Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(05): 651-656
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1726313
Original Research

Quantitative Analysis of Enhanced Selfies in a Young Adult Population

Keon M. Parsa 
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Ish A. Talati
2   Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Haijun Wang
3   Department of Biostatistics and Biomedical Informatics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Eugenia Chu
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Lily Talakoub
4   McLean Dermatology and Skincare Center, Richmond, Virginia
,
Michael J. Reilly
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The use of filters and editing tools for perfecting selfies is increasing. While some aesthetic experts have touted the ability of this technology to help patients convey their aesthetic goals, others have expressed concerns about the unrealistic expectations that may come from the ability for individuals to digitally alter their own photos in these so-called “super-selfies.” The aim of the study is to determine the changes that individuals seek when enhancing selfies. Twenty subjects participated in this study between July 25 and September 24, 2019. Subjects had two sets of headshots taken (neutral and smile) and were provided an introduction on the use of the Facetune2 app. Subjects received a digital copy of their photographs and were asked to download the free mobile app. After 1 week of trialing the different tools for enhancing their appearance, subjects submitted their self-determined most attractive edited photographs. Changes in marginal reflex distance (MRD) 1 and 2, nose height and width, eyebrow height, facial width, skin smoothness, skin hue, and saturation as well as overall image brightness were recorded. Paired two-tailed t-test was used to evaluate pre- and post-facial measurements. There were no statistically significant changes identified in the analysis of the altered photos in neutral expression. Analysis of all smiling photographs revealed that subjects increased their smile angle (right: +2.92 mm, p = 0.04; left: +3.58 mm, p < 0.001). When smiling photographs were assessed by gender, females were found to significantly increase their MRD2 (right: +0.64 mm, p = 0.04; left: +0.74 mm, p = 0.05) and their smile angle (right: +1.90 mm, p = 0.03; left: +2.31 mm, p = 0.005) while also decreasing their nose height (−2.8 mm, p = 0.04). Males did not significantly alter any of the facial measurements assessed. This study identifies the types of changes that individuals seek when enhancing selfies and specifies the different aspects of image adjustment that may be sought based on a patient's gender.

Keywords

Facetune - Emotrics - selfie - self enhancement - appearance manipulation

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
16 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Vardanian AJ, Kusnezov N, Im DD, Lee JC, Jarrahy R. Social media use and impact on plastic surgery practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (05) 1184-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wheeler CK, Said H, Prucz R, Rodrich RJ, Mathes DW. Social media in plastic surgery practices: emerging trends in North America. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31 (04) 435-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive surgery. 2018 Annual Survey Statistics. Accessed January 13, 2020 at: https://www.aafprs.org/media/stats_polls/m_stats.html 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Reilly MJ, Parsa KM, Biel M. Is there a selfie epidemic?. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (05) 367-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ramphul K, Mejias SG. Is “Snapchat dysmorphia” a real issue?. Cureus 2018; 10 (03) e2263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Coy-Dibley I. “Digitized Dysmorphia” of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image. Palgrave Commun 2016; 21: palcomms201640
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Youn A. What is the ideal Instagram filter?. Aesthetic Sur J Open Forum 2019; 1 (02) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cristel RT, Dayan SH, Akinosun M, Russell PT. Evaluation of selfies and filtered selfies and effects on first impressions. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (01) 122-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Khamis S, Ang L, Welling R. Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies. 2017; 8 (02) 191-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chae J. Virtual makeover: selfie-taking and social media use increase selfie-editing frequency through social comparison. Comput Human Behav 2017; 66: 370-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brown Z, Tiggemann M. Attractive celebrity and peer images on Instagram: effect on women's mood and body image. Body Image 2016; 19: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Verrastro V, Fontanesi L, Liga F, Cuzzocrea F, Gugliandolo M. Fear the Instagram: beauty stereotypes, body image and Instagram use in a sample of male and female adolescents. Open Interdiscipl J Technol Cult Educ 2020; ;(1): 31-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Solon O. FaceTune is conquering Instagram—but does it take airbrushing too far?. 2018 . Accessed July 01, 2020 at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/09/facetune-photoshopping-app-instagram-body-image-debate
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Parsa KM, Prasad N, Clark CM, Wang H, Reilly MJ. Digital appearance manipulation increases consideration of cosmetic surgery: a prospective cohort study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (01) 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Guarin DL, Dusseldorp J, Hadlock TA, Jowett N. A machine learning approach for automated facial measurements in facial palsy. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (04) 335-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McArthur LZ, Apatow K. Impressions of baby-faced adults. Soc Cogn 1984; 2 (04) 315-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 50: 925-935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Baudouin JY, Tiberghien G. Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2004; 117 (03) 313-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Helwig NE, Sohre NE, Ruprecht MR, Guy SJ, Lyford-Pike S. Dynamic properties of successful smiles. PLoS One 2017; 12 (06) e0179708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parsa KM, Hancock M, Nguy PL. et al. Association of facial paralysis with perceptions of personality and physical traits. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (06) e205495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Williams KM, Park JH, Wieling MJ. The face reveals athletic flair: better National Football League quarterbacks are better looking. Pers Individ Dif 2010; 48 (02) 112-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hage JJ, Becking AG, de Graaf FH, Tuinzing DB. Gender-confirming facial surgery: considerations on the masculinity and femininity of faces. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (07) 1799-1807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Parsa KM, Gao W, Lally J, Davison SP, Reilly MJ. Evaluation of personality perception in men before and after facial cosmetic surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (05) 369-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Reilly MJ, Tomsic JA, Fernandez SJ, Davison SP. Effect of facial rejuvenation surgery on perceived attractiveness, femininity, and personality. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (03) 202-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lu SM, Hsu DT, Perry AD. et al. The public face of rhinoplasty: impact on perceived attractiveness and personality. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (04) 881-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Knoll BI, Attkiss KJ, Persing JA. The influence of forehead, brow, and periorbital aesthetics on perceived expression in the youthful face. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (05) 1793-1802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Flynn TC, Carruthers JA, Carruthers JA. Botulinum-A toxin treatment of the lower eyelid improves infraorbital rhytides and widens the eye. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27 (08) 703-708
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Accessed at March 8, 2021 https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf
    PubMed
  • 29 Harounian J, Wulc AE, Brackup AB, Ramesh S. Subtle eyelid retraction after lower blepharoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019; 72 (10) 1682-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kandathil CK, Patel PN, Saltychev M, Most SP. Differences in social perceptions between digital single lens reflex camera and cell phone selfie images. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0077
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Guarin DL, Yunusova Y, Taati B. et al. Toward an automatic system for computer-aided assessment in facial palsy. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (01) 42-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar