The masculinity paradox: facial masculinity and beardedness interact to determine women's ratings of men's facial attractiveness (original) (raw)

AI-generated Abstract

In many species, male secondary sexual traits have evolved via female choice as they confer indirect (i.e. genetic) benefits or direct benefits such as enhanced fertility or survival. In humans, the role of men's characteristically masculine androgen-dependent facial traits in determining men's attractiveness has presented an enduring paradox in studies of human mate preferences. Male-typical facial features such as a pronounced brow ridge and a more robust jawline may signal underlying health, whereas beards may signal men's age and masculine social dominance. However, masculine faces are judged as more attractive for short-term relationships over less masculine faces, whereas beards are judged as more attractive than clean-shaven faces for long-term relationships. Why such divergent effects occur between preferences for two sexually dimorphic traits remains unresolved. In this study, we used computer graphic manipulation to morph male faces varying in facial hair from clean-shaven, light stubble, heavy stubble and full beards to appear more (+25% and +50%) or less (À25% and À50%) masculine. Women (N = 8520) were assigned to treatments wherein they rated these stimuli for physical attractiveness in general, for a short-term liaison or a long-term relationship. Results showed a significant interaction between beardedness and masculinity on attractiveness ratings. Masculinized and, to an even greater extent, feminized faces were less attractive than unmanipulated faces when all were clean-shaven, and stubble and beards dampened the polarizing effects of extreme masculinity and femininity. Relationship context also had effects on ratings, with facial hair enhancing long-term, and not short-term, attractiveness. Effects of facial masculinization appear to have been due to small differences in the relative attractiveness of each masculinity level under the three treatment conditions and not to any change in the order of their attractiveness. Our findings suggest that beardedness may be attractive when judging long-term relationships as a signal of intrasexual formidability and the potential to provide direct benefits to females. More generally, our results hint at a divergence of signalling function, which may result in a subtle trade-off in women's preferences, for two highly sexually dimorphic androgen-dependent facial traits.

Figures (4)

Prior to providing ratings, participants were given a written instruction taken from previous studies guid- ing them in how to apply the six-point Likert scales (0 = very low—10 = very high) for the rating condition

Prior to providing ratings, participants were given a written instruction taken from previous studies guid- ing them in how to apply the six-point Likert scales (0 = very low—10 = very high) for the rating condition

Table 1 Linear mixed model, with the model (i.e. stimulus) and the rater identity as random effects, and beard (clean-shaven, light stubble, heavy stubble, full beard), masculinity (+50%, +25%, unmanipulated, —25%, —50%) and relationship context (attractiveness, short-term, long-term) as fixed effects.

Table 1 Linear mixed model, with the model (i.e. stimulus) and the rater identity as random effects, and beard (clean-shaven, light stubble, heavy stubble, full beard), masculinity (+50%, +25%, unmanipulated, —25%, —50%) and relationship context (attractiveness, short-term, long-term) as fixed effects.

Discussion

Discussion

rating conditions. Further, preferences for somewhat more masculine men were higher for general sexual attractiveness and long-term relationship ratings than when rating for short-term relationships, wherein slightly feminine-looking and unmanipulated faces were most attractive. Extremely masculine and extre- mely feminine-looking males were least attractive, irrespective of relationship context. However, although we used well-established techniques to morph faces to vary in masculinity, whether or not our experimental approach extends to natural varia- tion in craniofacial morphology will be important for uture research to determine. Previous studies have reported that preferences for men’s beards are stron- ger than for clean-shaven faces when considering ong-term relationships (Neave & Shields, 2008; Dix- son & Brooks, 2013). In the current study, stubble was judged as most attractive overall and received higher ratings for short-term relationships than full beards, which were more attractive for long than short-term relationships.

rating conditions. Further, preferences for somewhat more masculine men were higher for general sexual attractiveness and long-term relationship ratings than when rating for short-term relationships, wherein slightly feminine-looking and unmanipulated faces were most attractive. Extremely masculine and extre- mely feminine-looking males were least attractive, irrespective of relationship context. However, although we used well-established techniques to morph faces to vary in masculinity, whether or not our experimental approach extends to natural varia- tion in craniofacial morphology will be important for uture research to determine. Previous studies have reported that preferences for men’s beards are stron- ger than for clean-shaven faces when considering ong-term relationships (Neave & Shields, 2008; Dix- son & Brooks, 2013). In the current study, stubble was judged as most attractive overall and received higher ratings for short-term relationships than full beards, which were more attractive for long than short-term relationships.

