背景:越来越多的美学程序强调需要有效的结果评估方法。目前的做法包括个体从业者的判断与标准化量表相结合,通常依靠前后照片的比较。这项研究调查了比较评估是否会影响美感,并旨在提高临床和研究环境中美学评估的准确性。
目的:比较基于群体和个体评分的面孔吸引力和性别特征的评估。
方法:727名志愿者(平均年龄29.5岁)的样本评估了40张面部照片(20名男性,20个女性)的吸引力,阳刚之气,和女性气质使用5分李克特量表。每张脸都经过数字编辑,以四个与嘴唇相关的比例显示不同的比例:垂直嘴唇位置,唇宽,上唇美学,和下唇美学。参与者以图像系列(基于组)和单独的方式对这些图像进行评分。
结果:在基于群体和个体的评分中,每个嘴唇比例对最具吸引力/男性/女性比例的感知存在差异。群体评级表现出显著的集中趋势偏差,与个人评分相比,更倾向于平均结果,平均差异为0.50和1.00。(p=0.033)结论:在吸引力评估中注意到一个中心趋势偏差,阳刚之气,以及基于群体的图像呈现中的女性气质,表示偏向更多的“平均”功能。相反,个人评估显示出更明显的偏好,“非平均”外观,从而可能指向由比较语境塑造的可延展的“内在审美蓝图”。
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of esthetic procedures emphasizes the need for effective evaluation methods of outcomes. Current practices include the individual practitioners\' judgment in conjunction with standardized scales, often relying on the comparison of before and after photographs. This study investigates whether comparative evaluations influence the perception of beauty and aims to enhance the accuracy of esthetic assessments in clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the evaluation of attractiveness and gender characteristics of faces in group-based versus individual ratings.
METHODS: A sample of 727 volunteers (average age of 29.5 years) assessed 40 facial photographs (20 male, 20 female) for attractiveness, masculinity, and femininity using a 5-point Likert scale. Each face was digitally edited to display varying ratios in four lip-related proportions: vertical lip position, lip width, upper lip esthetics, and lower lip esthetics. Participants rated these images both in an image series (group-based) and individually.
RESULTS: Differences in the perception of the most attractive/masculine/feminine ratios for each lip proportion were found in both the group-based and individual ratings. Group ratings exhibited a significant central tendency bias, with a preference for more average outcomes compared with individual ratings, with an average difference of 0.50 versus 1.00. (p = 0.033) CONCLUSION: A central tendency bias was noted in evaluations of attractiveness, masculinity, and femininity in group-based image presentation, indicating a bias toward more \"average\" features. Conversely, individual assessments displayed a preference for more pronounced, \"non-average\" appearances, thereby possibly pointing toward a malleable \"intrinsic esthetic blueprint\" shaped by comparative context.