The importance of face-shape masculinity for perceptions of male dominance depends on study design

Abstract

Dominance perceptions play an important role in social interactions. Although many researchers have proposed that masculine face-shape is an important cue for dominance perceptions, evidence for this claim has come almost exclusively from studies that assessed perceptions of experimentally manipulated face images using two-alternative forced-choice paradigms. Consequently, we investigated the role of masculine shape characteristics in perceptions of men’s facial dominance (1) using the two-alternative forced-choice method and (2) when unmanipulated face images were rated for dominance and shape masculinity was measured from face images. Although we observed large positive effects of masculinity on dominance perceptions when we used the two-alternative forced-choice method (Cohen’s d = 2.51), the effect of masculinity on dominance perceptions was not significant and considerably smaller when unmanipulated face images were rated and shape masculinity was measured from face images (Cohen’s d = 0.44). This same pattern was observed when faces were rated separately for physical and social dominance. Collectively, these results suggest that previous research using the two-alternative forced-choice method and experimentally manipulated images may have overstated the importance of face-shape masculinity for perceptions of men’s dominance and that shape masculinity may be less important for dominance assessments of natural (i.e., unmanipulated) face images. This research was supported by ESRC grant ES/X000249/1 awarded to BCJ and by ZintegrUJ travel grant POWR.03.05.00-00-Z309/17-00 awarded to UMM. For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

When he smiles: Attractiveness preferences for male faces expressing emotions

“…For instance, when comparing the two-alternative forced-choice method to subjective ratings of attractiveness and objective measurements of facial shape characteristics, differences in outcomes have been observed (Jones & Jaeger, 2019; Lee et al, 2021; Scott et al, 2010). In a more recent study by Dong et al (2023), questions were raised about the predictive value of masculine shape characteristics and their role in determining dominance, as different perceptions of dominance were obtained based on the methodological approach used to assess shape-manipulated images.…”

Assessing the roles of symmetry, prototypicality, and sexual dimorphism of face shape in health perceptions

“…Sexual dimorphism of face shape was objectively measured for each of the 50 male and 50 female face images using the facefuns package (Holzleitner & DeBruine, 2021) in R (R Core Team, 2021), which implements shape analysis of images that have been delineated with standard landmarks. This method has been used in many previous studies to assess sexual dimorphism of face shape (e.g., Cai et al, 2019;Dong et al, 2023;Holzleitner et al, 2019;Leger et al, 2023;Komori et al, 2011). Shape components were first derived from Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of 132 Procrustes-aligned landmark points (see Holzleitner et al, 2019 for a diagram showing these facial landmarks) on each of the 50 male and 50 female face images.…”

“…However, several recent studies have reported that findings for social judgments of faces that were obtained using this method are often not observed (or, if observed, have considerably smaller effect sizes) in studies using natural face images and objective assessments of physical characteristics of faces (Dong et al, 2023;Jones & Jaeger, 2019;Jones et al, 2023;Lee et al, 2021;Leger et al, 2023;Scott et al, 2010). Given such results, many researchers have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of experimentally manipulated face images for studying social judgments of faces (Dong et al, 2023;Jones & Jaeger, 2019;Jones et al, 2023;Leger et al, 2023;Scott et al, 2010). Nonetheless, Boothroyd et al (2007) reported that experimentally manipulated masculinity did not influence the perceived health of male faces and also reported that masculinity and health ratings of natural male faces were not significantly correlated.…”

“…Second, many studies have assessed symmetry, prototypicality, and sexual dimorphism of faces using perceptual ratings, rather than objective measures of these characteristics (i.e., employed ratings of symmetry, prototypicality, or sexual dimor-phism, rather than facial-metric assessments of these characteristics, e.g., Gray & Boothroyd, 2012;Foo et al, 2017;Rhodes et al, 2003). Using perceptual ratings to assess physical characteristics of faces in this way may be somewhat problematic, since such ratings can be influenced by factors other than the physical characteristic researchers wish to assess (see, e.g., Bartlome & Lee, 2023;Dong et al, 2023;Scott et al, 2010). However, evidence that this issue necessarily has a material effect on the conclusions made from studies employing both approaches (i.e., studies that assessed face shape using both perceptual ratings and objective measures and analysed these two types of assessment separately) is somewhat mixed.…”

“…Third, many studies have tested for possible links between health perceptions of faces and symmetry, prototypicality, or sexual dimorphism using face stimuli in which these physical characteristics were experimentally manipulated using computer graphics methods (e.g., Alharbi et al, 2020;Jones et al, 2001;Penton-Voak et al, 2001). However, several recent studies have reported that findings for social judgments of faces that were obtained using this method are often not observed (or, if observed, have considerably smaller effect sizes) in studies using natural face images and objective assessments of physical characteristics of faces (Dong et al, 2023;Jones & Jaeger, 2019;Jones et al, 2023;Lee et al, 2021;Leger et al, 2023;Scott et al, 2010). Given such results, many researchers have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of experimentally manipulated face images for studying social judgments of faces (Dong et al, 2023;Jones & Jaeger, 2019;Jones et al, 2023;Leger et al, 2023;Scott et al, 2010).…”