Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study contributes to the growing literature linking physical characteristics and behavioral tendencies by advancing the current debate on whether a person’s facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) predicts a variety of antisocial tendencies. Specifically, our large-scale study avoided the social-desirability bias found in self-reports of behavioral tendencies by capturing survey data not only from more than 1,000 business executives but also from evaluators who reported knowing the focal individuals well. With this improved research design, and after conducting a variety of analyses, we found very little evidence of fWHR predicting antisocial tendencies. In light of prior research linking fWHR to social perceptions of evaluators, our results are suggestive of an evolutionary mismatch, whereby a physical characteristic once tied to antisocial tendencies in ancestral environments is—in modern environments—not predictive of such behaviors but instead predictive of biased perceptions.

Keywords

evolutionary psychology facial features physical appearance social behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abràmoff

M. D.

Magalhães

P. J.

Ram

S. J.

(2004). Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics international, 11(7), 36–42.

Aczel

Palfi

Szollosi

Kovacs

Szaszi

Szecsi

. . . Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2018). Quantifying support for the null hypothesis in psychology: An empirical investigation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 357–366.

Alrajih

Ward

(2014). Increased facial width-to-height ratio and perceived dominance in the faces of the UK’s leading business leaders. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 153–161.

Anderl

Hahn

Schmidt

A. K.

Moldenhauer

Notebaert

Clément

C. C.

Windmann

(2016). Facial width-to-height ratio predicts psychopathic traits in males. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 99–101.

Atkins

P. W. B.

Wood

R. E.

(2002). Self- versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55, 871–904.

Atwater

Wang

Smither

J. W.

Fleenor

J. W.

(2009). Are cultural characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others’ ratings of leadership? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 876–886.

Babiak

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174–193.

Bird

B. M.

Cid Jofré

V. S.

Geniole

S. N.

Welker

K. M.

Zilioli

Maestripieri

. . . Carré

J. M.

(2016). Does the facial width-to-height ratio map onto variability in men’s testosterone concentrations? Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 392–398.

Campbell

(1991). Campbell Leadership Index (CLI). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

10.

Carré

J. M.

McCormick

C. M.

(2008). In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2651–2656.

11.

Carré

J. M.

McCormick

C. M.

Mondloch

C. J.

(2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 20, 1194–1198.

12.

Daly

Wilson

(1988). Homicide. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

13.

Deska

J. C.

Lloyd

E. P.

Hugenberg

(2018a). The face of fear and anger: Facial width-to-height ratio biases recognition of angry and fearful expressions. Emotion, 18, 453–464.

14.

Deska

J. C.

Lloyd

E. P.

Hugenberg

(2018b). Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 75–94.

15.

Efferson

Vogt

(2013). Viewing men’s faces does not lead to accurate predictions of trustworthiness. Scientific Reports, 3, Article 1047. doi:10.1038/srep01047

16.

Eisenbruch

A. B.

Lukaszewski

A. W.

Simmons

Z. L.

Arai

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, 138–151.

17.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

18.

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(7), Article e0132726. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132726

19.

Geniole

S. N.

Keyes

A. E.

Carré

J. M.

McCormick

C. M.

(2014). Fearless dominance mediates the relationship between the facial width-to-height ratio and willingness to cheat. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 59–64.

20.

Geniole

S. N.

MacDonell

E. T.

McCormick

C. M.

(2017). The threat premium in economic bargaining. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 572–582.

21.

Goetz

S. M.

Shattuck

K. S.

Miller

R. M.

Campbell

J. A.

Lozoya

Weisfeld

G. E.

Carré

J. M.

(2013). Social status moderates the relationship between facial structure and aggression. Psychological Science, 24, 2329–2334.

22.

Goodwin

G. P.

Piazza

Rozin

(2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168.

23.

Haselhuhn

M. P.

Wong

E. M.

(2012). Bad to the bone: Facial structure predicts unethical behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 279, 571–576.

24.

Kosinski

(2017). Facial width-to-height ratio does not predict self-reported behavioral tendencies. Psychological Science, 28, 1675–1682.

25.

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, 530–537.

26.

Lefevre

C. E.

Lewis

G. J.

Perrett

D. I.

Penke

(2013). Telling facial metrics: Facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 273–279.

27.

N. P.

van Vugt

Colarelli

S. M.

(2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 38–44.

28.

Nelson

L. D.

Simmons

Simonsohn

(2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534.

29.

Stavrova

Ehlebracht

(2016). Cynical beliefs about human nature and income: Longitudinal and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 116–132.

30.

Stirrat

Perrett

D. I.

(2010). Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 21, 349–354.

31.

Stirrat

Stulp

Pollet

T. V.

(2012). Male facial width is associated with death by contact violence: Narrow-faced males are more likely to die from contact violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 551–556.

32.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

Morey

R. D.

Lee

M. D.

(2016). Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 169–176.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.72 MB

A Case of Evolutionary Mismatch? Why Facial Width-to-Height Ratio May Not Predict Behavioral Tendencies

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material