CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsSurvey Methodology and NonresponseMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

The Virtual Focus Group: A Modern Methodology for Facial Attractiveness Rating

Popenko, Natalie A., Devcic, Zlatko, Karimi, Koohyar, Wong, Brian J. F.·2012·Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
DOI 10.1097/prs.0b013e31825dcb48
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditional focus groups have been essential to facial aesthetics research. Although they are currently the criterion standard in acquiring facial attractiveness ratings, they retain many shortcomings. This study's objectives were twofold: to determine whether attractiveness scores obtained from a social network site correlate with those from the traditional focus group method; and to evaluate whether this methodology could be a superior tool in evaluating facial attractiveness. METHODS: Forty facial portraits were rated for attractiveness scores using three different subject recruitment methods: traditional live focus groups (n = 123 raters), Internet-based rating (n = 857 raters), and a novel method using a combination of focus groups and a social network site (i.e., Facebook) (n = 1775 raters). Each facial image was scored on a 10-point Likert scale. Regression analysis compared each approach to the traditional method. RESULTS: The methods varied in terms of data accrual time, rater demographics/ages, researcher's accessibility, necessity for subject incentives, researcher labor, and rater effort/accuracy. A strong correlation (0.922) existed between the online social network-based rating and focus group method. A minimum of 992 raters achieved stabilization of the attractiveness scores using social network-based rating. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant advantages to using a social network site-based method over both Internet-based rating and traditional focus groups for evaluating facial attractiveness. The main benefits include exponential increase in raters, minimized researcher time/labor, rater scores comparable to those of the focus group method, nonnecessity of rater monetary incentives, and selectable demographics/ages of raters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/prs.0b013e31825dcb48

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Popenko, N. A., Devcic, Z., Karimi, K., & Wong, B. J. F.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
ORCID
Venue
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2012-09
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
455e-461e
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/prs.0b013e31825dcb48
OpenAlex
W2001957271
Cited by
14
References
20
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, Irvine
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
facial attractiveness, facial aesthetics, social network sites, Facebook, focus groups
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Esthetics, Face, Female, Humans, Regression Analysis, Focus Groups, Internet, Young Adult, Social Networking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review