Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31(05): 439-445
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1565009
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Nose Influences Visual and Personality Perception

Olaf van Schijndel
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Abel-Jan Tasman
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
,
Ralph Litschel
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 November 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Nasal deformities are known to attract attention, are felt to be stigmatizing, and are known to affect negatively the perception of personalities. These effects have not been studied on profile views. The objective of this study was the quantification of visual attention directed toward nasal deformities and its impact on the perception of personality traits. Forty observers were divided into two groups and their visual scanpaths were recorded. Both groups observed a series of photographs displaying profile views of 20 adult patients' faces with one or more nasal deformities or computer-morphed corrected noses. Photographs were chosen from a consecutive sample of patients (range: 17–68 years, median: 45) who requested a rhinoplasty at the Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Facial Plastic Surgery of the Cantonal Hospital Sankt Gallen, Switzerland. Patients' photographs showed a nasal deformity in one series and a computer-morphed nose in the other series and vice versa. Visual fixation times on the noses were compared between the photographs with and without a nasal deformity. Observers subsequently rated personality traits using visual analog scales. The nasal profile with a deformity received more visual attention in 17 of 20 patients (85%). The mean relative fixation duration of all nasal deformities was significantly larger compared with all computer-simulated noses (17.3 ± 6.9 [SD] vs. 10.6 ± 2.5%; p < 0.001). Cumulative personality questionnaire scores and the score for satisfaction were significantly lower for faces with nasal deformities compared with computer-morphed noses (27.8 ± 6.0 vs. 29.1 ± 6.0, p = 0.040, and 5.3 ± 1.59 vs. 5.7 ± 1.53, p = 0.017, respectively). For deformed noses, the mean relative fixation duration did not correlate with the cumulative personality score (R =  − 0.399; p = 0.082). To the best knowledge of the authors, an attention-drawing potential of nasal deformities on a profile view has been quantified for the first time. This seems to lead to a more negative perception of personality traits.

Keywords

eye tracking - nasal deformities - nasal hump - saddle nose - perception
 

  • References

  • 1 Mikalsen SK, Folstad I, Yoccoz NG, Laeng B. The spectacular human nose: an amplifier of individual quality?. PeerJ 2014; 2 (2) e357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Babuccu O, Latifoğlu O, Atabay K, Oral N, Coşan B. Sociological aspects of rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27 (1) 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Micheli-Pellegrini V, Manfrida GM. Rhinoplasty and its psychological implications: applied psychology observations in aesthetic surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1979; 3 (1) 299-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lewis CT, Short C. A Latin dictionary. Available online at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059 . Accessed September 29, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rankin M, Borah GL. Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (7) 2140-2146 , discussion 2147–2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Madera JM, Hebl MR. Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: an eye-tracking and face-to-face investigation. J Appl Psychol 2012; 97 (2) 317-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Perry BD, Czyzewski DI, Lopez MA, Spiller LC, Treadwell-Deering D. Neuropsychologic impact of facial deformities in children. Neurodevelopmental role of the face in communication and bonding. Clin Plast Surg 1998; 25 (4) 587-597
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ishii L, Carey J, Byrne P, Zee DS, Ishii M. Measuring attentional bias to peripheral facial deformities. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (3) 459-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nouraei SA, Pulido MA, Saleh HA. Impact of rhinoplasty on objective measurement and psychophysical appreciation of facial symmetry. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (3) 198-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Roxbury C, Ishii M, Godoy A , et al. Impact of crooked nose rhinoplasty on observer perceptions of attractiveness. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (4) 773-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chauhan N, Warner J, Adamson PA. Adolescent rhinoplasty: challenges and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34 (4) 510-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O. Cosmetics and function: quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (2) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cingi C, Eskiizmir G. Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: a prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol 2013; 38 (2) 136-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Baykal B, Erdim I, Kayhan FT, Oghan F. Comparative analysis of nasal deformities according to patient satisfaction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72 (3) 603.e1-603.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Palma P, Khodaei I, Tasman AJ. A guide to the assessment and analysis of the rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (2) 146-159
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nakano T, Tanaka K, Endo Y , et al. Atypical gaze patterns in children and adults with autism spectrum disorders dissociated from developmental changes in gaze behavior. Proc Biol Sci 2010; 277 (1696) 2935-2943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Phillips ML, David AS. Understanding the symptoms of schizophrenia using visual scan paths. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 165 (5) 673-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Phillips ML, David AS. Visual scan paths are abnormal in deluded schizophrenics. Neuropsychologia 1997; 35 (1) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stangroom J. Social science statistics. Available online at: http://www.socscistatistics.com/Default.aspx . Accessed December 23, 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Smartbeautyguide.com. 2014 cosmetic surgery statistics. Available at: http://www.smartbeautyguide.com/news/infographics/2014-cosmetic-surgery-statistics#.VhlvWWefml . Accessed October 5, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Broer PN, Buonocore S, Morillas A , et al. Nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (6) 843e-850e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fanous N, Brousseau VJ, Karsan N, Fanous A. Predicting the results of rhinoplasty before surgery: easy noses versus difficult noses. Can J Plast Surg 2008; 16 (2) 69-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Springer IN, Wannicke B, Warnke PH , et al. Facial attractiveness: visual impact of symmetry increases significantly towards the midline. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59 (2) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Springer IN, Zernial O, Wiltfang J, Warnke PH, Terheyden H, Wolfart S. Facial aesthetics part I - the significance of the triangle of yarbus [in German]. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 2007; 11 (3) 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Litschel R, Majoor J, Tasman AJ. Effect of protruding ears on visual fixation time and perception of personality. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (3) 183-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 van Schijndel O, Litschel R, Maal TJJ, Bergé SJ, Tasman A-J. Eye tracker based study: perception of faces with a cleft lip and nose deformity. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (8) 1620-1625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rule NO, Ambady N, Adams Jr RB. Personality in perspective: judgmental consistency across orientations of the face. Perception 2009; 38 (11) 1688-1699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Noton D, Stark L. Eye movements and visual perception. Sci Am 1971; 224 (6) 35-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Salthouse TA, Ellis CL. Determinants of eye-fixation duration. Am J Psychol 1980; 93 (2) 207-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Horley K, Williams LM, Gonsalvez C, Gordon E. Social phobics do not see eye to eye: a visual scanpath study of emotional expression processing. J Anxiety Disord 2003; 17 (1) 33-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Manor BR, Gordon E. Defining the temporal threshold for ocular fixation in free-viewing visuocognitive tasks. J Neurosci Methods 2003; 128 (1–2) 85-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rayner K, Li X, Williams CC, Cave KR, Well AD. Eye movements during information processing tasks: individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Res 2007; 47 (21) 2714-2726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van der Lans R, Wedel M, Pieters R. Defining eye-fixation sequences across individuals and tasks: the Binocular-Individual Threshold (BIT) algorithm. Behav Res Methods 2011; 43 (1) 239-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Costa Jr PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Braun C, Gruendl M, Marberger C, Scherber C. Beautycheck - Ursachen und Folgen von Attraktivitaet. Report. Available online at: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/bericht/bericht.htm . Accessed September 29, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar