Biosocial impact of facial dominance and sex-typicality is well-evidenced in various human groups. It remains unclear, though, whether perceived sex-typicality and dominance can be consistently predicted from sexually dimorphic facial features across populations. Using a combination of multidimensional Bayesian approach and geometric morphometrics, we explored associations between perceived dominance, perceived sex-typicality, measured sexual shape dimorphism, and skin colour in a European and an African population. Unlike previous studies, we investigated the effect of facial variation due to shape separately from variation due to visual cues not related to shape in natural nonmanipulated stimuli. In men, perceived masculinity was associated with perceived dominance in both populations. In European women higher perceived femininity was, surprisingly, likewise positively associated with perceived dominance. Both shape and non-shape components participate in the constitution of facial sex-typicality and dominance. Skin colour predicted perceived sex-typicality in Africans but not in Europeans. Members of each population probably use different cues to assess sex-typicality and dominance. Using our methods, we found no universal sexually dimorphic scale predicting human perception of sex-typicality and dominance. Unidimensional understanding of sex-typicality thus seems problematic and should be applied with cautions when studying perceived sex-typicality and its correlates.

Center for Theoretical Study Charles University and Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czech Republic

Department of Communication and Development Studies University of Bamenda Bamenda Cameroon

Department of Philosophy and History of Science Faculty of Science Charles University Viničná 7 128 44 Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

de Waal-Andrews W, Gregg AP, Lammers J. When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2015;54:445–464. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12093. PubMed DOI

Mileva VR, Cowan ML, Cobey KD, Knowles KK, Little AC. In the face of dominance: Self-perceived and other-perceived dominance are positively associated with facial-width-to-height ratio in men. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2014;69:115–118. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.019. DOI

Quist MC, Watkins CD, Smith FG, DeBruine LM, Jones BC. Facial masculinity is a cue to women’s dominance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2011;50:1089–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.032. DOI

Gallup AC, O’Brien DT, White DD, Wilson DS. Handgrip strength and socially dominant behavior in male adolescents. Evol. Psychol. 2010;8:229–243. doi: 10.1177/147470491000800207. PubMed DOI

Toscano H, Schubert TW, Sell AN. Judgments of dominance from the face track physical strength. Evol. Psychol. 2014;12:1–18. doi: 10.1177/147470491401200101. PubMed DOI

Toscano H, Schubert TW, Dotsch R, Falvello V, Todorov A. Physical strength as a cue to dominance: A data-driven approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016;42:1603–1616. doi: 10.1177/0146167216666266. PubMed DOI

Kordsmeyer TL, Freund D, van Vugt M, Penke L. Honest signals of status: Facial and bodily dominance are related to success in physical but not nonphysical competition. Evol. Psychol. 2019;17:147470491986316. doi: 10.1177/1474704919863164. PubMed DOI PMC

Han C, et al. Interrelationships among men’s threat potential, facial dominance, and vocal dominance. Evol. Psychol. 2017;15:1–4. doi: 10.1177/1474704917697332. PubMed DOI PMC

Sell A, et al. Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009;276:575–584. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1177. PubMed DOI PMC

Kleisner K, Kočnar T, Rubešová A, Flegr J. Eye color predicts but does not directly influence perceived dominance in men. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2010;49:59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.011. DOI

Windhager S, Schaefer K, Fink B. Geometric morphometrics of male facial shape in relation to physical strength and perceived attractiveness, dominance, and masculinity. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2011;23:805–814. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.21219. PubMed DOI

Albert G, Wells E, Arnocky S, Liu CH, Hodges-Simeon CR. Observers use facial masculinity to make physical dominance assessments following 100-ms exposure. Aggress. Behav. 2020 doi: 10.1002/ab.21941. PubMed DOI

Batres C, Re DE, Perrett DI. Influence of perceived height, masculinity, and age on each other and on perceptions of dominance in male faces. Perception. 2015;44:1293–1309. doi: 10.1177/0301006615596898. PubMed DOI

Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2007;43:1161–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.008. DOI

Main JC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Little AC. Integrating gaze direction and sexual dimorphism of face shape when perceiving the dominance of others. Perception. 2009;38:1275–1283. doi: 10.1068/p6347. PubMed DOI

Van Dongen S, Sprengers E. Hand grip strength in relation to morphological measures of masculinity, fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behaviour in males and females. Sex Horm. 2012 doi: 10.5772/25880. DOI

Fink B, Neave N, Seydel H. Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2007;19:82–87. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.20583. PubMed DOI

Little AC, Třebický V, Havlíček J, Roberts SC, Kleisner K. Human perception of fighting ability: Facial cues predict winners and losers in mixed martial arts fights. Behav. Ecol. 2015;26:1470–1475. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv089. DOI

Law SMJ, et al. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2006;273:135–140. PubMed PMC

Probst F, Bobst C, Lobmaier JS. Testosterone-to-estradiol ratio is associated with female facial attractiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2016;69:89–99. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1024696. PubMed DOI

