No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
PERCEPTTON OF EFFECT OF NASOLABIAL ANGLE ALETRATION ON FACIALATTRACTIVENESS COMPARING FEMALE PROFILE MODIFICATIONS OF CLASS II DIV I MALOCCLUSION
Abstract
Class II maloclussion is the most prevalent in orthodontic patients. During camolflauge treatment of this maloclussionnasolabial angel increases inevitably for which a threshold value needs to be defined. Objective: The objective of this study was to calculate the mean score for the modified profile of a woman of class II div 1, by digitally simulating a rise in nasolabial angle from the initial image. Methods: This cross-sectional study was undertaken at Puniab Dental Hospital/de' Montmorency College of Dentistry from July 15 to December 01, 2024. A profile picture and lateral cephalometric radiograph of a female with an untreated skeletal Class 2 Division I relationship, a normal mandibular plane angle and normal face height were used. The NLA of the subject's profile image was adjusted to 104.9±4º using Adobe Photoshop CS2. The base image was then digitally changed to produce additional profile photographs, imitating increase in nasolabial angle by 2.0, 4.0, and 6.0 standard deviations (corresponding images called C, B, and A in the questionnaire). Results: The mean age of lay persons was 29.14±5.41 years, minimum age was 18 and maximum age was 41 years. The gender of 90(58.1%) were males and 65(41.9%) were females. Mean attractiveness of facial profile was evaluated by calculating mean attractiveness as the lay people rank the images from 1 to 5. Mean attractiveness score was 4.74±0.44 for image B followed by 4.54±0.50 for image A, 4.37±0.50 for image C and 3.27±0.45 for base image. Conclusions: According to the study, both the nontreated and profile with biggest nasolabial angle (NLA) had the least pleasing appearance. To achieve an aesthetic profile at the end of treatment while treating a class II DIV 1 patient the nasolabial angle should not exceed 121°.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background
This study investigated the facial angles and proportions affecting facial aesthetics in patients with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion between those labeled the most attractive and least attractive in each gender.
Methodology
The study sample included pretreatment extraoral photographs of 60 patients (30 males and 30 females) with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion according to the ANB angle aged between 18 and 21 years. A panel of 240 laypersons (aged 20-25 years; the average age of 22.5 ± 0.37 years; 120 males and 120 females) scored the aesthetic evaluation of photographs using the visual analog scale (VAS). Two groups were created according to the mean aesthetic scores of each photograph, namely, the most attractive group with the highest aesthetic scores, and the least attractive group with the least aesthetic scores. A total of 12 patients in each group were selected. Subsequently, their angular and proportional measurements on the frontal and lateral photographs were calculated. Independent-sample t-tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in these measurements between the two groups.
Results
There was no significant difference in frontal variables between the most attractive and least attractive groups in each gender. The angle NPog-FH was significantly greater in the most attractive males than in the least attractive males, while there was no significant difference between the most attractive and least attractive females regarding any of the profile variables.
Conclusions
The most attractive females with class II division 1 were similar to the least attractive on evaluating the frontal and profile variables. In contrast, the most attractive males with class II division 1 malocclusion had more protrusion in the chin than the least attractive male patients, with no differences in other profile and frontal variables. These findings suggest considering the chin position during the diagnosis and treatment planning of class II division 1 malocclusion patients.
Background/objectives:
Whether orthodontic treatment with functional appliances improves facial aesthetics is still under debate. This study aimed to determine whether functional orthodontic treatment improves the facial attractiveness of patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Materials/method:
Extraoral lateral photographs of 20 children with Class I (CLI, 11.7 ± 0.8 years), and before (T1) and after treatment (T2) photographs of patients with Class II division 1 (CLII T1 and CLII T2; mean age ± SD = 11.1 ± 0.6 years) treated with functional appliances, were transformed into black silhouettes. Three panels of examiners including 30 orthodontists (39.0 ± 10.1 years), 30 dentists (40.0 ± 9.7) and 30 laypersons (39.0 ± 9.2) evaluated the attractiveness of patients' silhouettes using a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and the sagittal position of patients' upper lip, lower lip, and chin using a 3-point Likert scale. Two-way ANOVA and a chi-square test were used to test differences among groups. Statistically significance was set as P < 0.05.
