Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Relation between facial morphology,

personality, and the functions of
facial makeup in women
Arnaud Aubert

International Journal of Cosmetic Science

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Why women use makeup: Implicat ion of psychological t rait s in makeup funct ions Recherche, …
kazar Jeff

Body dysmorphic disorder: A cognit ive behavioural model and pilot RCT, 1996
Kevin Gournay, David Veale, Windy Dryden

Beaut y surveillance: t he digit al self-monit oring cult ures of neoliberalism

Rosalind Gill
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2011, 33, 338–345
Relation between facial morphology, personality and the functions
of facial make-up in women
R. Korichi*, D. Pelle-de-Queral*, G. Gazano* and A. Aubert 
*LVMH Recherche, Parfums et Cosmétiques, 45800 St Jean de Braye and  INRA UR1213, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
Received 18 March 2010, Accepted 22 October 2010
Keywords: facial asymmetry, make-up products, psychology, skin radiance
Synopsis
Our external appearance plays a key role in everyday life’s social
interactions. Hence, taking care of our appearance allows us to
adjust and protect ourselves, as well as communicate emotional
disposition (i.e. sympathy or aversion) and social information (i.e.
values, status). However, some discrete body parts or characteris-
tics appear to be more salient than others in contributing to global
body image. For example, authors showed that facial attractiveness
is one of the best predictors of overall physical attractiveness and
represent one of the primary factors influencing global self-esteem.
Make-up is therefore ought to play a major influence in these
parameters. Moreover, in a previous study whose subject was to
explain the reasons that motivate women to make-up, we showed
a high implication of specific psychological traits in correlation
with two make-up functions (i.e. psycho-behavioural profiles
‘Seduction’ and ‘Camouflage’; group S and group C, respectively).
The purpose of this study was to assess the possible relation
between our two psycho-behavioural profiles and some morpholog-
ical parameters know to be involved in facial attraction (i.e. facial
asymmetry and skin visual quality). First of all, our study revealed
for women from the group C a greater asymmetry of the lower face
(i.e. mouth area) that could be related to a possible larger amount
of negative emotional experiences. Concerning make-up behaviour,
women from the group S more extensively manipulated their rela-
tive facial attractiveness, by using a large range of colours, but also
through a significantly longer make-up process used to adjust their
visual asymmetry and therefore increase their potential of attrac-
tiveness. On the overall, our results suggest that make-up is used
differentially, according to stable psychological profiles of women,
to manipulate specific visual/morphological facial features involved
in attractiveness.
Résumé
Notre apparence extérieure joue un rôle central dans la régulation
des rapports et des relations sociales quotidiennes. Prendre soin de
son apparence nous permet de nous ajuster, de nous protéger, mais
Correspondence: Rodolphe Korichi, LVMH Recherche, Parfums &
Cosmétiques, Cutaneous Biology and Objectivation Department, 185
avenue de Verdun, 45800 Saint Jean de Braye, France. Tel.: +33
(0)2 38 60 31 04; fax: +33 (0)2 38 60 31 17; e-mail: rkorichi@
research.lvmh-pc.com
338 ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2494.2010.00632.x
aussi de communiquer une certaine disposition émotionnelle (sym-
pathie ou antipathie) et des informations sociales (valeurs, statuts,
etc.). Toutefois, toutes les parties du corps ne vont pas avoir les
mêmes effets sur la construction de l’image globale du corps. Par
exemple, l’attractivité du visage est considérée par certains auteurs
comme l’une des composantes les plus prédictives de l’attirance
physique globale, et comme l’un des premiers facteurs influençant
l’estime de soi. D’ailleurs, au cours d’une précédente étude, nous
avons pu montrer la forte implication de traits psychologiques dans
les fonctions de maquillage (profiles psycho-comportementaux
‘Séduction’ et ‘Camouflage’, respectivement S et C). Cette nouvelle
étude a pour objectif de rechercher des liens possibles entre nos
deux profiles psycho-comportementaux, et certains paramètres
morphologiques connus pour être impliqués dans l’attractivité d’un
visage: l’asymétrie et la qualité de la peau. Tout d’abord, les
femmes du groupe C montrent une plus grande asymétrie du bas
du visage (au niveau e la bouche). Une asymétrie qui pourrait être
reliée à une quantité plus importante d’expériences émotionnelles
négatives. Concernant le comportement de maquillage, les résultats
mettent en avant une manipulation plus intense de l’attractivité du
visage chez les femmes du groupe S. Une manipulation reposant
sur une utilisation plus élargie des couleurs, mais aussi sur un long
processus de maquillage destiné à ajuster la symétrie visuelle de
leur visage pour renforcer leur potentiel d’attractivité. Globalement,
nos résultats suggèrent que le maquillage est utilisé différemment,
selon le profil psychologique des femmes, dans le but de pouvoir
manipuler certaines caractéristiques spécifiques visuelles et morpho-
logiques du visage impliquées dans l’attractivité.
Introduction
Taking care of our external appearance allow us to adjust, protect
and defend ourselves, as well as communicate feelings mood and
social values. Each of these functions can have a bearing on the
way others perceive us, but also influence the relationship we
have with ourselves. For example, certain studies showed that
women express a higher satisfaction of their body image and their
global appearance when they are made-up [1]. If body image can
be considered as a multidimensional phenomenon that encom-
passes our internal representation of our external physical appear-
ance, attractiveness and beauty, but also our self-image, i.e. our
personality and social [2–7], some discrete body parts or charac-
teristics appear to be more salient than others in contributing to
global body image [8, 9]. For example, some authors showed that
ª 2011 The Authors
Influence of make-up products
body weight and facial attractiveness are the best predictors of
overall physical attractiveness and represent primary factors influ-
encing global self-esteem [10]. Such an emphasis on the study of
facial attractiveness is consistent with the claims that the face
plays a central role in human social interactions (e.g. expressions
communicate an individual’s emotional state) and is crucial in the
judgment of one’s whole attractiveness [11–13]. Moreover, in a
previous study whose subject was to explain the reasons that
motivate women to make-up, we showed a high implication of
specific psychological traits in correlation with different make-up
functions. On the overall, we showed that use of facial make-up
consists in two functional categories (labelled as ‘camouflage’ and
‘seduction’), and women belonging of these classes differ signifi-
cantly regarding several psychological traits, defining two distinct
psychological profiles (high self-esteem, high assertiveness and low
anxiety, vs. low self-esteem, low assertiveness and high anxiety)
[14, 15]. From this first study, one can wonder whether morpho-
logical and facial parameters could underlie such psycho-behavio-
ural structures. Indeed, most of the studies on self-image revealed
that attractive facial appearance confers a greater variety of
positive social responses, which can have a profound effect on
self-esteem and social adjustment [13, 16]. Aesthetic judgments of
faces (i.e. attractiveness) have been related to various adaptive
functions and would be, at least partly, the result of our evolu-
tionary history [17–19]. Facial attributes like high skin quality
(i.e. healthy) and facial symmetry (i.e. the degree to which the
two sides of the face match) signal actual health and harmonious
development and therefore contribute to attractiveness [20]. More-
over, recent research has attempted to test whether facial mascu-
linity, facial attractiveness or symmetry constitute ‘honest’ (i.e.
positively correlated) signals of biological fitness by correlating
them with health outcomes or longevity [21]. In cross-cultural
studies, it has been shown that symmetry of facial features is a
primary determinant of attractiveness [18, 22, 23]. And even if
some authors support the idea that facial asymmetry found in
normal people does not affect attractiveness ratings (except for old
age) [24], it has nevertheless been commonly associated with
health and beauty and has been proposed as a core factor for
interpersonal attraction [23, 25–29]. Other authors suggested that
facial symmetry is a correlate of personality. For example, a signif-
icant negative association was found between facial symmetry and
openness and agreeableness, whereas extraversion was positively
associated [30, 31]. Although the relationship between aspects of
facial shape and attractiveness has been extensively studied, few
studies have investigated which characteristics of the surface of
faces positively influence attractiveness judgments. However,
certain authors showed that visible skin condition is positively
associated with facial attractiveness [32]. Indeed, the skin is one
of the most important components of an individual’s physical
appearance, and some of these skin changes (e.g. inflammation,
acne) exert more negative impact on facial attractiveness [33,
34]. For example, authors [35, 36] suggested that skin colour dis-
tribution, independent of facial form and skin surface topography,
to have a major influence on the perception of female facial age
