Facial masculinity: morphology and its perception

Publication type Article
Status Published
Occupation: Master student, Department of ethnology
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Moscow, st. Mokhovaya, 11, bldg. 9
Occupation: Head of the Department of cross-cultural psychology and human ethology of the Institute of ethnology and anthropology (Russian academy of sciences), leading researcher of the educational and scientific center of the Russian state University for the Humani
Affiliation: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian state University for the Humanities
Address: 32a Leninsky prospekt
Occupation: Associate professor, research associate at the laboratory of cognitive psychology and mathematical psychology
Affiliation: Institute of psychology (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Address: st. Yaroslavskaya, 13, bldg. 1
Occupation: Associate Professor of the Department of General Psychology
Affiliation: Moscow Institute of psychoanalysis
Address: st. Lyusinovskaya, 13, bldg. 1
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 42 issue 2

Over the past 50 years, a huge number of studies of facial masculinity have been published. However, up-till now, the problem of the correlation between real biological masculinity and the perception of masculinity is the key one in the researches of the human face. Scientists are aimed to identify the features of recognition, perception and evaluation of masculine traits by respondents of the same and opposite sex in different contexts. In the first part of this article, there is an overview of the biological aspects of this problem. The two main evolutionary theories on which the interpretation many of masculinity researches are based: the Zack-Hamilton parasitic theory and the Folsted and Carter immunological competence theory. Anthropologists measure testosterone-depended facial traits, including features of masculinization in the prenatal period, signs of sexual dimorphism. The second part of the review provided the key results in the field of perceived masculinity and the problems of evaluation research. The inconsistency of results in the assessment of attractiveness and facial masculinity is explained not only by cross-cultural differences in the studied populations, but also by a number of factors that affect the perception and individual preferences of a person. These are technical factors of research-features of stimulus materials, and human factors. Individual factors include internal factors (hormones, self-esteem), context (evaluating the opposite or the same sex, for short-term or long-term relationships, as well as context), and visual experience.

Keywordsfacial masculinity, biological masculinity, perceived masculinity, evaluation of attractiveness
AcknowledgmentThis work was supported by Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research grant № 20-313-70005 (Mezentseva A.A., Ananyeva K.I.) and in accordance with the research plan of the Institute of Ethnology and anthropology RAS (Butovskaya M.L.).
Publication date04.04.2021
Number of characters22246
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 1549

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Butovskaya M.L. Antropologiya pola. Fryazino: Vek 2, 2013. (in Russian)

2. Butovskaya M.L., Mezenceva A.A. Obobshchennye portrety muzhchin masaev: vneshnyaya privlekatel'nost' i fizicheskaya sila po ocenkam ekspertov toj zhe populyacii. Lico cheloveka: poznanie, obshchenie, deyatel'nost', 2019. P. 497–505. (in Russian)

3. Lokk K.E. Komp'yuternye metody summirovaniya izobrazhenij. Obobshchennyj i usrednennyj portrety. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 23: Antropologiya, 2011. № 1. P. 37–44. (in Russian)

4. Berry D.S., Brownlow S. Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1989. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 266–279.

5. Bovet J., Barkat-Defradas M., Durand V., Faurie C., Raymond M. Women's attractiveness is linked to expected age at menopause. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2018. Vol. 31. № 2. P. 229–238.

6. Bowers R.I., Place S.S., Todd P.M., Penke L., Asendorpf J.B. Generalization in mate-choice copying in humans. Behavioral Ecology. 2012. Vol. 23. №. 1. P. 112–124.

7. Buss D.M., Schmitt D.P. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological review, 1993. Vol. 100. № 2. P. 204–232.

8. Butovskaya M.L., Windhager S., Karelin D., Mezentseva A., Shaefer K., Fink B. Associations of physical strength with facial shape in an African pastoralist society, the Maasai of Northern Tanzania. Plos one. 2018. Vol. 13. № 5. e0197738.

9. Cunningham M.R. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1986. Vol. 50. № 5. P. 925–935.

10. Cunningham M.R., Barbee A.P., Pike C.L. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1990. Vol. 59. № 1. P. 61–72.

11. DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Crawford J.R., Welling L.L.M., Little A.C. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2010. Vol. 277. № 1692. P. 2405–2410.

12. Docherty C., Lee A.J., Hahn A.C., DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C. Do more attractive women show stronger preferences for male facial masculinity?. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2020. Vol. 41. № 4. P. 312–317.

13. Enlow D.H., Hans M.G. Essentials of facial growth. WB Saunders Company, 1996.

14. Eva K.W., Wood T.J. Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Cmaj. 2006. Vol. 175. № 12. P. 1573–1574.

15. Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K., Bookstein F.L., Manning J.T. Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2005. Vol. 272. № 1576. P. 1995–2001.

