Of the facial features that shape first impressions (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008), face width-to-height ratio (fWHR) has attracted much attention. It has even been claimed that people with wider faces are more likely to be elected.
Studies have shown that people instantly form opinions about others’ personality characteristics based on their facial appearance (Zebrowitz, 2017). First impressions have social and economic consequences (Sutherland et al., 2018), making it important to identify the features and configurations from which such judgments are formed (Lick & Johnson, 2018). Research has found that people are sensitive to differences in facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) (Todorov, 2017), a metric devised by Weston et al. (2007).
Since Carré and McCormick (2008) proposed that fWHR is associated with sexually dimorphic pubertal changes, much research has linked fWHR to testosterone and social dominance (Lefevre et al., 2014), with some studies finding that fWHR predicted dominance behaviour (Hahn et al., 2017; Haselhuhn et al., 2015). Whilst these findings have been strongly challenged (Todorov, 2017), there is evidence for fWHR predicting the perception of dominance (Carré et al., 2010; Lefevre & Lewis, 2013). This seemingly false perception (Eisenbruch et al., 2018; Kordsmeyer et al., 2019) has real-world implications; examples being that the perception of a dominant-looking face influences rank attainment (Mueller & Mazur, 1996), court sentencing (Wilson & Rule, 2016), and political voting (Olivola & Todorov, 2010).
A meta-analysis by Geniole et al. (2015) found that males have a higher fWHR than females. Whilst this has since been questioned (Köllner et al., 2018), most studies have focused exclusively on male faces. This is because a large majority of the evidence associating fWHR and dominance has been found with men (Batres et al., 2015; Kramer, 2016; Mileva et al. 2014), with an evolutionary theory being proposed that fWHR belongs to an evolved cueing system. Despite fWHR and dominance behaviour being unrelated (Eisenbruch et al., 2018; Kordsmeyer et al., 2019), theories remain that the perception of dominance results from an evolutionary mismatch (Li et al., 2018).
Weight (Coetzee et al., 2010) and attractiveness (Valentine et al., 2014) have been found to interact with fWHR and the perception of dominance, meaning that heavy looking faces should be excluded from study in addition to attractive or unattractive faces. Another complication is the presence and type of emotional facial expression (EFE). As Merlhoit et al.’s (2021) finding show, the effect of fWHR on perceived dominance can differ depending upon perceived emotion. Furthermore, it may be that dominance is an indirect effect of a higher fWHR being a cue for youth, as suggested by Durkee and Ayers (2021).
Many of the theories for fWHR being an evolved cue for social dominance – perhaps relating to human and non-human primates (Lefevre et al., 2015) - have been refuted, such as fWHR indicating testosterone levels and dominance behaviour (Eisenbruch et al., 2018; Kordsmeyer et al., 2019). However, as mentioned earlier, as Coetzee et al. (2010) discovered, people with a high body mass index score (BMI) have a higher fWHR. It could therefore be that fWHR is an unconscious cue for dominance through BMI. Whilst BMI may not influence actual dominance behaviour in humans, larger animals in a group tend to be more physically dominant (Hill & Hurtado, 1996). Indirect support for this idea comes from a recent study by Borras-Guevara et al. (2019) who found that the faces of men with a high BMI are perceived as being more violent. Perhaps higher fWHR faces are suggestive of physical strength which implies dominance.
Many differences between ‘wide’ and ‘narrow’ faces have been small or of no difference (Sato et al., 2021). Collectively, this supports Durkee and Ayers’ (2021) claim that a crude difference between low and high fWHRs are needed for a large effect to occur.
Most fWHR studies use non-manipulated faces, selecting people with naturally occurring low and high fWHRs. These other studies’ use of unaltered “natural” faces does not produce more accurate measurements (Kramer, 2016), while “natural” or non-manipulated faces also demand comparison between different people. Studies may be better to adopt different manipulations of the same faces.
Snap judgements based on fWHR can lead to false assumptions about behaviour that have consequences. In the case of dominance, these can be positive or negative depending on the context. For instance, high dominance has been perceived from both happy and angry faces (Hess et al., 2005) and it encompasses both admirable and unethical traits, such as ambition and cheating (Cheng et al, 2013). Therefore, there may be situations when the perception of dominance is beneficial and times when it isn’t. Intentions, after all, are communicated by context (Ekman & Cordaro, 2011). As the perceiver is the one determining how this dominance cue is interpreted, as opposed to it meaning anything about the person themselves, onus should be on the perceiver to ensure, where possible, that initial impressions are not being formed from faces alone. For example, photographs could be excluded from job applications.
Perceptions from photographs are understood to be influenced by stereotypes (Freeman et al., 2011), intergroup bias, and motivations (Ratner et al., 2014). Further research could consider the role of attitudes and context when exploring the effect of race on dominance ratings. In summation, fWHR is an area worthy of study but any differences are likely to be decoded or perceived rather than any real differences in the people themselves based on their fWHR.
REFERENCES
Batres, C., R, D. E., & Perrett, D. I. (2015). Influence of Perceived Height, Masculinity, and Age on Each Other and on Perceptions of Dominance in Male Faces. Perception (London), 44(11), 1293–1309.
Borras-Guevara, M. L., Batres, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2019). Fear of Violence among Colombian Women Is Associated with Reduced Preferences for High-BMI Men. Human Nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 30(3), 341–369.