Marečková K, et al. Testosterone-mediated sex differences in the face shape during adolescence: Subjective impressions and objective features. Horm. Behav. 2011;60:681–690. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.004. PubMed DOI

Whitehouse AJO, et al. Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015;282:78–94. PubMed PMC

Kordsmeyer TL, Freund D, Pita SR, Jünger J, Penke L. Further evidence that facial width-to-height ratio and global facial masculinity are not positively associated with testosterone levels. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 2019;5:117–130. doi: 10.1007/s40750-018-0105-4. DOI

Chiu HT, Shih MT, Chen WL. Examining the association between grip strength and testosterone. Aging Male. 2019;3:1–8. PubMed

Hirschberg AL, et al. Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: A double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019;3:1–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100525. PubMed DOI

Finkelstein JS, et al. Gonadal steroids and body composition, strength, and sexual function in men. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;369:1011–1022. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206168. PubMed DOI PMC

van Bokhoven I, et al. Salivary testosterone and aggression, delinquency, and social dominance in a population-based longitudinal study of adolescent males. Horm. Behav. 2006;50:118–125. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.02.002. PubMed DOI

Carré JM, Olmstead NA. Social neuroendocrinology of human aggression: Examining the role of competition-induced testosterone dynamics. Neuroscience. 2015;286:171–186. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.11.029. PubMed DOI

Lefevre CE, Etchells PJ, Howell EC, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Facial width-to-height ratio predicts self-reported dominance and aggression in males and females, but a measure of masculinity does not. Biol. Lett. 2014;10:20140729. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0729. PubMed DOI PMC

Alrajih S, Ward J. Increased facial width-to-height ratio and perceived dominance in the faces of the UK’s leading business leaders. Br. J. Psychol. 2014;105:153–161. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12035. PubMed DOI

Watkins CD, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Individual differences in dominance perception: Dominant men are less sensitive to facial cues of male dominance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2010;49:967–971. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.006. DOI

Wang X, Guinote A, Krumhuber EG. Dominance biases in the perception and memory for the faces of powerholders, with consequences for social inferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2018;78:23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.003. DOI

de Carrito ML, et al. The role of sexually dimorphic skin colour and shape in attractiveness of male faces. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2016;37:125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.09.006. DOI

Stephen ID, Oldham FH, Perrett DI, Barton RA. Redness enhances perceived aggression, dominance and attractiveness in men’s faces. Evol. Psychol. 2012;10:562–572. doi: 10.1177/147470491201000312. PubMed DOI

Stephen, I. D. & Perrett, D. I. Color and face perception. in Handbook of Color Psychology (eds. Elliot, A. J., Fairchild, M. D. & Franklin, A.) 585–602 (Cambridge University Press, 2016). 10.1017/cbo9781107337930.029.

Carrito ML, Semin GR. When we don’t know what we know–Sex and skin color. Cognition. 2019;191:103972. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.009. PubMed DOI

Said CP, Todorov A. A statistical model of facial attractiveness. Psychol. Sci. 2011;22:1183–1190. doi: 10.1177/0956797611419169. PubMed DOI

Mitteroecker P, Windhager S, Møller GB, Schaefer K. The morphometrics of ‘masculinity’ in human faces. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0118374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118374. PubMed DOI PMC

Sanchez-Pages S, Rodriguez-Ruiz C, Turiegano E. Facial masculinity: How the choice of measurement method enables to detect its influence on behaviour. PLoS One. 2014;9:10078. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112157. PubMed DOI PMC

Scott IML, Pound N, Stephen ID, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013585. PubMed DOI PMC

Rennels JL, Bronstad PM, Langlois JH. Are attractive men’s faces masculine or feminine ? The importance of type of facial stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2008;34:884–893. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.884. PubMed DOI

Swaddle JP, Reierson GW. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2002;269:2285–2289. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2165. PubMed DOI PMC

Hester N, Jones BC, Hehman E. Perceived femininity and masculinity contribute independently to facial impressions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2020 doi: 10.1037/xge0000989. PubMed DOI

Howansky K, Albuja A, Cole S. Seeing Gender: Perceptual Representations of Transgender Individuals. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2020;11:474–482. doi: 10.1177/1948550619875143. DOI

Kleisner K, et al. How and why patterns of sexual dimorphism in human faces vary across the world. Sci. Rep. 2021;7:10048. PubMed PMC

Kleisner K, et al. African and European perception of African female attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2017;38:744–755. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.07.002. DOI

Strom MA, Zebrowitz LA, Zhang S, Bronstad PM, Lee HK. Skin and bones: The contribution of skin tone and facial structure to racial prototypicality ratings. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041193. PubMed DOI PMC

Coetzee V, Greeff JM, Stephen ID, Perrett DI. Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS One. 2014;9:1700. PubMed PMC

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature. 2010;466:29–29. doi: 10.1038/466029a. PubMed DOI

Třebický V, Fialová J, Kleisner K, Havlíček J. Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149313. PubMed DOI PMC

Nábělková M. Closely-related languages in contact: Czech, Slovak, “Czechoslovak”. Int. J. Soc. Lang. 2007;183:53–73.

