Coalitional Utility of Formidable Men as a Function of Perceived Humor Styles

Abstract

Perceivers use men’s facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) in coalitional decision-making, weighing the costs and benefits associated with formidable men based upon this cue. Nonetheless, inferences of coalitional utility remain multimodal. Interpersonal signals connoting affiliative intent could implicate formidable men as valuable when otherwise seen as liabilities in these coalitional processes. This study considers this possibility with a replication and extension of previous research indicating the contexts in which high-fWHR men are (un)desirable by considering signals of affiliative and aggressive intent through humor. We recruited a nationally representative U.S. adult sample (N = 1,385) to evaluate a series of high-fWHR and low-fWHR male targets described as employing aggressive or affiliative humor. Participants indicated the effectiveness of the targets in high-status roles (i.e., intergroup representation and intragroup enforcement) and tasks that require physical strength or mental finesse to solve complex problems. High-fWHR men were perceived as more effective in tasks requiring strength. The inferred costs of formidability for tasks requiring finesse were mitigated when high-fWHR men used affiliative humor. Low-fWHR men and affiliative humorists were further preferred for diplomacy. Results reflect the importance of multimodal inferences in coalition decision-making.