Does the facial width-to-height ratio map onto variability in men's testosterone concentrations?

Bird, Brian M.; Jofré, Valeska S. Cid; Geniole, Shawn N.; Welker, Keith M.; Zilioli, Samuele; Maestripieri, Dario; Arnocky, Steven; Carré, Justin M.

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.03.004

Cited by 83 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 438 meta-analysis of the studies with only White samples (the only category which included more 439 than two studies) again found no evidence of the presence of sex differences in faces, N = 440 2037, k = 9, mean weighted d = -0.05, [-0.21, 0.11], p = . 559. In this case, the result is very 441 similar to that of White skulls (see Table 1).…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

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

Kramer

2017

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial width-to-height ratio (FWHR), defined as the width of the face divided by the upper facial height, is a cue to behaviour. Explanations for this link often involve the idea that FWHR is sexually dimorphic, resulting from intersexual selection pressures. However, few studies have considered sexual dimorphism in skulls since the original paper on this topic, and it is possible that different explanations may be required if faces show sex differences but skulls do not. Here, meta-analyses of skulls found that men did have larger FWHR than women, although this effect was small. However, after categorising samples by ethnicity and geographical origin, meta-analyses only found evidence of sex differences in East Asians, and again, this effect was small. A re-analysis of previous studies after excluding skull samples found little evidence of sexual dimorphism in faces. Again, considering ethnicities separately, I found no differences for White samples but a medium-sized effect with East Asians, although this was not statistically significant with only three samples. Taken together, I found no reason to consider FWHR as a sexually dimorphic measure in skulls or faces, at least not universally, and so accounts based upon this assumption need rethinking if researchers are to explain the relationship between FWHR and behaviour

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 67%

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

Kramer

2017

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the literature provides a proximate understanding of the pathway through which T affects fundamental frequency via androgen receptors on the vocal folds (Voelter et al, 2008), we have no similar leads on how T might affect fWHR. Moreover, adult fWHR is not associated with either prenatal (Whitehouse et al, 2015) or adult testosterone (Bird et al, 2016). Finally, it's not clear that fWHR is sexually dimorphic (Kramer et al, 2012; Lefevre et al, 2012; Ozener, 2012; Kramer, 2017; however, see Weston et al, 2007; Geniole et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response: Commentary: Facial Width-to-Height Ratio (fWHR) Is Not Associated with Adolescent Testosterone Levels

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Initial work indicated that fWHR might be sexually dimorphic (Weston, Friday, & Liò, 2007) and linked to pubertal testosterone in men (e.g., Lefevre, Lewis, Perrett, & Penke, 2013); however, more recent work has found little evidence for this putative relationship between fWHR and sex or testosterone (Bird et al, 2016;Hodges-Simeon, Sobraske, Samore, Gurven, & Gaulin, 2016;Kramer, Jones, & Ward, 2012;Lefevre, Etchells, Howell, Clark, & Penton-Voak, 2014;Özener, 2012), suggesting that high versus low fWHR is likely not a sex typical feature.…”

Section: Humanness From Faces: the Case For Facial Width-to-height Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity.

Deska

Lloyd

Hugenberg

2018

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ascription of mind to others is central to social cognition. Most research on the ascription of mind has focused on motivated, top-down processes. The current work provides novel evidence that facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) serves as a bottom-up perceptual signal of humanness. Using a range of well-validated operational definitions of humanness, we provide evidence across 5 studies that target faces with relatively greater fWHR are seen as less than fully human compared with their relatively lower fWHR counterparts. We then present 2 ancillary studies exploring whether the fWHR-to-humanness link is mediated by previously established fWHR-trait links in the literature. Finally, 3 additional studies extend this fWHR-humanness link beyond measurements of humanness, demonstrating that the fWHRhumanness link has consequences for downstream social judgments including the sorts of crimes people are perceived to be guilty of and the social tasks for which they seem helpful. In short, we provide evidence for the hypothesis that individuals with relatively greater facial width-to-height ratio are routinely denied sophisticated, humanlike minds.

show abstract

Does the facial width-to-height ratio map onto variability in men's testosterone concentrations?

Cited by 83 publications

References 57 publications

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

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

Response: Commentary: Facial Width-to-Height Ratio (fWHR) Is Not Associated with Adolescent Testosterone Levels

Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About