Results:
The silhouettes of CLII T2 individuals were more attractive than those of the other groups (all Ps < 0.001). The upper lip, lower lip, and the chin of these individuals were judged to be normally positioned in 69.5 per cent, 74.9 per cent, and 72.3 per cent of the assessments, respectively (all Ps < 0.05).
Limitations:
This study did not account for the psychological profile of the examiners, which may have affected the ratings.
Conclusions/implications:
Orthodontic treatment with functional appliances is associated with a superior facial profile attractiveness. Functional treatment should be considered as a treatment option to improve the facial appearance of children with Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Incisor retraction may result in lip retraction, interlabial gap closure and increase of the nasolabial angle but a clear consensus on the effect of incisor retraction on facial aesthetics has not yet been achieved. Despite current evidence being weak, it seems to indicate that in a well-managed orthodontic case, with or without extractions, the soft-tissue and facial aesthetic changes are generally favourable or clinically insignificant.
The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived level of improvement in facial attractiveness as assessed by people with different backgrounds in skeletal Class II patients treated by mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). The frontal and lateral pre- and post-operative photographs of 10 Caucasian patients were selected. Changes in frontal and profile attractiveness were assessed by 10 orthodontists, 10 art students, and 10 laypersons. Frontal and lateral pre- and post-operative photographs were randomly distributed throughout two surveys. For each photograph, the evaluators ranked the attractiveness of face, chin, and lips on visual analogue scales. A third survey was administered to orthodontists only, by presenting the same pre and post-operative photographs but paired side-by-side with pre- and post-operative status disclosed. Overall, attractiveness scores after BSSO showed an 11.5 per cent improvement (95 per cent confidence intervals: 9.4-13.5 per cent) on the lateral post-operative photographs and a 7.5 per cent improvement (95 per cent confidence intervals: 5.4-9.5 per cent) on the frontal post-operative photographs. Attractiveness scores differed significantly between the groups (P = 0.015), with orthodontists being more generous with their improvement ratings and the art students tending to give a more critical assessment. There were no significant differences between male and female evaluators (P > 0.05). Ratings of before-after attractiveness almost doubled when the pre- and post-operative status was disclosed as compared to blinded evaluations, thus indicating that prior knowledge of pre- and post-treatment status markedly influences aesthetic evaluations, with a bias towards a more favourable outcome.
Introduction
The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences in preference between orthodontists and laypeople, judging soft tissue digital alterations of a Class II Division 1 profile of a female patient with mandibular retrognathia, produced by simulated camouflage and mandibular advancement therapy.
Methods
The profile image of a White woman with a Class II Division 1 mandibular retrognathic profile was digitally modified to produce 7 pictures: 1 baseline, 3 stepwise increase in the nasolabial angle of 113°, 121°, and 129°, and 3 stepwise increase in chin-neck length of 51 mm, 54 mm, and 57 mm. Forty-four orthodontists and 162 laypeople assessed these 7 images.
Results
The untreated baseline profile was found to be least attractive for both orthodontists and laypeople, with orthodontists scoring significantly lower than laypeople. The profiles representing mandibular advancement therapy were judged significantly better by both groups than camouflage therapy. Orthodontists preferred straighter profiles than laypeople, giving the highest-ranking to a chin-neck length of 57 mm, whereas laypeople gave the highest rank to a chin-neck length of 54 mm.
Conclusions
Orthodontists prefer straighter profiles and gave a lower ranking to the untreated Class II Division 1 female profile compared with laypeople. Orthodontists and laypeople favor mandibular advancement therapy over camouflage therapy. However, both groups seem to prefer the effect of both treatment modalities over the untreated baseline Class II Division 1 profile.
Introduction:
This retrospective pilot study assessed the pre- and posttreatment lip profile changes among adult patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns and compared these changes with patients with a skeletal Class I relationship, to identify the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue cephalometric variables that altered the posttreatment lip profile.