and judgments of attractiveness and health. Other authors [37]
found that men with symmetric faces were perceived as having
healthier facial skin than men with relatively asymmetric faces
and that facial colour and texture cues were sufficient to maintain
an attractiveness–symmetry relationship. All these findings are
consistent with the proposal that attractive physical traits are
those that positively influence others’ perceptions of an individ-
ual’s health. The purpose of this study was to identify the possible
ª 2011 The Authors
ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
R. Korichi et al.
correspondences between the behavioural profiles related to facial
make-up (i.e. psycho-behavioural profiles ‘Seduction’ and ‘Camou-
flage’; S and C, respectively) previously identified [14] and relevant
morphological variables known to be implied in physical attrac-
tiveness (i.e. facial asymmetry and facial skin visual quality).
Materials and methods
Volunteers
Sixty-two caucasian female subjects divided into two distinct
groups were used for this study. These two groups (group C and
group S) were established from results obtained in a previous study
[14]: see (experimental groups) for details. The mean age of group
C subjects was 47 year ± 12 (n = 20) and 43 year ± 10 (n = 42)
for group S. All subjects were customary cosmetic users and used
their own make-up products during the make-up process. Finally,
our experiment conformed to French legislation and ethical guide-
lines. All subjects were informed of the experimental details and
provided a written consent for the exploitation of data.
Experimental groups
The two experimental groups used in this study where determined
according to a procedure previously published [14]. From self-
assessment questionnaires built during a qualitative survey from
the interviews of women about their relation to make-up (140 sen-
tences proposed with a five-point Likert response scale range from
0 to 4 (0 meaning strongly disagreeing and four strongly agree-
ing), we showed that the use of facial make-up in women could be
defined according to two different functions. The first is rather
intended to decrease a negative self-perception, which we labelled
as ‘camouflage’ (C) (i.e. aiming at decreasing the load of their neg-
atively perceived attractiveness and/or global self-image). The sec-
ond is more oriented towards the desire to please that we labelled
as ‘seduction’ (S) (i.e. aiming at supporting and promoting a posi-
tive self-image). In parallel, from well-established and validated psy-
chometric self-questionnaires : the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI-T; designed to assess trait anxiety and instructs subjects to
report how they ‘generally’ feel), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inven-
tory (SEI: adult version; designed to measure and evaluate one’s
self opinion regarding in social, academic, family and personal
areas of experience), the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; used
to measure assertiveness level) and the Eysenck Personality Inven-
tory (EPI, B form; designed to measure two pervasive, independent
dimensions of personality, neuroticism–stability and extraversion–
introversion); we found that the subjects corresponding to each of
these functional classes are characterized by opposite psychological
profiles. Women of the group C are characterized by higher anxi-
ety, neuroticism and introversion levels, and a lower self-esteem.
On the opposite, women from group S express a lower anxiety and
higher self-esteem and extraversion levels (see Table I for
summary). Note that aging was not a discriminating factor of our
different make-up functions and had no influence on the volun-
teer’s psychological characteristics [14].
Experimental procedure
Facial asymmetry measurement
Facial measurements were taken from digital photographs of the
whole face without make-up. Before being photographed, subjects’
head position was standardized, with the chin and the two ears
being maintained by calibrated holding devices. For each digital
339
Influence of make-up products
Table I Summary of the main characteristics of experimental
groups
Group C (n = 20) Group S (n = 42)
Make-up functions Camouflage Seduction
Psychological profile Anxious Sociable
Reserved Optimistic
Low self-esteem Emotionally stable
Non-assertive Anxious and assertive
Adapted from Korichi et al. [14].
face-image, six pairs of reliably identified facial features were
positioned [18]. Corresponding points were positioned on the inside
(P1 and P2) and outside (P3 and P4) corners of the eyes, cheek-
bones (widest horizontal part of the face below the eyes, P5 and
P6), widest points at the sides of the nostrils (P7 and P8), corners
of the mouth (P9 and P10) and the jaw (widest horizontal part of
the cheeks at the mouth, P11 and P12) (see Fig. 1). A thirteenth
point was placed on philtrum (i.e. the midline groove in the upper
lip that runs from the top of the lip to the nose; P13). The vertical
midline was calculated for each face by finding the mean midpoint
of six horizontal lines joining corresponding points on each hemi-
face (i.e. P1 and P2, P3 and P4, P5 and P6, P7 and P8, P9 and
P10, P11 and P12) (Fig. 1). We used these horizontal lines to cal-
culate horizontal asymmetry, a measure of asymmetry introduced
by Grammer and Thornhill [18] and used in previous studies of
face asymmetry [26, 29, 38, 39]. Briefly, horizontal asymmetry is
the sum of the deviations between the midpoints of each horizontal
line and the average midpoint calculated across these lines (i.e. the
vertical midline used above). In a perfectly symmetrical face, all
midpoints will fall on the vertical midline.
Evaluation of skin radiance and homogeneity of the skin colour
The skin radiance evaluation is based on a visual sensory analysis
of four descriptors: Colour, Luminosity, Brightness and Transpar-
ency of the skin of the face (CLBTÔ method – Spincontrol) [40],
Figure 1 Location of pairs of facial landmarks used to calculate
facial asymmetry on each hemiface.
ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
340
R. Korichi et al.
used to objectively assess visual quality of the skin. The evaluation
of colours was based on structural visual scales presenting a range
of four core colours of the facial skin: ‘pink red’, ‘beige’, ‘olive’ and
‘light pink’. Concerning the physical characteristics of the skin,
luminosity defined as the intensity of light spots on the salient
areas of the face, Brightness as the synthesis of the uniformity of
the skin colour and of the regularity of the skin texture and Trans-
parency as the characteristic of the skin through which we can see
the veins (characteristic of very fine skin). To allow these evalua-
tions, the subjects were sitting between two symmetrically installed
‘daylight’ lamps. The subjects carried a black cap on the head.
Additionally, a black gown was placed on their chest to hide the
neck and the colour of carried clothing. These analyses were car-
ried out by three trained judges, individually, without reference to
the previous analysis. To measure the homogeneity of the skin col-
our, a high-resolution polarized photograph of the whole face of
each subject was captured before and after make-up to obtain
images without reflection, therefore allowing a reliable assessment
of the skin colour. From these images, we defined five specific areas
located on the face (dark circle, forehead, chin, cheekbone, nose)
and we carried out a colorimetric analysis in the uniform L*a*b*
(CIELAB) colour space [41], used conventionally to describe all visi-
ble colours. L* represents the lightness of the colour (L*, L* = 0
yields black and L* = 100 indicates white); a* represents its posi-
tion between magenta and green (negative values indicate green
whereas positive values indicate magenta); and b* represents its
position between yellow and blue (negative values indicate blue
and positive values indicate yellow). Using these colour compo-
nents, the individual typology angle (ITA) was calculated. This
global parameter corresponds to the skin’s melanization level (basic
or acquired) and skin colour tone.
Behavioural assessment of make-up session
During the make-up session, the behaviour of women was observed
and measured to assess possible differences in make-up behaviour
between ‘C’ and ‘S’ women. Make-up occurred in a standardized
room in which subjects were left alone. A digital video camera was
placed behind the one-way mirror used for make-up. Several
behavioural parameters were measured from a blind analysis: (i)
the total duration of the make-up session, (ii) the total duration of
make-up application, (iii) the duration of self-observation (i.e. epi-
sodes in which women watch at themselves in the mirror without
applying any cosmetics) and (iv) the duration of make-up applica-
tion for each area of the face (i.e. forehead, eyes, cheekbones,
cheeks, nose, mouth, chin, neck).
Data analysis
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) or independent t-tests were used to
detect significant differences in facial asymmetry skin visual proper-
ties or make-up behaviours. Homoscedasticity and normality of
samples were tested before each analysis to ensure a proper use of
parametric tests (Bartlett’s and Shapiro-Wilk’s tests, respectively).
Statistical significance was set to a maximum risk a = 0.05.
Results
Facial asymmetry
No significant differences were found between our two groups of
volunteers concerning the global facial asymmetry (F19,41 = 1.37,
P = 0.55; mean ± SEM: 1.82 ± 1.11 and 1.65 ± 0.95, respec-
ª 2011 The Authors
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
Influence of make-up products R. Korichi et al.

