↓ Skip to main content

Marquardt’s Phi Mask: Pitfalls of Relying on Fashion Models and the Golden Ratio to Describe a Beautiful Face

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Marquardt’s Phi Mask: Pitfalls of Relying on Fashion Models and the Golden Ratio to Describe a Beautiful Face
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, January 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00266-007-9080-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Holland

Abstract

Stephen Marquardt has derived a mask from the golden ratio that he claims represents the "ideal" facial archetype. Many have found his mask convincing, including cosmetic surgeons. However, Marquardt's mask is associated with numerous problems. The method used to examine goodness of fit with the proportions in the mask is faulty. The mask is ill-suited for non-European populations, especially sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians. The mask also appears to approximate the face shape of masculinized European women. Given that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average facial femininity in women, white women seeking aesthetic facial surgery would be ill-advised to aim toward a better fit with Marquardt's mask. This article aims to show the proper way of assessing goodness of fit with Marquardt's mask, to address the shape of the mask as it pertains to masculinity-femininity, and to discuss the broader issue of an objective assessment of facial attractiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 41 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 45%
Psychology 8 17%
Computer Science 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,009,067
of 13,390,371 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#63
of 759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,935,223
of 12,734,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#63
of 750 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,390,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 759 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 12,734,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 750 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.