Abstract
The facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio), is a sexually dimorphic metric associated with actual aggression in men and with observers' judgements of aggression in male faces. Here, we sought to determine if observers' judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio in female faces. In three studies, participants rated photographs of female and male faces on aggression, femininity, masculinity, attractiveness, and nurturing. In Studies 1 and 2, for female and male faces, judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio even when other cues in the face related to masculinity were controlled statistically. Nevertheless, correlations between the face ratio and judgements of aggression were smaller for female than for male faces (F1,36 = 7.43, p = 0.01). In Study 1, there was no significant relationship between judgements of femininity and of aggression in female faces. In Study 2, the association between judgements of masculinity and aggression was weaker in female faces than for male faces in Study 1. The weaker association in female faces may be because aggression and masculinity are stereotypically male traits. Thus, in Study 3, observers rated faces on nurturing (a stereotypically female trait) and on femininity. Judgements of nurturing were associated with femininity (positively) and masculinity (negatively) ratings in both female and male faces. In summary, the perception of aggression differs in female versus male faces. The sex difference was not simply because aggression is a gendered construct; the relationships between masculinity/femininity and nurturing were similar for male and female faces even though nurturing is also a gendered construct. Masculinity and femininity ratings are not associated with aggression ratings nor with the face ratio for female faces. In contrast, all four variables are highly inter-correlated in male faces, likely because these cues in male faces serve as “honest signals”.
Highlights
Social interactions are better negotiated when we accurately gauge the behavioural propensities of others
The correlations between the face ratio and estimates of aggression of observers were smaller for female faces than for males faces, and fewer of the correlations of individual observers rating female faces were significant compared to observers rating male faces
The face ratio may not be an ‘‘honest signal’’ in women, and the association between the face ratio and ratings of aggression may reflect a generalization of a cue that may be meaningful in male faces to female faces
Summary
Social interactions are better negotiated when we accurately gauge the behavioural propensities of others. For example, readily convey a person’s emotional status and behavioural intentions [1,2]. The ability to perceive facial expressions is adaptive in that it can facilitate the appropriate approach or avoidance behaviour [3]. There is evidence that accurate perception of traits is possible from photographs of emotionally neutral faces: Significant correlations were found between observers’ perceptions of and actual scores for ‘‘cheating’’ behaviour (in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game [4]), for men’s interest in infants [5], for men’s strength [6], trustworthiness [7], history of violence [8], and aggressiveness [9]. A facial metric that may be involved in such judgements, judgements of aggression, is the facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio) [10])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
