de Waal-Andrews, W., Gregg, A. P. & Lammers, J. When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 54, 445–464 (2015).
Google Scholar
Mileva, V. R., Cowan, M. L., Cobey, K. D., Knowles, K. K. & Little, A. C. 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. 69, 115–118 (2014).
Quist, M. C., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., DeBruine, L. M. & Jones, B. C. Facial masculinity is a cue to women’s dominance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 50, 1089–1093 (2011).
Gallup, A. C., O’Brien, D. T., White, D. D. & Wilson, D. S. Handgrip strength and socially dominant behavior in male adolescents. Evol. Psychol. 8, 229–243 (2010).
Google Scholar
Toscano, H., Schubert, T. W. & Sell, A. N. Judgments of dominance from the face track physical strength. Evol. Psychol. 12, 1–18 (2014).
Google Scholar
Toscano, H., Schubert, T. W., Dotsch, R., Falvello, V. & Todorov, A. Physical strength as a cue to dominance: A data-driven approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42, 1603–1616 (2016).
Kordsmeyer, T. L., 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. 17, 147470491986316 (2019).
Han, C. et al. Interrelationships among men’s threat potential, facial dominance, and vocal dominance. Evol. Psychol. 15, 1–4 (2017).
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. 276, 575–584 (2009).
Kleisner, K., Kočnar, T., Rubešová, A. & Flegr, J. Eye color predicts but does not directly influence perceived dominance in men. Pers. Individ. Dif. 49, 59–64 (2010).
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. 23, 805–814 (2011).
Google Scholar
Albert, G., Wells, E., Arnocky, S., Liu, C. H. & Hodges-Simeon, C. R. Observers use facial masculinity to make physical dominance assessments following 100-ms exposure. Aggress. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21941 (2020).
Google Scholar
Batres, C., Re, D. E. & Perrett, D. I. Influence of perceived height, masculinity, and age on each other and on perceptions of dominance in male faces. Perception 44, 1293–1309 (2015).
Google Scholar
Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Pers. Individ. Dif. 43, 1161–1173 (2007).
Main, J. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M. & Little, A. C. Integrating gaze direction and sexual dimorphism of face shape when perceiving the dominance of others. Perception 38, 1275–1283 (2009).
Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.5772/25880 (2012).
Google Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N. & Seydel, H. Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 19, 82–87 (2007).
Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Třebický, V., Havlíček, J., Roberts, S. C. & Kleisner, K. Human perception of fighting ability: Facial cues predict winners and losers in mixed martial arts fights. Behav. Ecol. 26, 1470–1475 (2015).
Law, S. M. J. et al. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273, 135–140 (2006).
Probst, F., Bobst, C. & Lobmaier, J. S. Testosterone-to-estradiol ratio is associated with female facial attractiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 69, 89–99 (2016).
Marečková, K. et al. Testosterone-mediated sex differences in the face shape during adolescence: Subjective impressions and objective features. Horm. Behav. 60, 681–690 (2011).
Google Scholar
Whitehouse, A. J. O. et al. Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 78–94 (2015).
Kordsmeyer, T. L., Freund, D., Pita, S. R., 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. 5, 117–130 (2019).
Chiu, H. T., Shih, M. T. & Chen, W. L. Examining the association between grip strength and testosterone. Aging Male 3, 1–8 (2019).
Hirschberg, A. L. 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. 3, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100525 (2019).
Google Scholar
Finkelstein, J. S. et al. Gonadal steroids and body composition, strength, and sexual function in men. N. Engl. J. Med. 369, 1011–1022 (2013).
Google Scholar
van Bokhoven, I. et al. Salivary testosterone and aggression, delinquency, and social dominance in a population-based longitudinal study of adolescent males. Horm. Behav. 50, 118–125 (2006).
Google Scholar
Carré, J. M. & Olmstead, N. A. Social neuroendocrinology of human aggression: Examining the role of competition-induced testosterone dynamics. Neuroscience 286, 171–186 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lefevre, C. E., Etchells, P. J., Howell, E. C., Clark, A. P. & Penton-Voak, I. S. Facial width-to-height ratio predicts self-reported dominance and aggression in males and females, but a measure of masculinity does not. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140729 (2014).
Google Scholar
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. 105, 153–161 (2014).
Google Scholar
Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C. & DeBruine, L. M. Individual differences in dominance perception: Dominant men are less sensitive to facial cues of male dominance. Pers. Individ. Dif. 49, 967–971 (2010).
Wang, X., Guinote, A. & Krumhuber, E. G. Dominance biases in the perception and memory for the faces of powerholders, with consequences for social inferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 78, 23–33 (2018).
de Carrito, M. L. et al. The role of sexually dimorphic skin colour and shape in attractiveness of male faces. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 125–133 (2016).
Stephen, I. D., Oldham, F. H., Perrett, D. I. & Barton, R. A. Redness enhances perceived aggression, dominance and attractiveness in men’s faces. Evol. Psychol. 10, 562–572 (2012).
Google Scholar
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). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107337930.029.
Carrito, M. L. & Semin, G. R. When we don’t know what we know–Sex and skin color. Cognition 191, 103972 (2019).
Google Scholar
Said, C. P. & Todorov, A. A statistical model of facial attractiveness. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1183–1190 (2011).