tively, for subjects from group C and S). However, if the global
asymmetry score was not significantly different between our two
groups, the asymmetry of several facial zones was significantly dif-
ferent between ‘C’ and ‘S’ subjects. Indeed, distances between P1
and P2 and between P3 and P4 (i.e. eyes area) were significantly
lower in group C than in group S (p1p2: F19,41 = 0.02, P < 0.01;
p3p4: F19,41 = 0.22, P < 0.01). On the contrary, asymmetry
between P9 and P10 (i.e. mouth area) was significantly higher in
group C than in group S (F19,41 = 6.35, P < 0.01). These results
suggest that subjects from group C would have a more symmetrical
upper face than those of group S, whereas it would be the opposite
for the lower part of the face. As shown in Fig. 2, upper face asym-
metry (i.e. eyes and cheekbones) tended to be greater in group S
(t = 1.858; df = 60; P = 0.068), whereas a significantly higher
asymmetry was found in group C for lower face (i.e. mouth and
jaws; t = 2.391; df = 60; P = 0.020).
Skin radiance and colour
ANOVAs revealed a comparable homogeneity of skin radiance in
our two groups of volunteers, before and after make-up. Indeed, no
significant difference was observed between groups for colours and
physical characteristics of the skin (see Table II for full details of
statistics). Concerning the evolution of colorimetric descriptors
(CLBT), results showed that make-up produced a significant effect
on the skin radiance, whatever the group of volunteers, by decreas-
ing of the complexion’s ‘olive’ skin cast and ‘transparency’, and by
increasing of the ‘beige’ colour, ‘Luminosity’ and ‘Brightness’ (see
Table III for full details of statistics).
Concerning the homogeneity of the skin colour, as summarized
in Table IV, we observed that women of our panel did not use
make-up colours in the same way according to the group they
belong to. Indeed, subjects of group C displayed only a significant
increase in the b* parameters for each zones of the face after make-
up (Forehead: F1,19 = 13.21, P < 0.01; Dark circles: F1,19 = 6.5, P
= 0.02; Cheekbone: F1,19 = 15.4, P < 0.01; Nose: F1,19 = 19.06,
P < 0.01; Chin: F1,19 = 10.48, P < 0.01). On the contrary, in
women of group S, the colour variations were significant for each
zone of the face and almost all coordinates of the CIE L*a*b* space
and the individual typology angle parameter (ITA°): Forehead: L*:
F1,41 = 5.91, P = 0.02, b*: F1,41 = 34.36, P < 0.01; Dark circles:
L*: F1,41 = 12.52, P < 0.01, a*: F1,41 = 14.42, P < 0.01, b*:
F1,41 = 29.57, P < 0.01, ITA°: F1,41 = 9.87, P < 0.01; Cheek-
bones: b*: F1,41 = 64.07, P < 0.01; Nose: L*: F1,41 = 18.13,
P < 0.01, a*: F1,41 = 9.34, P < 0.01, b*: F1,41 = 49.32, P < 0.01,
ITA°: F1,41 = 8.89, P < 0.01; Chin: L*: F1,41 = 20.7, P < 0.01, a*:
F1,41 = 12.31, P < 0.01, b*: F1,41 = 50.09, P < 0.01, ITA°:
F1,41 = 11.65, P < 0.01.

