Facial cues to physical strength are not always associated with facial masculinity: Comparative study of Europeans and Southern Siberians

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to compare morphometric patterns of facial sexual dimorphism with strength‐face relationship in members of two distinct populations of European and Central Asian origin: Russians and Tuvans.MethodsHandgrip strength (HGS) measures and facial photographs were collected from Russian (n = 233) and Tuvan (n = 187) men and women. We digitized 70 landmarks and semilandmarks on full‐face and 54 landmarks and semilandmarks on profile photos. This was done to capture variation in facial morphology. After that, we performed the shape regressions of landmarks' coordinates upon sex and HGS. Results were visualized in forms of thin‐plate deformation grids and geometric morphometric morphs.ResultsIn both populations, HGS was associated significantly with male facial shape only. In Russian men, strength‐related changes of facial shape were almost completely in direction of increase in male‐typicality. This was especially evident for the relative lower facial width, which was higher in men compared to women, as well as in stronger men compared to weaker ones. On the contrary, in Tuvans the lower face was relatively narrower in men than in women. However, the facial shape of strong Tuvan men was also associated with relatively wider lower face. Our results indicate that the effect of strength on facial shape is relatively independent of facial sexual dimorphism.ConclusionsOur findings clearly demonstrate that physical strength is associated with the shape of the lower part of male faces even in populations with a mismatched direction of lower face sexual dimorphism.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception of Facial Trustworthiness Based on Geometric Morphometric Morphs

“…Earlier studies conducted among representatives of European populations, also demonstrated that facial shape perceived as more trustworthy is female-like (Kleisner et al, 2013;Rostovtseva et al, 2023;Stirrat & Perrett, 2010). However, for Europeans such shape often has somewhat lower upper fWHR, and narrower outline of the lower face, which both correspond to more femalespecific facial features in European populations (Ekrami et al, 2021;Fink et al, 2005;Mezentseva et al, 2023;Rostovtseva et al, 2023). In Buryats, trustworthy-looking faces had less prolonged upper face, and thus had higher upper fWHR (although the differences in fWHR between trustworthy-and untrustworthy-looking Buryat faces did not reach statistical significance).…”

“…This caused further exclusion of female photographs from the analysis, and the rest of our study focused only on the male part of the Buryat sample, and only on the male-male facial perception. The lack of association between female facial shape and independent biological or behavioral parameters is a very common situation (Mezentseva et al, 2023;Rostovtseva et al, 2021a;. One of the possible reasons for that may be rooted in less general variability in female facial shape compared with male, due to variability in testosterone-mediated facial traits, which is much higher in men.…”

“…Studies conducted in populations of European descent demonstrate that trustworthy-looking faces have specific shapes, characterized by elevated eyebrows positions, more rounded shape of eyes fissures, and lower upper facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) (Kleisner et al, 2013;Rezlescu et al, 2012;Stirrat & Perrett, 2010;Todorov, Baron, & Oosterhof, 2008). These facial features partly correspond to female-like facial shape in these populations (Ekrami et al, 2021;Kleisner et al, 2021;Mezentseva et al, 2023). Indeed, a number of studies demonstrate that perceived facial trustworthiness is related to morphological facial femininity/masculinity in Europeans, with male-specific appearance generally eliciting less trust than female-specific (Rostovtseva et al, 2023;Stirrat & Perrett, 2010; although see Leger et al, 2023 for alternative results).…”

“…It is well established that facial appearance as well as patterns of facial sexual dimorphism vary across human populations Kleisner et al, 2021;Mezentseva et al, 2023). Literature data also suggest that cross-cultural facial perception differs to some extent from that of within-cultural.…”

Cross-cultural perception of strength, attractiveness, aggressiveness and helpfulness of Maasai male faces calibrated to handgrip strength

“…While patterns of sexual dimorphism vary among populations, the association between hand grip strength (HGS) and facial shape demonstrates cross-population consistency 25 – 27 . Notably, the link between facial shape and HGS is relatively stable, unidirectional and independent of facial masculinity.…”