SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Age and Gender on Perception of Women After Cosmetic Rhinoplasty

  • Original Article
  • Rhinoplasty
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Rhinoplasty is known to increase attractiveness; however, the influence of observer age and gender are largely undetermined.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 20 women who underwent cosmetic rhinoplasty between January 1st, 2012, and December 31st, 2019. A total of 4 surveys were constructed with 10 sets of photographs each (5 preoperative and 5 postoperative). Surveys were designed such that photographs of the same patient were not placed in the same survey to avoid recall bias. Each of these surveys were then sent to at least 30 lay people via a web-based survey tool. Anonymous blinded respondents used a 7-point Likert scale to rate their perception of each patient’s aggressiveness, likeability, sociability, trustworthiness, attractiveness, femininity, intelligence and confidence. A multivariate linear mixed effect model was applied to analyze the overall patient trait data as well as to assess age and gender differences.

Results

This survey study included photographs of 20 women (mean age, 28.2 years) before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. A total of 174 respondents (mean age range, 25–34 years [41%]; 108 [62%] were female) completed the survey. Overall, postoperative photographs were perceived as significantly more sociable (0.13; 95% CI, 0.01–0.25), attractive (0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.34), feminine (0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.30), and confident (0.15; 95% CI, 0.02–0.27). When analyzed by sex, men rated women as less aggressive (−0.42, 95% CI, −0.65,−0.17) and more likeable (+0.45, 95% CI, 0.21–0.69), sociable (+0.38, 95% CI, 0.14–0.62), trustworthy (+0.37, 95% CI, 0.13–0.61), attractive (+0.60, 95% CI, 0.35–0.84), feminine (+0.23, 95% CI, 0.07–0.41) and intelligent (+0.29, 95% CI, 0.04–0.53). In contrast, female respondents indicated an increase in perceived attractiveness (+0.16, 95% CI, 0.06–0.22) and femininity (+0.18, 95% CI, 0.03–0.32) for women after rhinoplasty. Raters aged 25–34 indicated improvements across all traits analyzed. Almost all age ranges rated post-operative photographs as more attractive (18–24: +0.32, 95% CI, 0.19–0.46; 25–34: +0.52, 95% CI, 0.33–0.72; 35–44: +0.29, 95% CI, 0.12–0.51; 45–54: +0.50, 95% CI, 0.11–0.89) while individuals over age 55 only indicated increased trustworthiness (+0.51, 95% CI, 0.03–0.99).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that cosmetic rhinoplasty improves perceptions of personality and physical traits of women with males and individuals aged 25–34 indicating the greatest benefit.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf

  2. Schwitzer JA, Albino FP, Mathis RK, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB (2015) Assessing demographic differences in patient-perceived improvement in facial appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 35(7):784–793. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjv066

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Reilly MJ, Tomsic JA, Fernandez SJ, Davison SP (2015) Effect of facial rejuvenation surgery on perceived attractiveness, femininity, and personality. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 17(3):202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parsa KM, Gao W, Lally J, Davison SP, Reilly MJ (2019) Evaluation of personality perception in men before and after facial cosmetic surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 21(5):369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nellis JC, Ishii M, Bater KL et al (2018) Association of rhinoplasty with perceived attractiveness, success, and overall health. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 20(2):97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lohuis P, Hakim S, Duiveste** W, Knobbe A, Tasman A (2013) Benefits of short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 132(6):913–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Spiekermann C, Beule A, Rudack C, Stenner M, Savvas E (2019) Influence of the subjective body image on the outcome of functional rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 43(1):196–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chinski H, Chinski L, Armijos J, Arias J (2013) Rhinoplasty and its effects on the perception of beauty. Int Arch Otorhinoolaryngol. 17(1):47–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roxbury C, Ishii M, Godoy A, Papel I, Byrne PJ, Boahene KDO, Ishii LE (2012) Impact of crooked nose rhinoplasty on observer perceptions of attractiveness. The Laryngoscope 122:773–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu SM, Hsu DT, Perry AD, Leipziger LS, Kasabian AK, Bartlett SP, Tanna N (2018) The public face of rhinoplasty: impact on perceived attractiveness and personality. Plas reconstruc surg 142(4):881–887

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Todorov A, Said CP, Engell AD, Oosterhof NN (2008) Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends Cogn Sci. 12(12):455–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Said CP, Sebe N, Todorov A (2009) Structural resemblance to emotional expressions predicts evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Emotion 9(2):260–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Todorov A, Dotsch R, Porter JM, Oosterhof NN, Falvello VB (2013) Validation of data-driven computational models of social perception of faces. Emotion 13(4):724–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rankin M, Borah GL (2003) Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 111(7):2140–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oosterhof NN, Todorov A (2008) The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(32):11087–11092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn Sci. 11(2):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Knutson B (1996) Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. J Nonverbal Behav. 20(3):165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02281954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sutherland CAM, Oldmeadow JA, Santos IM, Towler J, Burt DM, Young AW (2013) Social inferences from faces: ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition 127(1):105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E (1972) What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 24(3):285–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Feingold A (1992) Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychol Bull. 111(304–341):21

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Palermo R et al (2007) Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception. 36(8):1244–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sarwer DB, Magee L, Clark VL (2003) Physical appearance and cosmetic medical treatments: physiological and socio-cultural influences. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang F, Liu Y, **ao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y (2018) Evaluation of preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 141(3):603–611

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Javo IM, Sørlie T (2010) Psychosocial characteristics of young Norwegian women interested in liposuction, breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, and abdominoplasty: a population-based study. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(5):1536–1543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tiggemann M, McCourt A (2013) Body appreciation in adult women: relationships with age and body satisfaction. Body Image. 10(4):624–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hofmeier SM, Runfola CD, Sala M, Gagne DA, Brownley KA, Bulik CM (2017) Body image, aging, and identity in women over 50: the gender and body image (GABI) study. J Women Aging. 29(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zebrowitz LA, Franklin RG Jr (2014) The attractiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype in older and younger adults: similarities, own-age accentuation, and older adult positivity effects. Exp Aging Res. 40(3):375–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chu Y. Best Face Forward. Marie Claire. 2012. https://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/news/a7043/makeup-affects-career-study/.

  29. Etcoff NL, Stock S, Haley LE, Vickery SA, House DM (2011) Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS ONE 6(10):e25656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Perlman SB, Morris JP, VanderWyk BC, Green SR, Doyle JL, Pelphrey KA (2009) Individual differences in personality predict how people look at faces. PLoS ONE 4(6):e5952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kranz F, Ishai A (2006) Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Curr Biol. 16:63–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Keon M. Parsa, Christine M. Clark, Eugenia Chu & Michael J. Reilly

  2. Georgetown University School of Medicine, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Karina Charipova & Kathleen Coerdt

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Biomedical, Informatics MedStar Health Research Institute, , Washington, DC, 20010, USA

    Haijun Wang

Authors
  1. Keon M. Parsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karina Charipova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Coerdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine M. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Haijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eugenia Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael J. Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keon M. Parsa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all included participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parsa, K.M., Charipova, K., Coerdt, K. et al. The Role of Age and Gender on Perception of Women After Cosmetic Rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 1184–1190 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02030-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02030-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation