The Male Face and Sexual Attractiveness
In theory, two factors make a male desirable as a potential reproductive partner for a woman: genetic quality and ability to support the child (Andersson 1994). There are other factors, of course, but these are the essential ones when women go out looking for a long-term relationship, i.e., marriage.
But how do women do this?
First, greater facial width-to-height ratio in the male face is associated with aggression and status-striving. This connection is most likely caused by testosterone (Lefevre et al., 2013). Next, Researchers have investigated how perception of facial masculinity affects women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness. Facial masculinity is marked by a wide face with a wide inter-orbital distance, wide nose, thin lips, and a large lower face (Mitteroecker et al., 2015). Facial averageness and maturity affect attractiveness along with features associated with dominance and status (Muñoz-Reys et al., 2015). The potential dominance of a male is indicated in masculine facial features and a mesomorphic body build. Dominance, as it turns out, is a better predictor of a male’s mating success than attractiveness alone (Hill, et al., 2013; Torrance et al., 2014).
Early studies showed that women rate masculine faces as more attractive (e.g., Grammer & Thornhill, 1994) although other research found that those male faces mixed with both masculine and feminine features were rated more attractive (e.g., Cunningham et al., 1990). It appears that women rate slightly more feminine male faces and slightly more masculine ones depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle. They tend to prefer more masculine faces during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle (Johnston et al., 2001; Penton-Voak et al., 1999; Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Perrett et al. 1998). It has been hypothesized that women generally prefer femininity in men’s faces as indicating paternal quality but are drawn to more masculine faces which infer genetic quality when seeking short-term sexual encounters; (see Little et al. 2002; Penton-Voak et al., 1999).
Sexually dimorphic features—i.e., masculine features–affect a woman’s sex drive (Lippa, 2006; Welling, Jones, & DeBruine, 2008). Women, particularly those in mid-menstrual cycle, prefer a man with a symmetric, masculine face especially when pursuing brief sexual encounters (Fisher & Cox, 2009; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2010; Jones et al., 2008; Little et al., 2011; Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2008; Welling, Jones, & DeBruine, 2008). Yet, women are complicated as masculine features do not automatically make a male face attractive because women are inconsistent in what they find attractive. Other studies have found that women prefer femininized male faces more so than masculinized ones (Burriss, Marcinkowska, & Lyons, 2014). Some women like masculine faces while others prefer more feminine ones and some show no preference either way (Scheyd, Garver-Apgar, & Gangestad, 2008; see also Harris, 2013). If the features are too masculine, then their looks may imply possible behaviors of aggression and violence. This belief is not without supporting evidence. Men who possess very masculine features pursue more short-term sexual liaisons (Boothroyd et al., 2007), are perceived by others as being more dominant in interpersonal relationships (Swaddle & Reierson, 2002), and have more negative personality traits such as dishonesty and untrustworthiness (Boothroyd et. al., 2007). Male sexually dimorphic facial characteristics are related to a variety of factors including testosterone levels (Penton-Voak & Chen, 2004; Roney et al., 2006). Men with higher testosterone levels provide less for their partners and offspring than men with relatively low testosterone levels (Gray et al., 2002).
Facial masculinity is thought to be a valid sign of genetic quality in that testosterone masculinizes facial features. High testosterone levels are only sustainable by healthier men due to the hormone’s immune-suppressive effects (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Folstad & Karter, 1992). Therefore, facial cues are one means by which women evaluate a male’s reproductive desirability. Significant associations between women’s perceptions of men’s facial masculinity and measures of both men’s health (Rhodes et al., 2003) and circulating testosterone (Penton-Voak & Chen, 2004) provide further support for the hypothesis that strong facial masculinity signals genetic quality.
Facial masculinity is thought to present clues to paternal quality. This comes from discovering that male faces altered via computer graphics to heighten their masculinity are rated lower by women as being “good father” material or “quality as a parent” than less masculine faces (Johnston et al., 2001; Perrett et al. 1998). But this all based on indirect evidence as there are direct linkages between the accuracy of women’s judgments of paternal quality based on male face appearance.