Methods:
A total of 33 digital cephalograms were divided into 4 study groups based on the mandibular plane (Mp-SN) angle: group 1 (control, skeletal Class I; mean angle = 21.5°) (n = 8), group 2 (Class II Division 1 malocclusion; low angle = <26°) (n = 8), group 3 (Class II Division 1 malocclusion; intermediate angle = 26°-38°) (n = 9), and group 4 (Class II Division 1 malocclusion; high angle = >38°) (n = 8).
Results:
We observed a significant decrease in SNA, ANB, maxillary incisor to NA (degrees and millimeters), and soft tissue parameters, especially lip strain and lower lip to E line and upper lip to E line. Posttreatment intergroup comparison showed a significant increase of Mp-SN, and this increase was greater in group 3, followed by group 4 as compared with group 1. In addition, statistically significant differences in SNA, ANB, mandibular incisor to NB (degrees) and IMPA, and H angle in groups 2-4 were observed.
Conclusions:
Patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion showed a significant decrease in SNA, ANB, maxillary incisor to NA, and all soft tissue parameters in posttreatment compared with group 1. Thus, the soft tissue changes resulted in a similar profile to patients in group 1, who are considered to have an aesthetically pleasing posttreatment profile.
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of systematic extraction protocols during orthodontic fixed appliance treatment on the soft tissue profile of human patients. Nine databases were searched until December 2016 for controlled clinical studies including premolar extraction or nonextraction treatment. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and their 95% CIs were performed, followed by subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. Extraction treatment was associated with increased lower lip retraction (24 studies; 1,456 patients; MD = 1.96 mm), upper lip retraction (21 studies; 1,149 patients; MD = 1.26 mm), nasolabial angle (21 studies; 1,089 patients; MD = 4.21°), soft-tissue profile convexity (six studies; 408 patients; MD = 1.24°), and profile pleasantness (three studies; 249 patients; SMD = 0.41). Patient age, extraction protocol, and amount of upper incisor retraction during treatment were significantly associated with the observed extraction effects, while the quality of evidence was very low in all cases due to risk of bias, baseline confounding, inconsistency, and imprecision. Although tooth extractions seem to affect patient profile, existing studies are heterogenous and no consistent predictions of profile response can be made.
Background:
Physical attractiveness is dependent on facial appearance. The facial profile plays a crucial role in facial attractiveness and can be improved with orthodontic treatment. The aesthetic assessment of facial appearance may be influenced by the cultural background and education of the assessor and dependent upon the experience level of dental professionals. This study aimed to evaluate how the sagittal jaw relationship in Class I and Class II individuals affects facial attractiveness, and whether the assessor's professional education and background affect the perception of facial attractiveness.
Methods:
Facial silhouettes simulating mandibular retrusion, maxillary protrusion, mandibular retrusion combined with maxillary protrusion, bimaxillary protrusion and severe bimaxillary protrusion in Class I and Class II patients were assessed by five groups of people with different backgrounds and education levels (i.e., 23 expert orthodontists, 21 orthodontists, 15 maxillofacial surgeons, 19 orthodontic patients and 28 laypeople).
Results:
Straight facial profiles were judged to be more attractive than convex profiles due to severe mandibular retrusion and to mandibular retrusion combined with maxillary protrusion (all P<0.05). Convex profiles due to a slight retruded position of the mandible were judged less attractive by clinicians than by patients and laypeople (all P<0.05).
Conclusions:
Convex facial profiles are less attractive than Class I profiles. The assessment of facial attractiveness is dependent on the assessor's education and background. Laypeople and patients are considerably less sensitive to abnormal sagittal jaw relationships than orthodontists.
Introduction:
Our objective was to study the perceptions of laypeople for digital alterations and the amount of nasolabial angle increase that is tolerable and how much chin-neck length increase is needed to achieve a desirable profile in Class II Division 1 women with mandibular retrognathia.
Methods:
The profile image of a white woman with a Class II Division 1 mandibular rethrognatic profile was digitally modified to create 6 images: 3 with stepwise increased nasolabial angles of 113°, 121°, and 129°, and 3 with stepwise increased chin-neck distances of 51, 54, and 57 mm. These images were assessed and ranked by 155 white laypeople.