Figure 2 Mean ± SEM upper (eyes and cheek bones) and lower
(jaws and mouth) facial asymmetry. Black columns represent data
for subjects from group C (camouflage) and grey columns represent
data for subjects from group S (seduction). +P < 0.10; *P < 0.05.
Make-up behaviour
Total duration of make-up, duration of self-observation and dura-
tion of make-up for forehead, eyes, cheekbones, cheeks, chin and
neck were not significantly different between C and S groups
(P > 0.22). However, as shown in Fig. 3, subjects from group S
displayed significantly longer application of make-up on the mouth
and lips area compared to group C (t = 2.098; df = 59;
P < 0.0412). Moreover, make-up duration of the mouth was
highly correlated with mouth asymmetry (p9p10) in subjects of the
group S (r = 0.938; P < 0.0001), although there was no statistical
relation between mouth asymmetry and make-up in subjects of
group C (r = )0.161; P > 0.31).

Table II Analysis of the homogeneity of the skin radiance between groups of volunteers

Before make-up After make-up

Group C Group S Group C Group S

(n = 20) (n = 42) (n = 20) (n = 42)

Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Significance Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Significance

Skin colours Pink red 11.8 6.6 12.4 5.4 NS 10.5 5.8 10.8 6.2 NS
Olive 10.5 5.0 9.5 3.5 NS 6.7 3.8 6.3 3.3 NS
Beige 33.2 13.2 31.9 4.0 NS 38.9 13.3 37.2 5.5 NS
Light pink 19.8 3.0 20.5 3.0 NS 19.9 3.3 20.7 2.9 NS
Physical characteristics Luminosity 3.2 0.4 3.2 0.5 NS 3.6 0.5 3.5 0.7 NS
Brightness 3.1 0.7 2.9 0.6 NS 3.7 0.7 3.7 0.8 NS
Transparency 1.6 0.8 1.4 0.6 NS 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.5 NS

ª 2011 The Authors

ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345 341
Influence of make-up products R. Korichi et al.

