Testosterone, facial and vocal masculinization and low environmentalism in men

Landry, Nicholas; Desrochers, Jessica; Hodges‐Simeon, Carolyn R.; Arnocky, Steven

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.007

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Facial masculinity also interacted with self-reported moral disgust for attractiveness ratings, such that women's attractiveness ratings of masculine faces increased with increasing moral disgust. This replicated a past study that also reported a positive association between moral disgust and women's attractiveness ratings of male masculine facial features [86] and potentially reflects preferences for males with greater political conservatism [131,132]. However, we note that our study was very highly powered and the size of this effect was small, therefore despite statistical significance, our finding may have limited biological significance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

A multivariate analysis of women's mating strategies and sexual selection on men's facial morphology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

A multivariate analysis of women's mating strategies and sexual selection on men's facial morphology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In light of the individual variation within each sex, which tends to be larger than variation between the sexes (e.g., Archer, 2019 ; Del Giudice, 2019 ; Landry et al, 2019 ; Luoto et al, 2019a , b ), future studies should analyze whether there are intrasexual differences on masculinity–femininity continuum that mirror the sexually dimorphic tendency in leadership efficacy. After all, cues of masculinity–femininity can be more influential than actual sex cues at predicting perceptions of leadership ( Spisak et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary–Developmental Origins

Luoto

Varella

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global societal, economic, and social upheaval unseen in living memory. There have been substantial cross-national differences in the kinds of policies implemented by political decision-makers to prevent the spread of the virus, to test the population, and to manage infected patients. Among other factors, these policies vary with politicians’ sex: early findings indicate that, on average, female leaders seem more focused on minimizing direct human suffering caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while male leaders implement riskier short-term decisions, possibly aiming to minimize economic disruptions. These sex differences are consistent with broader findings in psychology, reflecting women’s stronger empathy, higher pathogen disgust, health concern, care-taking orientation, and dislike for the suffering of other people—as well as men’s higher risk-taking, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and focus on financial indicators of success and status. This review article contextualizes sex differences in pandemic leadership in an evolutionary framework. Evolution by natural selection is the only known process in nature that organizes organisms into higher degrees of functional order, or counteracts the unavoidable disorder that would otherwise ensue, and is therefore essential for explaining the origins of human sex differences. Differential sexual selection and parental investment between males and females, together with the sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain, drive sex differences in cognition and behavioral dispositions, underlying men’s and women’s leadership styles and decision-making during a global pandemic. According to the sexually dimorphic leadership specialization hypothesis, general psychobehavioral sex differences have been exapted during human evolution to create sexually dimorphic leadership styles. They may be facultatively co-opted by societies and/or followers when facing different kinds of ecological and/or sociopolitical threats, such as disease outbreaks or intergroup aggression. Early evidence indicates that against the invisible viral foe that can bring nations to their knees, the strategic circumspection of empathic feminine health “worriers” may bring more effective and humanitarian outcomes than the devil-may-care incaution of masculine risk-taking “warriors”.

show abstract

“…This decrease happens in a “spurt” [ 87 ]. By adulthood, the sex difference in fundamental frequency is over 5 standard deviations [ 118 ], and may be associated with variation in testosterone ([ 135 ]; however, see Arnocky et al [ 136 ] and Landry et al, [ 137 ]). Lower pitched voices are rated as more attractive-sounding by women and more dominant-sounding by both sexes [ 138 , 139 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual selection researchers have traditionally focused on adult sex differences; however, the schedule and pattern of sex-specific ontogeny can provide insights unobtainable from an exclusive focus on adults. Recently, it has been debated whether facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR; bi-zygomatic breadth divided by midface height) is a human secondary sexual characteristic (SSC). Here, we review current evidence, then address this debate using ontogenetic evidence, which has been under-explored in fWHR research. Facial measurements were collected from 3D surface images of males and females aged 3 to 40 (Study 1; US European-descent, n = 2449), and from 2D photographs of males and females aged 7 to 21 (Study 2; Bolivian Tsimane, n = 179), which were used to calculate three fWHR variants (which we call fWHRnasion, fWHRstomion, and fWHRbrow) and two other common facial masculinity ratios (facial width-to-lower-face-height ratio, fWHRlower, and cheekbone prominence). We test whether the observed pattern of facial development exhibits patterns indicative of SSCs, i.e., differential adolescent growth in either male or female facial morphology leading to an adult sex difference. Results showed that only fWHRlower exhibited both adult sex differences as well as the classic pattern of ontogeny for SSCs—greater lower-face growth in male adolescents relative to females. fWHRbrow was significantly wider among both pre- and post-pubertal males in the Bolivian Tsimane sample; post-hoc analyses revealed that the effect was driven by large sex differences in brow height, with females having higher placed brows than males across ages. In both samples, all fWHR measures were inversely associated with age; that is, human facial growth is characterized by greater relative elongation in the mid-face and lower face relative to facial width. This trend continues even into middle adulthood. BMI was also a positive predictor of most of the ratios across ages, with greater BMI associated with wider faces. Researchers collecting data on fWHR should target fWHRlower and fWHRbrow and should control for both age and BMI. Researchers should also compare ratio approaches with multivariate techniques, such as geometric morphometrics, to examine whether the latter have greater utility for understanding the evolution of facial sexual dimorphism.

show abstract

Testosterone, facial and vocal masculinization and low environmentalism in men

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

A multivariate analysis of women's mating strategies and sexual selection on men's facial morphology

A multivariate analysis of women's mating strategies and sexual selection on men's facial morphology

Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary–Developmental Origins

Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About