Results:
The baseline profile was judged significantly as the least attractive. A nasolabial angle of 129° was judged as unattractive as the baseline profile. Profiles with a chin-neck length of 54 and 57 mm were equally judged as most attractive.
Conclusions:
The untreated (baseline) profile was found to be least esthetic, as well as the profile with the largest nasolabial angle. Nasolabial angle increases up to 121° seem to be acceptable. Profiles simulating a chin-neck length increase as produced by surgery seem to be most favored.
Unlabelled:
Esthetics is one of the major motivating factors for patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Hard tissue and soft tissue drape both determine the facial esthetics. The structures in this region are so variable that the nasolabial angle (NLA) has been drawn differently by various investigators. Variations can lead to erroneous conclusions in orthodontic diagnosis.
Aims and objectives:
The study was done to evaluate a reliable method of constructing the nasolabial angle (NLA) and to correlate the soft tissue profile parameters with one another.
Materials and methods:
Lateral cephalogram of 50 randomly selected adult patients were taken. The tracings were made and 10 copies of each tracing were randomly distributed to 10 different orthodontists to draw the NLA.
Results:
Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) showed both N/ FH and L/FH angles to have significant p values when compared with NLA. The regression analysis showed that the nasolabial angle can be calculated for any given value of N/FH or L/FH by the formula: NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). The mean value of N/FH was 17.42° ± 8.40° and L/FH was 80.68° + 6.45° for this sample. Inter examiner reliability calculated by repeated measures of ANOVA and Dahlerg's formula showed high degree of reliability and reproducibility of the method.
Clinical significance:
NLA can be predicted for any given value of N/FH and L/FH. NLA = 80.33° + 1.02° (N/FH) and NLA = 14.2° + 1.04° (L/FH). If an individual has either N/FH or L/FH in the normal range but not the NLA then one could calculate the correct NLA using this formula. Thereby the NLA can be brought within the normal range by altering the other nasolabial parameters by correct treatment planning. Since the nasolabial angle plays a vital role in profile esthetics of a person, the clinician should place greater emphasis in evaluating this area and plan treatment mechanics to place this angle within the accepted normal variation.
Background:
In aesthetic rhinoplasty, the described ideal nasolabial angle ranges from 90 to 120 degrees, with variable anthropologic differences. The authors sought to verify the most aesthetic nasolabial angle as specifically perceived by a random prospective sample of the general population and determine whether age, sex, race, and education were independent associated predictors.
Methods:
The authors prospectively recruited 98 random volunteers from the general population. They were asked to rank three different nasolabial angles for the female nose (100, 105, and 110 degrees) and the male nose (90, 100, and 105 degrees) as "most," "moderately," and "least aesthetic." Demographic data were used to determine correlations between aesthetic preferences. Pearson chi-square test and t test were used to determine statistical significance
Results:
The most aesthetic female nasolabial angle was 104.9±4.0 degrees. The most aesthetic male nasolabial angle was 97.0±6.3 degrees. Male subjects, younger volunteers, Native Americans, and African Americans preferred more acute male nasolabial angles (90 degrees). Female subjects, volunteers older than 50 years, college graduates, those with a previous rhinoplasty, and Caucasian and Asian subjects preferred more obtuse male nasolabial angles.
Conclusions:
In the authors' sample of the general population, the ideal and most aesthetic nasolabial angle ranged from 100.9 to 108.9 degrees in the female nose and 90.7 to 103.3 degrees in the male nose. Age, sex, race, education, and having undergone a previous rhinoplasty were predictors of differences in the ideal male nasolabial angle but did not change preference of the female nasolabial angle.
Esthetic features are different from one race to another, and this should be considered during the treatment planning. The great variance in soft tissue drape of the human face complicates accurate assessment. The nose-lip-chin relationships are exceedingly important in determining the facial esthetics. One important soft tissue parameter in orthodontic diagnosis is the nasolabial angle. The purpose of this study was to establish norms for nasolabial angle as proposed by Fitzgerald for the Komarapalayam population. Normative data for the three nasolabial parameters were produced from a sample of 40 (20 male and 20 female) adults determined by the authors to have well-balanced faces. Mean and standard deviation values from this pooled sample demonstrated a lower border of the nose to Frankfort horizontal plane angle of 18° ± 7°, upper lip to Frankfort horizontal plane angle of 98° ± 5°, and nasolabial angle of 116° ± 10°. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between the values for men and women in this study, but men did have a slightly larger nasolabial angle.