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. Beardedness and facial masculinity interact to influence women's attractiveness ratings for men.
  2. Women rated 8520 male faces for attractiveness in short-term and long-term contexts.
  3. Masculine faces preferred for short-term relationships; beards preferred for long-term relationships.
  4. Heavy stubble rated most attractive overall, while clean-shaven faces rated least attractive.
  5. Facial hair masks extreme masculinity/femininity effects on attractiveness perceptions.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (67)

  1. Addison, W.E. 1989. Beardedness as a factor in perceived mas- culinity. Percept. Mot. Skills 68: 921-922.
  2. Andersson, M.B. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  3. Archer, J. 2009. Does sexual selection explain human sex dif- ferences in aggression? Behav. Brain. Sci. 32: 249-266.
  4. Barber, N. 2001. Mustache fashion covaries with a good mar- riage market for women. J. Nonverbal Behav. 25: 261-272.
  5. Blows, M.W., Brooks, R. & Kraft, P.G. 2003. Exploring com- plex fitness surfaces: multiple ornamentation and polymor- phism in male guppies. Evolution 57: 1622-1630.
  6. Boothroyd, L.G., Jones, B.C., Burt, D.M. & Perrett, D.I. 2007. Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Pers. Individ. Dif. 43: 1161-1173.
  7. Boothroyd, L.G., Jones, B.C., Burt, D.M., DeBruine, L.M. & Perrett, D.I. 2008. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29: 211-218.
  8. Brooks, R. 2002. Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism. Genetica 116: 343-358.
  9. Brooks, R. & Couldridge, V. 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154: 37-45.
  10. Chapais, B. 2008. Primeval Kinship. How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  11. DeBruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., Crawford, J.R., Welling, L.L.M. & Little, A.C. 2010. The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: crosscultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277: 2405- 2410.
  12. Dixson, B.J. & Brooks, R.C. 2013. The role of facial hair in women's perceptions of men's attractiveness, health, mas- culinity and parenting abilities. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34: 236- 241.
  13. Dixson, B.J.W. & Rantala, M. 2016. The role of facial and body hair distribution in women's judgments of men's sexual attractiveness. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45: 877-889.
  14. Dixson, B.J. & Vasey, P.L. 2012. Beards augment perceptions of men's age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness. Behav. Ecol. 23: 481-490.
  15. Dixson, A.F., Dixson, B.J. & Anderson, M.J. 2005. Sexual selection and the evolution of visually conspicuous sexually dimorphic traits in male monkeys, apes, and human beings. Ann. Rev. Sex. Res. 16: 1-17.
  16. Dixson, B.J., Tam, J.C. & Awasthy, M. 2013. Do women's preferences for men's facial hair change with reproductive status? Behav. Ecol. 24: 708-716.
  17. Fink, B., Neave, N. & Seydel, H. 2007. Male facial appearance signals physical strength to women. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 19: 82-87.
  18. Gangestad, S.W. & Eaton, M.A. 2013. Toward an integrative perspective on sexual selection and men's masculinity. Behav. Ecol. 24: 594-595.
  19. Gangestad, S.W. & Simpson, J.A. 2000. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav. Brain. Sci. 23: 573-587.
  20. Geniole, S.N. & McCormick, C.M. 2015. 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.
  21. Geniole, S.N., Denson, T.F., Dixson, B.J., Carr e, J.M. & McCor- mick, C.M. 2015. Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS ONE 10: e0132726.
  22. Grueter, C.C., Isler, K. & Dixson, B.J. 2015. Are primate badges of status adaptive in large groups? Evol. Hum. Behav. 36: 398-406.
  23. Hamilton, J.B. 1958. Age, sex and genetic factors in the regu- lation of hair growth in man: a comparison of Caucasian and Japanese populations. In: The Biology of Hair Growth (W. Montagna, R.A. Ellis, eds), pp. 399-433. Academic Press, New York, NY.
  24. Hamilton, J.B. 1964. Racial and genetic predisposition. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 7: 1075-1084.
  25. Hamilton, J.B., Terada, H. & Mestlert, G.E. 1958. Studies of growth throughout the life span in Japanese: II. Beard growth in relation to age, sex, heredity, and other factors. J. Gerontol. 13: 269-281.
  26. Hill, A.K., Hunt, J., Welling, L.L., C ardenas, R.A., Rotella, M.A., Wheatley, J.R. et al. 2013. Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34: 334-341.
  27. Janif, Z.J., Brooks, R.C. & Dixson, B.J. 2014. Negative fre- quency-dependent preferences and variation in male facial hair. Biol. Lett. 10: 20130958.
  28. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and conse- quences. Biol. Rev. 72: 283-327.
  29. Kenny, C.T. & Fletcher, D. 1973. Effects of beardedness of per- son perception. Percept. Mot. Skills 37: 413-414.
  30. Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B. & Martin, C.E. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.
  31. Knussman, R. & Christiansen, K. 1988. Attributes of masculin- ity and androgen level. Homo 39: 45-50.
  32. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 653-664.
  33. Kokko, H., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 37: 43-66.
  34. Kruger, D.J. 2006. Male facial masculinity influences attribu- tions of personality and reproductive strategy. Pers. Relatsh. 13: 451-463.
