Facial Width-to-Height Ratio Does Not Predict Self-Reported Behavioral Tendencies

Abstract

A growing number of studies have linked facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) with various antisocial or violent behavioral tendencies. However, those studies have predominantly been laboratory based and low powered. This work reexamined the links between fWHR and behavioral tendencies in a large sample of 137,163 participants. Behavioral tendencies were measured using 55 well-established psychometric scales, including self-report scales measuring intelligence, domains and facets of the five-factor model of personality, impulsiveness, sense of fairness, sensational interests, self-monitoring, impression management, and satisfaction with life.The findings revealed that fWHR is not substantially linked with any of these self-reported measures of behavioral tendencies, calling into question whether the links between fWHR and behavior generalize beyond the small samples and specific experimental settings that have been used in past fWHR research.Keywords: facial width-to-height ratio, fWHR, five-factor model, personality, intelligence, satisfaction with life, impulsiveness, sense of fairness, impression management, self-monitoring, sensational interests Received 2/8/17; Revision accepted 5/26/17Facial Width-to-Height Ratio Does Not Predict Self-Reported Behavioral Tendencies A growing number of studies have linked facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR; Weston, Friday, & Liò, 2007) with various antisocial or violent behavioral tendencies in men, but not in women. For example, Hehman, Leitner, Deegan, and Gaertner (2013) found that fWHR correlated positively with explicit (but not implicit) racial prejudice in a sample of 70 males, r = .21, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [-.03, .43], p = .04, one-tailed. Stirrat and Perrett (2012) found that broader-faced males were more self-sacrificing when competing with other groups, n = 15, r = .53, 95% CI = [.02, .82], p = .04, but were less self-sacrificing when competing within their own group, n = 17, r = -.50, 95% CI = [-.79, -.03], p = .04. In another study, Stirrat and Perrett (2010) found that wider-faced men (but not women) were more likely to exploit the trust of others in a trust game, n = 36, r = -.40, 95% CI = [-.64, -.08], p = .015, but were not less trusting themselves. Haselhuhn, Wong, Ormiston, Inesi, and Galinsky (2014) reported a positive correlation between facial width and negotiation success among men, n = 23 dyads, b = 0.43, p = .04. Broader-faced men, but not women, have also been shown to be more likely to cheat when reporting dice rolls, n = 146, t(144) = -1.97, p = .05 (Geniole, Keyes, Carré, & McCormick, 2014); to deceive in a negotiation game, n = 51, b = 7.17, p = .04 (Haselhuhn & Wong, 2012); and to adopt an aggressive strategy in a computer game, n = 37, F(2, 34) = 3.6, p = .04 (Carré & McCormick, 2008). Studies have also shown that fWHR is positively correlated with penalty minutes incurred by male hockey players, n = 21, r = .54, 95% CI = [.14, .79], p = .01 (Carré & McCormick, 2008) and with male and female alpha status in capuchin monkey...

The effects of facial attractiveness and trustworthiness in online peer-to-peer markets

“…Next, we used the Face++ application (Megvii Inc., http://www.faceplusplus.com) to classify the hosts' race, age, and smile intensity. Face++ is a commercial algorithm that has been used in previous research to extract various indicators from large numbers of face images (Edelman, Luca, & Svirsky, 2017;Kosinski, 2017). For example, Edelman and colleagues (2017) used Face++ to classify the race of Airbnb guests.…”

Visual features contribute differently to preferences for different item categories

“…The nose to eyes distance was shown to correlate with preferences in an inverted U-shape (Pallett et al, 2010), whilst the Midface range (corresponding with this feature) had no correlation with preference (Cunningham, 1986). For fWHR, a recent large sample study claimed for a null effect for this feature (Kosinski, 2017).…”

“…The width to height ratio (fWHR) (Weston, Friday, & Liò, 2007), was originally proposed as an evolutionary sexual marker (being greater for males) and was associated with aggressive and unethical behavior (e.g. Geniole, Keyes, Carré, & McCormick, 2014 but see Kosinski, 2017). Two other studies showed that changing the distance between local face elements (between the two eyes and between the eyes and nose) had a meaningful effect on preferences (Pallett, Link, & Lee, 2010).…”

Automated classification of demographics from face images: A tutorial and validation

“…Automated procedures offer a new solution to the classification of face images. While automated face classification has received considerable attention in the computer science literature, social scientists have only recently begun to utilize the technology (e.g., Edelman et al, 2017;Kosinski, 2017;Rhue & Clark, 2016). Crucially, relying on an algorithm allows researchers to work with large data sets and reduces the time spent on data collection.…”

“…We provided first evidence for their validity here, but future studies need to test the algorithms under different conditions. For example, while we tested the algorithms' accuracy in classifying variable images taken from the internet, future studies should look at accuracy levels for profile photos from Facebook or Airbnb, which have been used in recent research (Edelman et al, 2017;Jaeger, Sleegers, Evans, Stel, & van Beest, 2018;Kosinski, 2017 , 2017). This approach would also address a limitation of the present study in which the APIs' classifications of some dimensions were compared against averaged ratings by humans rather than self-reports.…”