Google Scholar
Mitteroecker, P., Windhager, S., Møller, G. B. & Schaefer, K. The morphometrics of ‘masculinity’ in human faces. PLoS One 10, e0118374 (2015).
Google Scholar
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 9, 10078 (2014).
Scott, I. M. L., Pound, N., Stephen, I. D., Clark, A. P. & Penton-Voak, I. S. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS One 5, e13585 (2010).
Google Scholar
Rennels, J. L., Bronstad, P. M. & Langlois, J. H. Are attractive men’s faces masculine or feminine ? The importance of type of facial stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 34, 884–893 (2008).
Google Scholar
Swaddle, J. P. & Reierson, G. W. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 269, 2285–2289 (2002).
Google Scholar
Hester, N., Jones, B. C. & Hehman, E. Perceived femininity and masculinity contribute independently to facial impressions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000989 (2020).
Google Scholar
Howansky, K., Albuja, A. & Cole, S. Seeing Gender: Perceptual Representations of Transgender Individuals. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 474–482 (2020).
Kleisner, K. et al. How and why patterns of sexual dimorphism in human faces vary across the world. Sci. Rep. 7, 10048 (2021).
Kleisner, K. et al. African and European perception of African female attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38, 744–755 (2017).
Strom, M. A., Zebrowitz, L. A., Zhang, S., Bronstad, P. M. & Lee, H. K. Skin and bones: The contribution of skin tone and facial structure to racial prototypicality ratings. PLoS One 7, e41193 (2012).
Google Scholar
Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D. & Perrett, D. I. Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS One 9, 1700 (2014).
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29–29 (2010).
Google Scholar
Třebický, V., Fialová, J., Kleisner, K. & Havlíček, J. Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PLoS One 11, e0149313 (2016).
Google Scholar
Nábělková, M. Closely-related languages in contact: Czech, Slovak, “Czechoslovak”. Int. J. Soc. Lang. 183, 53–73 (2007).
Dixson, B. J. Facial width to height ratio and dominance. Encycl. Evol. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6 (2017).
Google Scholar
Geniole, S. N. & McCormick, C. M. 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. 36, 279–285 (2015).
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. 41, 331–334 (2015).
Google Scholar
McLaren, K. The development of the CIE 1976 (L*a*b*) uniform colour space and colour-difference formula. J. Soc. Dye. Colour. 92, 338–341 (1976).
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).
Google Scholar
Coetzee, V. et al. African perceptions of female attractiveness. PLoS ONE 7, 3–8 (2012).
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, S. A. Toward a new approach to cross-cultural distinctiveness and typicality of human faces: The cross-group typicality/ distinctiveness metric. Front. Psychol. 10, 124 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol. 58, 313–365 (1996).
Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. The tps series of software. Hystrix 26, 1–4 (2015).
Adams, D. C. & Otárola-Castillo, E. Geomorph: An r package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 393–399 (2013).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2021).
Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. (2018).
Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86, 420–428 (1979).
Google Scholar
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. 57, 199–226 (2006).
Google Scholar
Voegeli, R. et al. Cross-cultural perception of female facial appearance: A multi-ethnic and multi-centre study. PLoS ONE 16, 8–12 (2021).
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 One 14, e0225549 (2019).
Pavlovič, O., Fiala, V. & Kleisner, K. Environmental convergence in facial preferences: A cross-group comparison of Asian Vietnamese, Czech Vietnamese, and Czechs. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–10 (2021).
Gonzalez-Santoyo, I. et al. The face of female dominance: Women with dominant faces have lower cortisol. Horm. Behav. 71, 16–21 (2015).
Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I. et al. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394, 884–887 (1998).
Google Scholar
Saribay, S. A. et al. The Bogazici face database: Standardized photographs of Turkish faces with supporting materials. PLoS One 13, 10058 (2018).
Alharbi, S. A. H., Holzleitner, I. J., Lee, A. J., Saribay, S. A. & Jones, B. C. Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces: Data from a sample of arab women. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 6, 328–334 (2020).
Jones, B. C. et al. To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply?. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 159–169 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sutherland, C. A. M. et al. Facial first impressions across culture: Data-driven modeling of Chinese and British perceivers’ unconstrained facial impressions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 521–537 (2017).
Marcinkowska, U. M. et al. Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces. Biol. Lett. 10, 4–7 (2014).
Marcinkowska, U. M. et al. Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar
Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 519–545 (2015).
Google Scholar
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).
Foo, Y. Z., Simmons, L. W. & Rhodes, G. Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans. Sci. Rep. 7, 39731 (2017).
Google Scholar
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24, 285–290 (1972).
Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., 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. 104, 103–125 (2013).
Google Scholar
van den Berghe, P. L. & Frost, P. Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene culture co-evolution?. Ethn. Racial Stud. 9, 87–113 (1986).
Fink, B. et al. Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of male facial skin. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatology Venereol. 26, 1486–1492 (2012).
Google Scholar
Gallagher, N. M. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Gender essentialism and the mental representation of transgender women and men: A multimethod investigation of stereotype content. Cognition 217, 104887 (2021).
Fiala, V. et al. Facial attractiveness and preference of sexual dimorphism: A comparison across five populations. Evol. Hum. Sci. 3, e38 (2021).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
