The facial width‐to‐height ratio determines interpersonal distance preferences in the observer

Abstract

Facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is correlated with a number of aspects of aggressive behavior in men. Observers appear to be able to assess aggressiveness from male fWHR, but implications for interpersonal distance preferences have not yet been determined. This study utilized a novel computerized stop-distance task to examine interpersonal space preferences of female participants who envisioned being approached by a man; men's faces photographed posed in neutral facial expressions were shown in increasing size to mimic approach. We explored the effect of the men's fWHR, their behavioral aggression (measured previously in a computer game), and women's ratings of the men's aggressiveness, attractiveness, and masculinity on the preferred interpersonal distance of 52 German women. Hierarchical linear modelling confirmed the relationship between the fWHR and trait judgements (ratings of aggressiveness, attractiveness, and masculinity). There were effects of fWHR and actual aggression on the preferred interpersonal distance, even when controlling statistically for men's and the participants' age. Ratings of attractiveness, however, was the most influential variable predicting preferred interpersonal distance. Our results extend earlier findings on fWHR as a cue of aggressiveness in men by demonstrating implications for social interaction. In conclusion, women are able to accurately detect aggressiveness in emotionally neutral facial expressions, and adapt their social distance preferences accordingly.

Listening to a conversation with aggressive content expands the interpersonal space

“…Our result is consistent with previous findings from the social psychology literature [ 61 , 62 ]. For example, Lieberz and colleagues [ 61 ] showed that women detect implicit cues of aggressiveness in male faces and adjust their interpersonal distance behaviour accordingly. Moreover, a recent study found an increased interpersonal space when an angry confederate (virtual character) approached participants [ 62 ].…”

Facial Structure and Achievement Drive: Evidence from Financial Analysts

“…[], Geniole and McCormick [], Lieberz et al. [], Ormiston, Wong, and Haselhuhn []) . These two limitations of our study, in our view, represent potential opportunities for future research.…”

Facial width-to-height ratio differs by social rank across organizations, countries, and value systems

“…Taken together, there is ample evidence suggesting that wider-faced men are indeed perceived differently. The perceptions they trigger, and the reactions they receive, may in turn shape their counter-reactions and expectations [ 4 , 43 ]. These are the kinds of recursive processes that typically arise from stereotyping.…”

“…Thus, it may be more appropriate to think of fWHR-related traits in terms of social dominance and competitiveness, or perhaps “strategic” and “flexible” forms of prosociality (pursuing social status rather than ultimately prosocial goals) than in terms antisocial traits. Such understanding may help to resolve the paradox that men with high fWHR are perceived and described as successful [ 13 , 18 ] despite the evidence of their higher aggressive potential [ 1 – 4 ]. Nonetheless, for any such multi-faceted and context-dependent behavioral traits, it will be much harder for observers to find a reliable physical marker than it were for a consistently salient and unidimensional attribute such as “aggression” [ 41 ].…”

“…Empirical studies have consistently linked the measure with antisocial behavioral tendencies in a large number of well-controlled studies. For example, men with high fWHR were described to be more aggressive [ 1 – 4 ], more fearless-dominant [ 5 ], higher in psychopathy [ 6 ], and less likely to die from direct physical violence than narrower-faced males [ 7 ]. Wider faced men are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gains, more readily exploit the trust of others, and more often explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation [ 5 , 8 – 10 ].…”