Dixson BJ. Facial width to height ratio and dominance. Encycl. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 2017 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6. DOI

Geniole SN, McCormick CM. Facing our ancestors: Judgements of aggression are consistent and related to the facial width-to-height ratio in men irrespective of beards. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2015;36:279–285. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.005. DOI

Třebický V, et al. Further evidence for links between facial width-to-height ratio and fighting success: Commentary on Zilioli et al. (2014) Aggress. Behav. 2015;41:331–334. doi: 10.1002/ab.21559. PubMed DOI

McLaren K. The development of the CIE 1976 (L*a*b*) uniform colour space and colour-difference formula. J. Soc. Dye. Colour. 1976;92:338–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-4408.1976.tb03301.x. DOI

Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods. 2012;9:671–675. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089. PubMed DOI PMC

Coetzee V, et al. African perceptions of female attractiveness. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:3–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048116. PubMed DOI PMC

Webster, M. & Sheets, H. D. A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Paleontol. Soc. Pap.16, 163–188 (2010).

Kleisner K, Pokorný Š, Saribay SA. Toward a new approach to cross-cultural distinctiveness and typicality of human faces: The cross-group typicality/ distinctiveness metric. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:124. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00124. PubMed DOI PMC

Bookstein FL. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol. 1996;58:313–365. doi: 10.1007/BF02458311. PubMed DOI

Rohlf FJ. The tps series of software. Hystrix. 2015;26:1–4.

Adams DC, Otárola-Castillo E. Geomorph: An r package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013;4:393–399. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12035. DOI

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2021).

Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. (2018).

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420. PubMed DOI

McElreath, R. rethinking: Statistical Rethinking book package. R package version 2.13. (2020).

Stan Development Team. RStan: The R interface to Stan. R package version 2.21.2. (2020).

Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006;57:199–226. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208. PubMed DOI

Voegeli R, et al. Cross-cultural perception of female facial appearance: A multi-ethnic and multi-centre study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:8–12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245998. PubMed DOI PMC

Kočnar, T., Adil Saribay, S. & Kleisner, K. Perceived attractiveness of Czech faces across 10 cultures: Associations with sexual shape dimorphism, averageness, fluctuating asymmetry, and eye color. PLoS One14, e0225549 (2019). PubMed PMC

Pavlovič O, Fiala V, Kleisner K. Environmental convergence in facial preferences: A cross-group comparison of Asian Vietnamese, Czech Vietnamese, and Czechs. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79139-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Gonzalez-Santoyo I, et al. The face of female dominance: Women with dominant faces have lower cortisol. Horm. Behav. 2015;71:16–21. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.03.006. PubMed DOI

Perrett DI, et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature. 1998;394:884–887. doi: 10.1038/29772. PubMed DOI

Saribay SA, et al. The Bogazici face database: Standardized photographs of Turkish faces with supporting materials. PLoS One. 2018;13:10058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192018. PubMed DOI PMC

Alharbi SAH, Holzleitner IJ, Lee AJ, Saribay SA, Jones BC. Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces: Data from a sample of arab women. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 2020;6:328–334. doi: 10.1007/s40806-020-00244-y. DOI

Jones BC, et al. To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply? Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021;5:159–169. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01007-2. PubMed DOI

Sutherland CAM, et al. Facial first impressions across culture: Data-driven modeling of Chinese and British perceivers’ unconstrained facial impressions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017;44:521–537. doi: 10.1177/0146167217744194. PubMed DOI

Marcinkowska UM, et al. Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces. Biol. Lett. 2014;10:4–7. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0850. PubMed DOI PMC

Marcinkowska UM, et al. Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39350-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Todorov A, Olivola CY, Dotsch R, Mende-Siedlecki P. Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2015;66:519–545. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831. PubMed DOI

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C. & Debruine, L. M. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.366, 1638–1659 (2011). PubMed PMC

Foo YZ, Simmons LW, Rhodes G. Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:39731. doi: 10.1038/srep39731. PubMed DOI PMC

Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1972;24:285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731. PubMed DOI

Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J. Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2013;104:103–125. doi: 10.1037/a0030398. PubMed DOI

van den Berghe PL, Frost P. Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene culture co-evolution? Ethn. Racial Stud. 1986;9:87–113. doi: 10.1080/01419870.1986.9993516. DOI

Fink B, et al. Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of male facial skin. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatology Venereol. 2012;26:1486–1492. PubMed

Gallagher, N. M. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Gender essentialism and the mental representation of transgender women and men: A multimethod investigation of stereotype content. Cognition217, 104887 (2021). PubMed

Fiala, V. et al. Facial attractiveness and preference of sexual dimorphism: A comparison across five populations. Evol. Hum. Sci.3, e38 (2021). PubMed PMC

Sexual Dimorphism: The Interrelation of Shape and Color

Cross-cultural perception of strength, attractiveness, aggressiveness and helpfulness of Maasai male faces calibrated to handgrip strength