The purpose of this investigation was to quantitatively evaluate the influence of completing the orthognathic treatment process on patients' perceptions of attractiveness and their desire for surgical correction. The mandibular prominence of an idealized profile image was altered in 2 mm increments from -16 to 12 mm, in order to represent retrusion and protrusion of the mandible, respectively. These images were rated on a seven-point Likert scale by 50 patients at T1 (pre-treatment) and T2 (6 months following orthodontic appliance removal). At T1, mandibular retrusion became noticeable at -4 mm and protrusion at 2 mm. The results remained unchanged at T2. Surgery was desired from -9 mm at T1 and -10 mm at T2. For mandibular protrusion, surgery was desired from 3 mm at T1 and 4 mm at T2. The odds of desire for surgery were reduced by 85 per cent for those patients who had undergone bimaxillary surgery in relation to those with single jaw surgery. The lowest rated images demonstrated severe degrees of mandibular protrusion and retrusion. The highest rated images represented the idealized facial profile and minor variations thereof; there was little change in perception between T1 and T2. Going through the process of orthognathic treatment does not appear to have any significant effect on patients' perceptions of facial profile attractiveness or the limits of mandibular sagittal deviation at which they would desire surgery. The clinician's information provision during treatment does not seem to unduly influence orthognathic patients and does not make them more critical of jaw deformities.
The nasolabial angle is defined as the angle between the line drawn through the midpoint of the nostril aperture and a line drawn perpendicular to the Frankfurt horizontal while intersecting subnasale. An arbitrary range of 90 to 120 degrees for the nasolabial angle is usually stated in the literature. The purpose of this study was to objectively define the ideal nasolabial angle.
Life-sized, lateral photographs of 10 men and 10 women who had undergone rhinoplasty performed by the senior surgeon were selected. The photographs were electronically altered to change the nasolabial angle by 4 degrees. For men and women, these angles were 90, 94, 98, 102, 106, and 110 degrees. Sixteen raters, including plastic surgery attending staff, residents, and office staff, selected their most aesthetically pleasing nasolabial angle.
Data analysis was done using the distribution of means of the first preference nasolabial angle values based on all 16 raters. The mean angle for ideal male nasolabial angle was 95.96 degrees ± 2.57 degrees (mean ± SD). The mean angle for women was 97.7 ± 2.32 degrees. Based on these standard deviations, the ideal nasolabial angle would be 93.4 to 98.5 degrees for men and 95.5 to 100.1 degrees for women.
The authors' results indicate a much closer range of nasolabial angle between men and women than previously reported in the literature. This study is the first of its type to objectively define the ideal aesthetic nasolabial angle. In addition, the ideal nasolabial angle for women was found to be less obtuse than previously thought.
In orthodontic diagnosis, facial symmetry is important. The aim of the present study was to analyse the perception of various degrees of facial asymmetry exhibited by carefully designed virtual three-dimensional (3D) material. Three groups of raters (30 orthodontists, 30 maxillofacial surgeons, and 30 laymen) rated, using a six-point scale, the degree of asymmetry of eight randomly presented 3D faces exhibiting incremental soft tissue alterations. The faces were created by gradually transforming the nose or chin in increments of 2 mm away from the computed symmetry plane. Differences between the groups in analysis of facial asymmetry, the rating of facial stimulus, and right and left facial asymmetry were determined using a t-test. The results demonstrated that raters' profession did not influence the point at which they identified asymmetry. Even laymen were able to detect asymmetries when located near the midline of 3D faces. All raters identified asymmetries of the nose as more negative than those of the same degree of the chin. A left-sided deviation of the nose along the facial symmetry plane lead to a more negative rating of facial appearance, whereas a right-sided deviation of the chin was rated as less attractive. Nasal architecture plays a crucial role in the perception of symmetry. These findings provide clinicians with a greater understanding of how faces are perceived, a process which is of particular interest in treating orthognathic patients, and those with congenital anomalies.