Carre ́, J. M, McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Biological sciences, 275(1651), 2651–2656.
Carré, J. M., Morrissey, M. D., Mondloch, C. J., & McCormick, C. M. (2010). Estimating aggression from emotionally neutral faces: Which facial cues are diagnostic? Perception, 39 (3), 356-377.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.
Coetzee, V., Chen, J., Perrett, D. I., & Stephen, I. D. (2010). Deciphering faces: Quantifiable visual cues to weight, Perception, 39 (1), 51-61.
Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Alternative Measures of Maladaptive Personality Traits. Psychological Assessment, 28(12), 1561–1575.
Durkee, P. K., & Ayers, J. D. (2021). Is facial width-to-height ratio reliably associated with social inferences? Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(6), 583–592.
Eisenbruch, A. B., Lukaszewski, A. W., Simmons, Z. L., Arai, S., & Roney, J. R. (2018). Why the wide face? Androgen receptor gene polymorphism does not predict men’s facial width-to-height ratio, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 4(2), 138-151.
Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic, Emotion Review, 3 (4), 364-370.
Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein A., Scheutz, M., & Ambady, N. (2011b). Looking the part: social status cues shape race perception. PLoS One, 6, e25107.
Geniole, S. N, Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2015). Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS ONE 10.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
Hahn, T., Winter. N. R., Anderl, C., Notebaert, K., Wuttke, A. M., Clément, C. C., & Windmann, S. (2017). Facial width-to-height ratio differs by social rank across organizations, countries, and value systems. PLoS ONE 12.
Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (1996). Ache life history. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Haselhuhn, M. P., Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2015). Men's facial width-to-height ratio predicts aggression: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10.
Hess, U., Adams, R., & Kleck, R. (2005). Who may frown and who should smile? Dominance, affiliation, and the display of happiness and anger, Cognition & Emotion, 19 (4), 515-536.
Köllner, M. G., Janson, K. T., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2018). Commentary: Sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio in human skulls and faces: A meta-analytical approach, Frontiers in Endocrinology.
Kordsmeyer, T. L., Freund, D., Pita, S. R., Jünger, J., & Penke, L. (2019). Further evidence that facial width-to-height ratio and global facial masculinity are not positively associated with testosterone levels, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 5 (2), 117-130.
Kramer, R. S. S. (2016). Within-person variabilityin men’s facial width-to-height ratio. Peer Journal 4, e1801
Lefevre, C. E., & Lewis, G. J. (2013). Perceiving aggression from facial structure: Further evidence for a positive association with facial width-to-height ratio and masculinity, but not for moderation by self-reported dominance. European Journal of Personality, 28 (6), 530-537.
Lefevre, C. E., & Lewis, G. J. (2014). Perceiving aggression from facial structure: Further evidence for a positive association with facial width to height ratio and masculinity, but not for moderation by self-reported dominance. European Journal of Personality, 28(6), 530-537.
Lefevre, C., Wilson, V., Morton, F., Brosnan, S., Paukner, A., & Bates, T. (2014). Facial width-to-height ratio relates to alpha status and assertive personality in capuchin monkeys. Personality and individual differences, 58, 10.
Li, N. P., van Vugt, M., & Colarelli, S. M. (2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27 (1), 38-44.
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2018). Facial cues to race and gender interactively guide age judgments, Social Cognition, 36, 497-516.
Merlhiot, G., Mondillon, L., Méot, A., Dutheil, F., & Mermillod, M. (2021). Facial width-to-height ratio underlies perceived dominance on facial emotional expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 172, 110583.
Mileva, V. R., Cowan, M. L. Cobey, K. D., Knowles, K. K. , & Little, A. C. (2014). In the face of dominance: Self-perceived and other-perceived dominance are positively associated with facial-width-to-height ratio in men, Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 115-118.
Moeller, S. K., Lee, A. A., & Robinson, M. D. (2011). You never think about my feelings: interpersonal dominance as a predictor of emotion decoding accuracy, Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 11 (4), 816-824.
Mueller, U., Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as a predictor of later military rank. Soc. Forces, 74, 823-850
Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83-110.
Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087-11092
Ratner, K. G., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D. H., van Knippenberg, A., Amodio, D. M. (2014). Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 897.
Sato, S., Kinoshita, K., Sekino, K., Amano, H., Bizen, Y., & Matsuoka, H. (2021). The Association Between Facial Width-to-Height Ratio (fWHR) and Sporting Performances: Evidence From Professional Basketball Players in Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 714819.
Sutherland, C. A. M., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Chu, Y., Oldmeadow, J. A., & Young, A. W. (2018). Facial First Impressions Across Culture: Data-Driven Modeling of Chinese and British Perceivers’ Unconstrained Facial Impressions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 521–537.
Todorov, A. (2017). Face Value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events, Psychological Science, 25 (3), 806-811.
Weston, E. M., Friday, A. E., & Liò, P. (2007). Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the hominin face, PLoS One, 2 (8), e710.
Wilson, P., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Hypothetical sentencing decisions are associated with actual capital punishment outcomes: The role of facial trustworthiness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (4), 331-338.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (2017). First Impressions From Faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science: a Journal of the American Psychological Society, 26(3), 237–242.
Comments