Given all of this, recent research focuses on masculinity in men’s faces—the sexually dimorphic features—as indicators of both heritable fitness and paternal quality (Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2001). Roney et al., 2006 conducted a study to see if women perceive the faces of certain men as having both genetic value and fatherly interest.
Design of the Experiment
Thirty-nine male University of Chicago students between the ages of 18 and 33 were recruited from a university website and paid $10 for their participation. Participants provided a saliva sample at the start of the study to measure testosterone levels as an indicator of their genetic fitness. They then completed an interest-in-infants questionnaire and were digitally photographed. Subjects instructed to assume a neutral facial expression. The facial photos were altered by obscuring the subjects’ hair styles. Interest in infants was assessed with a test asking the subjects which they preferred more: pictures of adult or infant faces when both were presented simultaneously in pairs.
Another set of test subjects—29 undergraduate females at the University of California at Santa Barbara between the ages of 18 to 20 who participated for college credit. Women viewed each photograph on a computer and then completed the measurement ratings. The measures were ratings of men’s physical and paternal potential, female judgements of those qualities from the photos, and women’s judgments of mate attractiveness. This design served as a combined test of whether women can gain impressions of genetic and paternal quality when judging the attractiveness of men’s faces.
Young women rated these photos for the degree to which the men liked children, as well as for physical attractiveness, masculinity, kindness, attractiveness as both a short-term or long-term mate (Roney et al., 2006).
Results of the Experiment
Women’s ratings of men’s liking of children correlated with men’s higher scores on the interest-in-infants test. Women’s ratings of masculinity correlated with men’s testosterone concentrations. Perceptions of masculinity and liking children, in turn, were significant predictors of women’s mate attractiveness judgments. Interestingly, there was no correlation between testosterone levels and interest-in-infants scores. This means that these are two variables which are independent from one another. Women’s ability to estimate men’s interest in infants from face photographs is perhaps the most novel finding to emerge from this study (Roney et al., 2006).
Closing Thoughts
This study provides the first evidence that women’s attractiveness judgments specifically track both men’s affinity for children and hormone concentrations.
I have written elsewhere that one of the core principles of Somatic Psychology is that humans are not machines, but there is something very machine-like about us and here is a very provocative and subtle example of what I mean (Shane, 2023). Men are known to be more reactive, impulsive, and far less choosey when they see an attractive person. Eye-tracking studies of men looking at women’s bodies affirm that men can scan a woman’s body in milliseconds. They focus on the midriff and buttocks when looking at a woman’s back and at the breasts and waist when viewing the front. Male visual tracking prefers a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of 0.70 and larger breasts (Dixson et al., 2009, 2011).
Women in contrast are more cautious and deliberate about the whole thing yet they too are influenced by their hormonal cycles and, ironically, the presence of testosterone. Heterosexual women during the luteal phase of their cycle express more interest in male physical attractiveness, greater arousal at the sight or thought of an attractive male partner, and a greater willingness to engage in sex with a male partner, even one they do not know very well (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2010). One study determined that women’s preferences for masculine faces during their cycle was greatest when they had high testosterone in their saliva (Welling et al., 2007).
Much of our mating experiences and outcomes are a result first of seeing an attractive other and then making contact with him or her. That is, one is first attracted to facial and body symmetry combined with sexually dimorphic features; i.e., highly masculine or feminine physical features. Then there comes a host of other factors—both conscious and unconscious—that guide behaviors such as eye contact, body scent, body language, timber of voice, and the like. The reproductive drive is hard-wired into the brain and DNA, yet men and women go about it a bit differently. Here we see the mostly conscious feminine drive to identify potential mates who are virile and committed to becoming dependable fathers.
Paul Shane, Ph.D., LMT
Director, Academic Content
References
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boothroyd, L., Jones, B., Burt, D., DeBruine, L., & Perrett, D. (2007). Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Personality and Individual Differences 43, p. 1161-1173.
Burriss, R., Marcinkowska, U., & Lyons, M. (2014). Gaze properties of women judging the attractiveness of masculine and feminine faces. Evolutionary Psychology 12(1), p. 19-35.