Table III Evolution of the skin radiance dur-

Comparison before and after make-up ing the make-up process (before and after
make-up; within groups)
Group Group
C (n = 20) S (n = 42)

Mean ±SD Significance Mean ±SD Significance

Skin colours Pink red )1.3 5.0 NS )1.6 5.6 LS (P = 0.07)

Olive 3.8 2.9 S (P < 0.01) )3.2 2.4 S (P < 0.01)
Beige 5.7 7.0 S (P < 0.01) 5.3 4.7 S (P < 0.01)
Light pink 0.2 0.2 NS 0.2 2.7 NS
Physical Luminosity 0.5 0.3 S (P < 0.01) 0.3 0.6 S (P < 0.01)
characteristics Brightness 0.6 0.6 S (P < 0.01) 0.7 0.5 S (P < 0.01)
Transparency )0.2 0.3 S (P < 0.01) )0.3 0.3 S (P < 0.01)

Table IV Evolution of the homogeneity of

Comparison before and after make-up the skin colour during the make-up process
(before and after make-up; within groups)
Group Group
C (n = 20) S (n = 42)

CIELAB
Facial zones parameters Mean ±SD Significance Mean ±SD Significance

Forehead L* 0.7 2.7 NS 0.8 1.9 S (P =0.02)

a* 0 0.8 NS )0.1 0.6 NS
b* 0.6 0.7 S (P < 0.01) 0.6 0.6 S (P < 0.01)
ITA° )0.1 3.9 NS 0 2.8 NS
Dark circles L* 0.7 3.0 NS 1.2 2.1 S (P < 0.01)
a* )0.3 1.0 NS )0.4 0.7 S (P < 0.01)
b* 0.3 0.6 S (P = 0.02) 0.3 0.5 S (P < 0.01)
ITA° 1.7 9.9 NS 3.3 6.8 S (P < 0.01)
Cheekbone L* 0.1 2.9 NS 0.7 2.3 LS (P = 0.06)
a* 0.3 1.1 NS 0.1 0.9 NS
b* 0.7 0.7 S (P < 0.01) 0.7 0.6 S (P < 0.01)
ITA° )0.2 10.0 NS 0.9 6.9 NS
Nose L* 1.7 2.9 S (P = 0.01) 1.7 2.6 S (P < 0.01)
a* )0.4 1.1 NS )0.5 1.1 S (P < 0.01)
b* 0.7 0.7 S (P < 0.01) 0.6 0.6 S (P < 0.01)
ITA° 4.4 9.8 LS (P = 0.06) 4.2 9.0 S (P < 0.01)
Chin L* 1.4 3.5 NS 1.6 2.2 S (P < 0.01)
a* )0.4 1.3 NS )0.6 0.9 S (P < 0.01)
b* 0.6 0.7 S (P < 0.01) 0.6 0.5 S (P < 0.01)
ITA° 3.6 11.9 NS 4.2 8.1 S (P < 0.01)

associated with symmetry. Other authors have also investigated

Discussion
Our first result showed that the two groups of volunteers, defined
by two major functional use of make-up (Camouflage and Seduc-
tion) and specific emotional and psychological profiles (as summa-
rized in Table I), are not discriminated by global facial asymmetry.
This result contrasts with those reported by Kink and al. [30] who
found a significant negative association between facial symmetry,
openness and agreeableness, whereas extraversion was positively
associations between facial fluctuating asymmetry and various
personality factors. They reported a general tendency for facial fluc-
tuating asymmetry to be correlated with emotional and psychologi-
cal health [42]. However, our first finding supports the idea that
the affective and behavioural differences about the use of make-up
are not sustained by morphological differences, such as facial asym-
metry considered as a transcultural parameter of physical attrac-
tiveness [19, 43, 44], but rather by psychobiological factors such

