A Systematic Review of Interethnic Variability in Facial Dimensions

Abstract

Background The earliest recorded facial proportional analysis is in the Greek neoclassical canons (c. 450 B.C.). In contemporary times, there has not yet been a study that describes the relative differences in facial proportions among the world’s different ethnic groups. The specific aim of this project is to perform a systematic review of data from the existing literature in order to evaluate the degree of variability in the facial dimensions among various ethnic groups. Methods A PubMed database review identified primary articles containing measurements of facial proportions from various ethnic groups. Data extracted from these articles were the actual means and standard deviations of recorded facial measurements. These facial measurements included the heights and widths of the upper, middle, and lower face which are the features originally described by the neoclassical canons. Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated to derive a unit-free comparison of the degree of variability among different ethnic groups in each of the neoclassically-measured facial dimensions. Results Our literature search identified 239 potential articles. After screening for the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven relevant articles were selected. These articles contained data on 11 linear facial measurements from 2359 male and female individuals from 27 different ethnic groups. 95% confidence intervals of the CVs of the measurements indicated that the features that demonstrated the largest differences between the different ethnic populations are the forehead height, interocular distance, and nasal width. The least amount of variability is found in the ear height and upper, middle, and lower facial widths. Conclusions The greatest inter-ethnic variability in facial proportions exists in the height of the forehead. More pronounced difference among the ethnic groups is also present in the measurements of the eyes, nose, and mouth. There is no significant difference between sexes in the neoclassical facial proportions.

Facial Structure Predicts Sexual Orientation in Both Men and Women

“…Subjects were selected if their Likert score was B 2 (i.e., exclusively or near exclusively homosexual) and they self-identified as ''homosexual/gay/ lesbian''or if their Likert score was C 6 (i.e., exclusively or near exclusively heterosexual) and they self-identified as ''heterosexual/straight. ''Only White subjects were included to remove variation in facial structure attributable to ethnicity (Fang, Clapham, & Chung, 2011). Some were excluded because they were not posed in neutral expressions, were not facing the camera directly, or the face was obscured.…”

Sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio in human skulls and faces: A meta-analytical approach

“…However, the researchers 415 included studies conducted on both faces and skulls, and did not discuss the possibility of 416 differences between ethnicities. Previous evidence has shown that facial dimensions vary 417 across ethnicities (Fang et al, 2011). I therefore reanalysed their data while taking into 418 account the possibility of differences between faces and skulls, and the potential effect of 419 ethnicity.…”

Distinct Contributions to Facial Emotion Perception of Foveated versus Nonfoveated Facial Features

“…The average height of an adult human face is approximately 18cm (Fang, Clapham, & Chung, 2011). At what Hall (1966) calls the "close phase of personal distance" Foveated vs Non-Foveated Facial Features 4 (~76-45cm), a face will thus subtend visual angles of 13.4-22°, at far personal distances (~122-76cm), 8.4-13.4°, and at close social distances (~213-122cm), 4.8-8.4°.…”