The aim of the study was to analyse the attractiveness of modifications of lip, nose or chin positions on profile photographs.
A profile digital photograph was randomly selected among pictures of 50 models participating to a beauty contest and then reviewed by 10 orthodontists and 10 laypersons who unanimously rated the profile as attractive. The original picture (O) was modified so as to create protrusion and retrusion of the lips of 2,4 and 6mm, thus generating 6 new pictures (O-6, O-4, O-2, O+2, O+4, O+6). From the original picture 7 new pictures were generated: (N) with the nose protruded of 6mm and its combinations with lips protrusion and retrusion (N-6, N-4, N-2, N+2, N+4, N+6). In the same way, picture (C) was created with the chin protruded of 6mm and 6 combinations of protruded chin with protruded and retruded lips were generated (C-6, C-4, C -2, C+2, C+4, C+6). 15 orthodontists and 15 laypersons were asked to rate all the 21 pictures on Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).
The original picture reported the highest VAS scores. Comparing the series "C" and "N", the pictures with Nose protrusion show higher VAS scores if compared with pictures with chin protrusion (p<.05). When nose or chin protrusion is present, the pictures that shows lip protrusion (N+2, C+2) reported higher VAS scores (p<.05).
In cases of nose or chin protrusion, a compensatory lip protrusion improves the profile attractiveness. Nose protrusion seems to be more tolerated than a similar amount of chin protrusion.
Thesis (M.S.D.)--Indiana University School of Dentistry, 1987. Vita. Includes abstract. Available also on microfilm, No. 735. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 76-80).
Thirty-one adults who had been treated with orthodontics alone for Class II malocclusions were recalled at least 5 years posttreatment to evaluate cephalometric and occlusal stability and also their satisfaction with treatment outcomes. The data were compared with similar data for long-term outcomes in patients with more severe Class II problems who had surgical correction with mandibular advancement, maxillary impaction, or a combination of those. In the camouflage patients, small mean changes in skeletal landmark positions occurred in the long term, but the changes were generally much smaller than in the surgery patients. The percentages of patients with a long-term increase in overbite were almost identical in the orthodontic and surgery groups, but the surgery patients were nearly twice as likely to have a long-term increase in overjet. The patients' perceptions of outcomes were highly positive in both the orthodontic and the surgical groups. The orthodontics-only (camouflage) patients reported fewer functional or temporomandibular joint problems than did the surgery patients and had similar reports of overall satisfaction with treatment, but patients who had their mandibles advanced were significantly more positive about their dentofacial images.
Influence of orthodontic treatment on facial soft tissues: A systematic review
- P Fudalej
- J Antoszewska-Smith
- A Lipiec
Fudalej, P., Antoszewska-Smith, J., & Lipiec, A. (2018). Influence of orthodontic treatment on facial soft
tissues: A systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist, 88(4), 559-569. doi: 10.2319/051717-353.1
Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile
- F Ghorbanyjavadpour
- V Rakhshan
Ghorbanyjavadpour, F., & Rakhshan, V. (2019). Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 155(6), 832-843.
The impact of nasolabial angle on facial aesthetics and patient satisfaction post-orthognathic surgery
- A J Holland
- S E Crane
- N E Atack
Holland, A. J., Crane, S. E., & Atack, N. E. (2016). The impact of nasolabial angle on facial aesthetics and
patient satisfaction post-orthognathic surgery. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 74(9),
1801-1810. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.04.019
The relationship between nasolabial angle and facial attractiveness: A perception-based study
- A Kamal
- H Rashid
- M Khan
Kamal, A., Rashid, H., & Khan, M. (2024). The relationship between nasolabial angle and facial
attractiveness: A perception-based study. Clinical Orthodontics and Research, 27(2), 89-98. doi:
10.1111/jocd.13456
May the best (looking) man win: The unconscious role of attractiveness in employment decisions
- E Toledano
Toledano, E. (2013). May the best (looking) man win: The unconscious role of attractiveness in
employment decisions.