21 of the 41 respondents were male, 51 percent; mean respondent age 35.3 years SD 15.6.
- The composite was rated significantly higher than the distribution of the 80 originals, 4.2 versus 2.8, t 31.24, P below 0.001.
- Ratings of individual noses correlated negatively with deviation from average shape, r -0.40, n 80, P below 0.001.
What it means for a patient
- An averaged nose was rated more attractive than almost any individual nose in this sample.
- The correlation of -0.40 is moderate, so distance from average explains part but not most of the variation in ratings.
- The authors suggest measuring deviation from average before and after surgery as an objective outcome measure.
- Limits: 80 Caucasian women aged 25 to 40 and 41 raters, so the finding is specific to that population.
Why this paper matters
Rhinoplasty aesthetics rest on proportion rules of uncertain origin, and this offers a mathematically defined alternative target. It also proposes a measurable outcome that does not depend on rater opinion. Whether patients themselves want an average nose, rather than a distinctive one, is a separate question.
Terms
- Averageness: How closely a shape matches the mathematical average of a population.
- Composite image: An image created by mathematically averaging multiple faces.
- Principal components analysis: A statistical method that reduces shape data to its main dimensions of variation.
- Nasal landmark: A defined anatomical point used for measurement.
- Likert scale: A response scale with ordered options, here five points.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“The aesthetic ideal of the nose eludes clear definition. Averageness may be an important determinant of ideal nasal shape: research has shown that averageness plays an important role in the human perception of facial attractiveness. Objectives: The aim of this study was to test whether an averaged nasal shape is…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.
Related papers
Same topic, 2020.
- ASJ Analysis of the Effects of Isotretinoin on Rhinoplasty PatientsYahyavi S, Jahandideh H, Izadi M et al.2020PMID 32756944Summary
- ASJ 2020PMID 32232381
- ASJ Concept of Anatomic Columellar Strut Grafting in Rhinoplasty: An Algorithmic ApproachSantareno S, Taş S2020PMID 31675056
- ASJ Step-Specific Simulation: The Utility of 3D Printing for the Fabrication of a Low-Cost, Learning Needs-Based Rhinoplasty SimulatorZammit D, Safran T, Ponnudurai N et al.2020PMID 32064498Summary
- APS A Comparative Analysis of Patients' Quality of Life, Body Image and Self-confidence Before and After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty SurgeryBorujeni LA, Pourmotabed S, Abdoli Z et al.2020PMID 31832733Summary
- APS Analysis of Nasal Obstruction Patterns Following Reductive RhinoplastyOkland TS, Kandathil C, Sanan A et al.2020PMID 31463565Summary
- APS Correction to: The Role of Skin Thickness in the Choice of a Rhinoplasty Technique for Thin-Skinned Patients: Analysis of Long-Term Results and Patient SatisfactionBarone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R et al.2020PMID 32514639Summary
- APS Dissection, Drains and Dead Space Closure: The 3D's to Improve Patient Comfort and Reduce Early Bruising and Late Fibrosis in RhinoplastyFinocchi V, Nele G, Çakır B2020PMID 32500323