A Lack of Sexual Dimorphism in Width-to-Height Ratio in White European Faces Using 2D Photographs, 3D Scans, and Anthropometry

Abstract

Facial width-to-height ratio has received a great deal of attention in recent research. Evidence from human skulls suggests that males have a larger relative facial width than females, and that this sexual dimorphism is an honest signal of masculinity, aggression, and related traits. However, evidence that this measure is sexually dimorphic in faces, rather than skulls, is surprisingly weak. We therefore investigated facial width-to-height ratio in three White European samples using three different methods of measurement: 2D photographs, 3D scans, and anthropometry. By measuring the same individuals with multiple methods, we demonstrated high agreement across all measures. However, we found no evidence of sexual dimorphism in the face. In our third study, we also found a link between facial width-to-height ratio and body mass index for both males and females, although this relationship did not account for the lack of dimorphism in our sample. While we showed sufficient power to detect differences between male and female width-to-height ratio, our results failed to support the general hypothesis of sexual dimorphism in the face.

Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity.

“…Initial work indicated that fWHR might be sexually dimorphic (Weston, Friday, & Liò, 2007) and linked to pubertal testosterone in men (e.g., Lefevre, Lewis, Perrett, & Penke, 2013); however, more recent work has found little evidence for this putative relationship between fWHR and sex or testosterone (Bird et al, 2016;Hodges-Simeon, Sobraske, Samore, Gurven, & Gaulin, 2016;Kramer, Jones, & Ward, 2012;Lefevre, Etchells, Howell, Clark, & Penton-Voak, 2014;Özener, 2012), suggesting that high versus low fWHR is likely not a sex typical feature.…”

Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men?

“…Of particular note, fWHR has been shown to correlate positively with male strength (Windhager, Schaefer, & Fink, 2011), fighting ability (Zilioli et al, 2015), aggression (Haselhuhn, Ormiston, & Wong, 2015), and perceived dominance (Mileva, Cowan, Cobey, Knowles, & Little, 2014). However, unlike the measure of facial masculinity used by Penton-Voak et al (2001) and Pound et al (2009), fWHR is not reliably sexually dimorphic (Kramer, Jones, & Ward, 2012;Lefevre et al, 2012;Özener, 2012). Moreover, evidence of an association between fWHR and testosterone levels is equivocal (Hodges-Simeon et al, 2016;Lefevre, Lewis, Perrett, & Penke, 2013).…”

Not Only the Lonely—How Men Explicitly and Implicitly Evaluate the Attractiveness of Sex Robots in Comparison to the Attractiveness of Women, and Personal Characteristics Influencing This Evaluation

“…In a similar study conducted by Hewig et al, in which participants were presented with pictures of dressed women and men, the male participants' initial look was at the face of women, followed by fixation on the breasts [21]. The face is another important influence on attractiveness ratings, as it transmits a variety of information including sociodemographic information such as gender or age, but also information on emotions and physical health [22][23][24]. Familiarity has been shown to be another important aspect for attractiveness ratings, as we react positively to known things [25].…”