ª 2011 The Authors

ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
342 International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
Influence of make-up products
Figure 3 Mean ± SEM duration of make-up of the mouth and lips
area (sec). Black columns represent data for subjects from group C
(camouflage) and grey columns represent data for subjects from
group S (seduction). *P < 0.05.
as the personality and temperament. In fact, published documents
investigating the role of cosmetics in social perception have shown
that, globally, make-up is associated with a positive evaluation of
the subject by her social environment, both in terms of social
image (i.e. evaluation of the subject’s social qualities) and physical
attractiveness [45, 46]. This accentuation could not be entirely
assumed from the structure of the subjects’ personality, especially
the more introvert of subjects for whom this accentuating approach
would cause anxiety. Thus, on the one hand, make-up tends to
serve as an essential tool to offset an image of poor self-esteem [47]
and, on the other hand, physical satisfaction appears to be posi-
tively linked to the importance of make-up [48]. Make-up would,
therefore, play a more expressive function and, as such, would be
more relevant for women with greater social confidence, regardless
of whether the women are physically attractive or deem themselves
to be. Make-up would therefore take on either a protective role
under the gaze of onlookers, acting as a form of camouflage (group
C), or would heighten the powers of seduction (women in group S)
[49].
Concerning morphological variables, further analyses of our data
revealed significant differences in upper vs. lower facial asymmetry
(i.e. eyes and mouth) between our two groups. Indeed, group C
subjects have significantly greater lower facial asymmetry than ‘S’
subjects, while expressing marginally lower upper asymmetry. Such
differences could be related to fluctuating asymmetry (i.e. random
differences between two sides, as opposed to the global asymmetry)
that have been argued to develop throughout the lifespan of the
individual and would represent a sign of the phenotype being sub-
jected to some levels of stress [50]. Interestingly, some studies
reveal that lower face was associated with emotions and more
specifically with valence-related asymmetries [51]. As lower face
asymmetry is greater in women from group C, it could be hypothe-
sized a link between their facial asymmetry pattern and a possible
larger amount of negative emotional experiences [50], especially as
negative emotions implies more salient facial features [52]. Interest-
ingly, mouth asymmetry and make-up duration was highly corre-
lated in subject from group S, but not in group C. As mouth and
lips have been related to secondary sexual signals [33], it could be
therefore hypothesized that make-up would be used as a tool to
adjust visual asymmetry in women from group S, and therefore
increase for potential attractiveness. However, the exact relation
ª 2011 The Authors
ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
R. Korichi et al.
between facial asymmetry and emotional expression remains to be
further examined.
This naturally leads us to broach the concept of skin quality (and
uniformity of skin colour), which is, as we know, one of the trans-
cultural criteria defining a beautiful face [20, 53]), and closely
linked with the ‘psychology of the appearance’. The colorimetric
analyses that we have carried out show that, contrary to popular
belief, skin quality is not an explanatory factor for our two psycho-
functional profiles. Our results show that women of our panel
display the same natural skin features (hence, the same skin-related
attractiveness features) and that data concerning facial colorimetry
and radiance revealed same significant effects of make-up, whatever
the group (C and S). Decrease in the ‘olive’ colour and increase in
the ‘beige’ colour can be interpreted as a ‘good looking’ effect [40,
54], through a lesser greenish-olive complexion. The decrease in
‘Transparency’ expresses a masking effect of the skin by the make-
up and confirms the application of cosmetic products on the face.
Moreover, the increase in ‘Luminosity’ and ‘Brightness’ after make-
up confirms that cosmetics are useful tools to improve skin apparent
quality (i.e. radiance and homogeneity) and are potent factors for
facial attractiveness [20]. This fact nevertheless opposes the conclu-
sions reached in numerous studies, which, despite certain controver-
sial issues, show that the skin quality perceived would be associated
with facial attractiveness [55]. Other studies also suggest that the
homogeneity of skin colour, regardless of the shape of the face and
skin relief, affects judgments in terms of physical attraction [56].
These observations therefore lead us to believe that some women in
our study (camouflage group and seduction group) would have
other reasons to immediately conceal skin defects by applying make-
up. Furthermore, colorimetric data specific to certain parts of the
face show that make-up strategies are preferably based on colours
that harmonize, to varying degree, with the female personality. On
the one hand, women belonging to the ‘camouflage’ profile (group
C) seek to limit their attractiveness and positive impressions by
restricting the use of colours on the face. Indeed, skin colour
expressed by each coordinates of the colour space CIELAB (a colori-
metric space of reference normalized by the international commis-
sion of the lighting CIE 1976 L*a*b* and allowing to obtain a colour
representation closes to the eye vision) clearly showed that female
subjects of group C used significantly less colours to enhance their
facial appearance than those of group S. Colour changes, which
have been clearly visible on the colorimetric b* axis (see Table IV),
are known to indicate how healthy a face looks [57]. Moreover, the
absence of any variation in the ITA° parameter, which we know is
connected to the level of melanization in the skin and the skin col-
our tone [58], strengthens our conclusions with regard to the lim-
ited use of make-up colours in group C women. These results tend to
confirm the fact that the inferences produced in reaction to make up
depend on the quality of the skin and the amount of make-up
applied [59]. In fact, make-up loses its aesthetic value as soon as it is
applied in excess and therefore becomes perceptibly dissociated from
the face to which it is applied. Conversely, the enhancing effect of
make-up would be more pronounced in attractive women or women
who consider themselves to be. These findings are corroborated in
the colorimetric measurements recorded in women belonging to the
‘seduction’ profile (group S) in cases where their appearance and
attractiveness have been substantially manipulated by an extended
colour range as confirmed by changes in all of the colorimetric
parameters.
On the overall, these results further reinforce the previously
defined psychological profiles of our subjects as women of group C
would rather wish to remain ‘transparent’ and ‘natural’ to the
343
Influence of make-up products R. Korichi et al.

others, probably to remain unobtrusive but limiting their attrac-
tiveness and positive impression. In our previous work, we showed
that make-up application can be considered as a daily routine to
decrease negative affects and/or increase positive affects related to
self-image and one’s relation to his social environment. Basically,
our main results show that our two groups of women (i.e. S and
C) did not differ in global asymmetry and skin radiance before
make-up. However, the relative control of specific facial features
(i.e. asymmetry of discrete facial zones implicated in sexual behav-
iours and skin colour) by make-up is differentially expressed
according to the psycho-behavioural profiles previously highlighted
[14]. Even if these findings have been established from a limited
population (in term of sample size and social status), our results
suggest that make-up is used differentially, according to stable
psychological profiles of women, to manipulate specific visual/
morphological facial features involved in attractiveness. Finally, as
our results have been obtained from a single geographical location
(i.e. France), one should be cautious in transposing these results to
women from other socio-cultural backgrounds.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all volunteers for their patience during our
experiments. The authors thank Dr F. Vial and C. Delmas from
Spincontrol for productive discussions and active participation in
this work.