16. Fink B., Penton-Voak I. Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2002. Vol. 11. № 5. P. 154–158.

17. Folstad I., Karter A.J. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist. 1992. Vol. 139. № 3. P. 603–622.

18. Hamilton W.D., Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982. Vol. 218. № 4570. P. 384–387.

19. Han C. Facial appearance as a cue of physical condition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow, 2018.

20. Hill S.E., Buss D.M. The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008. Vol. 34. № 5. P. 635–647.

21. Hone L.S.E., McCullough M.E. 2D: 4D ratios predict handgrip strength (but not hand grip endurance) in men (but not in women). Evolution and Human Behavior. 2012. Vol. 33. № 6. P. 780–789.

22. Hönekopp J., Manning J.T., Müller C. Digit ratio (2D: 4D) and physical fitness in males and females: Evidence for effects of prenatal androgens on sexually selected traits. Hormones and Behavior, 2006. Vol. 49. № 4. P. 545–549.

23. Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., Burriss R.P., Feinberg D.R. Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2007. Vol. 274. № 1611. P. 899–903.

24. Jones B.C., Little A.C., Boothroyd L., DeBruine L.M., Feinberg D.R., LawSmith M.J., Cornwell R.E., Moore F.R., Perrett D.I. Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Hormones and behaviour. 2005. Vol. 48. № 3. P. 283–290.

25. Lee A.J., Mitchem, D.G., Wright M.J., Martin N.G., Keller M.C., Zietsch B.P. Genetic factors that increase male facial masculinity decrease facial attractiveness of female relatives. Psychological Science. 2014. Vol. 25. № 2. P. 476–484.

26. Little A.C., Burriss R.P., Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Caldwell C.A. Social influence in human face preference: men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2008. Vol. 29. № 2. P. 140–146.

27. Little A.C., Burt D.M., Penton-Voak I.S., Perrett D.I. Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2001. Vol. 268. № 1462. P. 39-44.

28. Little A.C., Hancock P.J. The role of masculinity and distinctiveness on the perception of attractiveness in human male faces. British Journal of Psychology. 2002. Vol. 93. № 4. P. 451–464.

29. Manning J., Kilduff L., Cook C., Crewther B., Fink B. Digit ratio (2D: 4D): a biomarker for prenatal sex steroids and adult sex steroids in challenge situations. Frontiers in endocrinology. 2014. Vol. 5. P. 9.

30. Marcinkowska U.M., Rantala M.J., Lee A.J., Kozlov M.V., Aavik T., Cai H., ... Dixson B.J. Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions// Scientific Reports, 2019. Vol. 9. №1. P. 1–10.

31. Meindl K., Windhager S., Wallner B., Shaefer K. Second-to-fourth digit ratio and facial shape in boys: the lower the digit ratio, the more robust the face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012. Vol. 279. № 1737. P. 2457–2463.

32. Mitteroecker P., Windhager S., Müller G.B., Schaefer K. The morphometrics of “masculinity” in human faces. PLoS One, 2015.Vol. 10. № 2. P. e0118374.

33. Nowak-Kornicka J., Borkowska B., Pawłowski B. Masculinity and immune system efficacy in men. Plos one, 2020, Vol. 15. №12. e0243777.

34. Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I. Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2003. Vol. 117. № 3. P. 264.

35. Perrett D.I., Lee K.J., Penton-Voak I.S., Rowland D.R., Yoshikawa S., Burt D.M., Henzi S.P., Castles D.L., Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998. Vol. 398. № 6696. P. 884–887.

36. Rhodes G., Chan J., Zebrowitz L.A., Simmons L.W. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 2003. Vol. 9. P. S93–S95.

37. Ribeiro E., Neave N., Morais R.N., Kilduff L., Taylor S.R., Butovskaya M., Manning J.T. Digit ratio (2D: 4D), testosterone, cortisol, aggression, personality and hand-grip strength: Evidence for prenatal effects on strength. Early human development, 2016. Vol. 98. P. 21–25.

38. Roosenboom J., Indencleef K., Lee M.K., Hoskens H., White J.D., Liu D., ... Weinberg S.M. SNPs associated with testosterone levels influence human facial morphology. Frontiers in genetics. 2018. Vol. 9: 497.

39. Senior C., Barnes J., Jenkins R., Landau S., Phillips M.L., David A.S., Senior C. Attribution of social dominance and maleness to schematic faces. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 1999. Vol. 27. № 4. P. 331–337.

40. Thornhill R., Grammer K. The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 1999. Vol. 20. № 2. P. 105–120.

41. Windhager S., Bookstein F.L., Grammer K., Oberzaucher E., Said H., Slice D.E., Thorstensen T., Schaefer K. “Cars have their own faces”: cross-cultural ratings of car shapes in biological (stereotypical) terms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2012. Vol.33. № 2. P. 109–120.

42. Windhager S., Schaefer K., Fink B. Geometric morphometrics of male facial shape in relation to physical strength and perceived attractiveness, dominance, and masculinity. American Journal of Human Biology, 2011. Vol. 23. № 6. P. 805–814.

Система Orphus