  35. Little, A.C. & Jones, B.C. 2012. Variation in facial masculinity and symmetry preferences across the menstrual cycle is moderated by relationship context. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37: 999-1008.
  36. Little, A., Jones, B., Penton-Voak, I., Burt, D. & Perrett, D. 2002. Partnership status and the temporal context of rela- tionships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1095-1100.
  37. Little, A.C., Connely, J., Feinberg, D.R., Jones, B.C. & Roberts, S.C. 2011. Human preference for masculinity differs accord- ing to context in faces, bodies, voices, and smell. Behav. Ecol. 22: 862-868.
  38. Marlowe, F. 2000. Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behav. Processes. 51: 45-61.
  39. McNamara, J.M. & Houston, A.I. 2009. Integrating function and mechanism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 670-675.
  40. Muscarella, F. & Cunningham, M.R. 1996. The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethol. Sociobiol. 17: 99-117.
  41. Neave, N. & Shields, K. 2008. The effects of facial hair manipu- lation on female perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity, and dominance in male faces. Pers. Individ. Dif. 45: 373-377.
  42. Oldmeadow, J.A. & Dixson, B.J. 2016. The association between men's sexist attitudes and facial hair. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45: 891-899.
  43. Pancer, S.M. & Meindl, J.R. 1978. Length of hair and bearded- ness as determinants of personality impression. Percept. Mot. Skills 46: 1328-1330.
  44. Pellegrini, R.J. 1973. Impressions of the male personality as a function of beardedness. Psychology 10: 29-33.
  45. Perrett, D.I., Lee, K.J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshi- kawa, S., Burt, D.M. et al. 1998. Effects of sexual dimor- phism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394: 884-887.
  46. Provost, M., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G. & Quinsey, V. 2006. Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculin- ization and somatotype in men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 35: 305-312.
  47. Puts, D.A. 2010. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31: 157-175.
  48. Randall, V.A. 2008. Androgens and hair growth. Dermatol. Ther. 21: 314-328.
  49. Rantala, M.J., Coetzee, V., Moore, F.R., Skrinda, I., Kecko, S., Krama, T. et al. 2013. Adiposity, compared with masculinity, serves as a more valid cue to immunocompetence in human mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 280: 20122495.
  50. Reed, J.A. & Blunk, E.M. 1990. The influence of facial hair on impression formation. Soc. Behav. Person. 18: 169-175.
  51. Rhodes, G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 57: 199-226.
  52. Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L.A. & Simmons, L.W. 2003. Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: S93-S95.
  53. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L.W. & Peters, M. 2005. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol. Hum. Behav. 26: 186-201.
  54. Rhodes, G., Morley, G. & Simmons, L.W. 2013. Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men's faces. Biol. Lett. 9: 20120908.
  55. Roll, S. & Verinis, J.S. 1971. Stereotypes of the scalp and facial hair as measured by the semantic differential. Psychol. Rep. 28: 975-980.
  56. Saxton, T.K., Mackey, L.L., McCarty, K. & Neave, N. 2016. A lover or a fighter? Opposing sexual selection pressures on men's vocal pitch and facial hair. Behav. Ecol. 27: 512-519.
  57. Scott, I.M.L., Pound, N., Stephen, I.D., Clark, A.P. & Penton- Voak, I.S. 2010. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. PLoS ONE 5: e13585.
  58. Scott, I.M.L., Clark, A.P., Boothroyd, L.G. & Penton-Voak, I.S. 2013. Do men's faces really signal heritable immunocompe- tence? Behav. Ecol. 24: 579-589.
  59. Sherlock, J.M., Tegg, B., Sulikowski, D. & Dixson, B.J. 2016. Facial masculinity and beardedness determine men's explicit, but not their implicit, responses to male dominance. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 1-16.
  60. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S.W. 2006. Facial sexual dimor- phism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27: 131-144.
  61. Tiddeman, B., Burt, M. & Perrett, D. 2001. Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. Comput. Graph. Appl. IEEE 21: 42-50.
  62. Verdonck, A., Gaethofs, M., Carels, C. & de Zegher, F. 1999. Effect of low-dose testosterone treatment on craniofacial growth in boys with delayed puberty. Eur. J. Orthod. 21: 137-143.
  63. Whitehouse, A.J.O., Gilani, S.Z., Shafait, F., Mian, A., Tan, D.W., Maybery, M.T. et al. 2015. Prenatal testosterone expo- sure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 282: 20151351.
  64. Windhager, S., Schaefer, K. & Fink, B. 2011. Geometric mor- phometrics of male facial shape in relation to physical strength and perceived attractiveness, dominance, and mas- culinity. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 23: 805-814.
  65. Wogalter, M.S. & Hosie, J.A. 1991. Effects of cranial and facial hair on perceptions of age and person. J. Soc. Psychol. 131: 589-591.
  66. Wong, B. & Candolin, U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol. Rev. 80: 559-571.
  67. Wood, D.R. 1986. Self-perceived masculinity between bearded and nonbearded males. Percept. Mot. Skills 62: 769-770.