References
1. Cash, T.F., Dawson, K., Davis, P., Bowen, M.
and Galumbeck, C. The effects of cosmetics
use on the physical attractiveness and body
image of college women. J. Soc. Psychol.
129, 349–356 (1989).
2. Schilder, P. The Image and Appearance of the
Human Body. Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner
and Co, London (1935).
3. Coon, D. Essentials of Psychology, 6th edn.
West Publishing Company, Los Angeles
(1994).
4. Thompson, J.K., Heinberg, L.J., Altabe, M.
and Tantleff-Dunn, S. Exacting Beauty: The-
ory, Assessment, and Treatment of Body Image
Disturbance. American Psychological Associ-
ation, Washington DC (1999).
5. Hoyt, W. and Kogan, L. Satisfaction with
body image and peer relationships for males
and females in a college environment. Sex
Roles: J. Res. 45, 199–215 (2001).
6. Cash, T.F. and Fleming, E.C. Body image
and social relations. In: Body Image: A
Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical
Practice (Cash, T.F. and Pruzinsky, T., eds),
pp. 277–286. Guilford Press, New York
(2002).
7. Cash, T.F. and Pruzinsky, T.P. Body Images:
Development, Deviance, and Change. Guilford
Press, New York (1990).
8. Cash, T.F. Body-image affect: gestalt versus
summing the parts. Percept. Mot. Skills 69,
17–18 (1989).
9. Franzoi, S.L. and Herzog, M.E. Judging phys-
ical attractiveness: what body aspects do we
use? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, 19–33
(1987).
10. Swami, V., Furnham, A., Georgiades, C. and
Pang, L. Evaluating self and partner physi-
cal attractiveness. Body Image 4, 97–101
(2007).
11. Langlois, J.H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein,
A.J., Larson, A., Hallam, M. and Smoot, M.
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-ana-
lytic and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull.
126, 390–423 (2000).
12. Berry, D.S. and Finch-Wero, J.L. Accuracy
in face perception: a view from ecological
psychology. J. Pers. 61, 497–520 (1993).
13. Berry, D.S. and Landry, J.C. Facial maturity
and daily social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psy-
chol. 72, 570–580 (1997).
14. Korichi, R., Pelle-de-Queral, D., Gazano, G.
and Aubert, A. Why women use make-up?
Implication of psychological traits in
makeup functions. J. Cosmet. Sci. 59, 127–
137 (2008).
15. Korichi, R., Pelle-de-Queral, D., Gazano, G.
and Aubert, A. Psychological approach of
the hedonic process implicated in the
make-up of human face and relation with
morphometric parameters. In: 24th IFSCC
congress, Osaka, Japan (2006).
16. Howells, D.J. and Shaw, W.C. The validity
and reliability of ratings of dental and facial
attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am. J.
Orthod. 88, 402–408 (1985).
17. Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S.W. Human
facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and
parasite resistance. Hum. Nat. 4, 237–269
(1993).
18. Grammar, K. and Thornhill, R. Human
(Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and
sexual selection: the role of symmetry and
averageness. J. Comp. Psychol. 108, 233–
242 (1994).
19. Buss, D.M. Evolutionary Psychology, 3rd edn.
Pearson, Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2008).
20. Fink, B., Grammer, K. and Thornhill, R.
Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness
in relation to skin texture and color. J.
Comp. Psychol. 115, 92–99 (2001).
21. Kalick, S.M., Zebrowitz, L.A., Langlois, H.
and Johnson, R.M. Does human facial
attractiveness honestly advertise health?
Longitudinal data on an evolutionary ques-
tion. Psychol. Sci. 9, 8–13 (1998).
22. Little, A.C. and Jones, B.C. Evidence against
perceptual bias views for symmetry prefer-
ences in human faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
270, 1759–1763 (2003).
23. Mealey, L., Bridgstock, N. and Townsend, G.
Symmetry and perceived facial attractive-
ness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 151–158 (1999).
24. Kowner, R. Facial asymmetry and attrac-
tiveness judgment in developmental perspec-
tive. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
22, 662–675 (1996).
25. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L.A., Clark, A.,
Kalick, S.M., Hightower, A. and McKay, R.
Do facial averageness and symmetry signal
health? Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 31–46
(2001).
26. Penton-Voak, I.S., Jones, B.C., Little, A.C.,
Baker, S.E., Tiddeman, B.P., Burt, D.M. and
Perrett, D.I. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism
in facial proportions, and male sexual
attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268,
1617–1623 (2001).
27. Zaidel, D.W., Aarde, S.M. and Baig, K. The
appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health
in human face. Brain Cogn., 57, 261–263
(2005).
28. Little, A.C., Burt, D.M., Penton-Voak, I.S.
and Perrett, D.I. Self-perceived attractive-
ness influences human preferences for sex-
ual dimorphism and symmetry in male
faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 39–44
(2001).
29. Rhodes, G. and Zebrowitz, L.A. Facial Attrac-
tiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive and Social
Perspectives. Ablex Publishers, Westport, CT
(2002).
30. Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J.T. and
Grammar, K. Facial symmetry and the ‘big-
five’ personality factors. Pers. Indiv. Differ.
39(3), 523–529 (2005).
31. Noor, F. and Evans, D.C. The effect of facial
symmetry on perceptions of personality and
attractiveness. J. Res. Pers. 37, 339–347
(2003).
32. Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Feinberg, D.R.,
Penton-Voak, I.S., Tiddeman, B.P. and Per-
rett, D.I. The relationship between shape
symmetry and perceived skin condition in
male facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav.
25, 24–30 (2004).
33. Etcoff, N. Survival of the Prettiest: the Science
of Beauty. Anchor Books, New York (1999).