Dixson, B., Dixon, A., Bishop, P., & Parish, A. (2009). Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: A New Zealand -U.S. comparative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39, p. 798-806.
Dixson, B., Grimshaw, G., Linklater, W., & Dixson, A. (2011). Eye tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40, p. 43-50.
Fisher, M. & Cox, A. (2009). The influence of male facial attractiveness on women’s receptivity. The Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 3(1), p. 49-61.
Folstad, I. & Karter, A. (1992). Parasites, bright males and the immuno-competence handicap. American Nature 139, p. 603–622.
Gangestad, S., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. (2010). Fertility in the cycle predicts women’s interest in sexual opportunism. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(6), p. 400-411.
Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108, p. 233–242.
Granger, D., Shirtcliff, E., Booth, A., Kivlighan, K., & Schwartz, E. (2004). The “trouble” with salivary testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29, p. 1229–1240.
Gray, P., Kahlenberg, S., Barrett, E., Lipson, S., & Ellison, P. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone males. Evolution and Human Behavior 23, p. 193-201.
Harris, C. (2013). Shifts in masculinity preferences across the menstrual cycle: Still not there. Sex Roles 69, p. 507-515.
Hill, A., Hunt, J., Welling, L., Cárdenas, R., Rotella, M., Wheatley, J., Dawood, K., Shriver, M., & Puts, D. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men’s traits. Evolution and Human Behavior 34, p. 334-341.
Johnston, V., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B. & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior 22, p. 251–267.
Jones, B., DeBruine, L., Perrett, D., Little, A., Feinberg, D., & Law Smith, M. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37, p. 78-84.
Lefevre, C., Lewis, G., Perrett, D., & Penke, L. (2013). Telling facial metrics: Facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(4), p. 273-279.
Lippa, R. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual attraction to both sexes? It depends on whether you are male or female. Psychological Science 17, p. 46–52.
Little, A., Jones, B., & DeBruine, L. (2008). Preferences for variation in masculinity in real male faces change across the menstrual cycle: Women prefer more masculine faces when they are more fertile. Personality and Individual Differences 45, p. 478-482.
Mitteroecker, P., Windhager, S., Müller, G., & Schaefer, K. (2015). The morphometrics of “masculinity” in human faces. PLoSone, p. 1-13, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.o118374.
Muñoz-Reys, J., Iglesias-Julios, M., Pita, M., & Turiegano, E. (2015). Facial features: What women perceive as attractive and what men consider attractive. PLoSONE 10(7), p. 1-17, e0132979.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132979.
Penton-Voak, I. & Chen, J. (2004) High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 25, p. 229–241.
Penton-Voak, I. & Perrett, D. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior 21, p. 39–48.
Penton-Voak, I. & Perrett, D. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Perceived personality traits and shifting female preferences for male traits across the menstrual cycle. Advanced Study of Behavior 30, p. 219–259.
Penton-Voak, I., Perrett, D., Castles, D., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D., Murray, L. & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399, p. 741–742.
Perrett, D., Lee, K., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D., Henzi, S., Castles, D. & Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394, p. 884–887.
Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. & Simmons, L. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Suppl. 1), p. S93–S95.
Roney, J., Hanson, K., Durante, K., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: Women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273(1598), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3569.
Scheyd, G., Garver-Apgar, C., & Gangestad, S. (2008). Physical attractiveness: Signals of phenotypic quality and beyond. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 239-259.
Shane, P. (2023). Principles of Somatic Psychology: An Evidence-Based, Transdisciplinary Approach for the Holistic Health Professions. Brecksville, OH: Center for Bodymind Education.
Swaddle, J. & Rierson, G. (2002). Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. 269, p. 2285-2289.
Torrance, J., Winceniak, J., Hahn, A., DeBruine, L., & Jones, B. (2014). The relative contributions of facial shape and surface information to perceptions of attractiveness and dominance. PLoSONE 9(10), p. 1-7, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104415.
Welling, L., Jones, B., DeBruine, L., Conway, C., Law Smith, M., Little, A., Feinberg, D., Sharp, M., & Al-Dujaili, E. (2007). Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces. Hormones and Behavior 52, p. 156-161.
Updated on 08-12-24