ª 2011 The Authors

ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
344 International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
Influence of make-up products
34. Fink, B. and Neave, N. The biology of facial
beauty. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 27, 317–325
(2005).
35. Fink, B., Grammer, K. and Matts, P. Visible
skin color distribution plays a role in the
perception of age, attractiveness, and health
in female faces? Evol. Hum. Behav. 27(6),
433–442 (2006).
36. Grammer, K. and Fink, B. Women’s Skin
Tone Influences Perception of Beauty, Health,
Age: Sociobiologists’ Find. Human Behavior
and Evolution Society annual meeting,
Philadelphia (2006).
37. Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Burt, D.M. and Per-
rett, D.I. When facial attractiveness is only
skin deep. Perception 33, 569–576 (2004).
38. Hume, D.K. and Montgomerie, R. Facial
attractiveness signals different aspects of
‘‘quality’’ in women and men. Evol. Hum.
Behav. 22, 93–112 (2001).
39. Scheib, J.E., Gangestad, S.W. and Thornhill,
R. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues
of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266,
1913–1917 (1999).
40. Musnier, C., Piquemal, P., Beau, P. and Pittet,
J.C. Visual evaluation in vivo of complexion
radiance using C.L.B.T sensory methodology.
Skin Res. Tech. 10, 50–56 (2004).
41. McLaren, K. The development of the CIE
1976 (L*a*b*) uniform colour-space and col-
our-difference formula. J. Soc. Dy. Col. 92,
338–341 (1976).
42. Shackelford, T.K. and Larsen, R.J. Facial
asymmetry as an indicator of psychological,
emotional, and physiological distress. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol., 72, 456–466 (1997).
ª 2011 The Authors
ICS ª 2011 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Société Française de Cosmétologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 33, 338–345
43. Zebrowitz, L.A. Reading Faces: Window to the
Soul? Wesview Press, Boulder (1997).
44. Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S.W. Facial
attractiveness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 452–460
(1999).
45. Graham, J.A. and Jouhar, A.J. The effects of
cosmetics on person perception. Int. J. Cos-
met. Sci., 3, 199–210 (1981).
46. Workman, J.E. and Johnson, K.K.P. The role
of cosmetics in impression formation. Cloth.
Text. Res. J., 10, 63–67 (1991).
47. Zaltman, G. and Wallendorf, M. Consumer
Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York
(1984).
48. Theberge, L. and Kernaleguen, A. Importance
of cosmetics related to aspects of the self. Per-
cept. Mot. Skills, 48, 827–830 (1979).
49. Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. You look
mahvelous: the pursuit of beauty and the
marketing concept. Psychol. Market., 9, 3–
15 (1992).
50. Edler, R.J. Background considerations to
facial aesthetics. J. Ortho. 28, 159–168
(2001).
51. Richardson, C.K., Bowers, D., Bauer, R.M.,
Heilman, K.M. and Leonard, C.M. Digitizing
the moving face during dynamic displays of
emotion. Neuropsychologia 38, 1028–1039
(2000).
52. Ekman, P. Basic Emotions. In: Handbook of
Cognition and Emotion (Dalgleish, T. and
Power, T., eds), pp. 45–60. John Wiley and
Sons Ltd, Sussex (1999).
53. Fink, B., Matts, P.J., Klingenberg, H.,
Kuntze, S., Weege, B. and Grammer, K.
Visual attention to variation in female facial
R. Korichi et al.
skin color distribution. J Cosm. Dermatol, 7,
155–161 (2008).
54. Perin, F., Saetun, K., Pungpod, P., Pram-On,
M., Perin, N. and Aroonrat, N. A new
method for the in vivo visual evaluation of the
radiance of the Asian skin complexion. Confer-
ence of the Asian Societies of Cosmetics
Scientists, pp. 7–9, Singapore (2007).
55. Jones, B.C., Little, A.C., Feinberg, D.R., Pen-
ton-Voak, I.S., Tiddeman, B.P. and Perrett,
D.I. The relationship between shape symme-
try and perceived skin condition in male
facial attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav., 2,
24–30 (2004).
56. Fink, B., Grammer, K. and Matts, P. Visible
skin color distribution plays a role in the
perception of age, attractiveness, and health
in female faces? Evol. Hum. Behav., 27,
433–442 (2006).
57. Stephen, I.D., Law Smith, M.J., Stirrat, M.R.
and Perrett, D.I. Facial skin colouration
affects perceived health of human faces. Int.
J. Primat., 30, 845–857 (2009).
58. Camel, E., Arnaud-Boissel, L., Schnebert,
S., Neveu, M., Tan, S.K. and Guillot, J.P.
Does Asian skin induce significant changes
in sun protection factor determination
compared to Caucasian skin: one of the
first in vivo correlations. IFSCC Mag, 5,
31–34 (2002).
59. Richetin, J., Croizet, J.C. and Huguet, P.
Facial make-up elicits positive attitudes as
the implicit level: evidence from the implicit
association test. Curr. Res. Soc. Psychol., 9,
145–165 (2004).
345