Die „Macho“-Gesichtsverhältnistheorie der Evolutionspsychologie weist einen großen Fehler auf. Ein spezifisches Maß, das als Verhältnis von Gesichtsbreite zu Höhe bekannt ist, hat als potenzielles biologisches Aushängeschild für Aggression und Dominanz Aufmerksamkeit erregt.
Evolutionary psychology’s “macho” face ratio theory has a major flaw
8 Kommentare
For years, evolutionary psychologists and biologists have investigated the idea that the shape of a man’s face can predict his behavior. A specific measurement known as the facial width-to-height ratio has garnered attention as a potential biological billboard for aggression and dominance. A new comprehensive analysis, however, challenges the validity of this metric.
The research suggests that this specific ratio is not a reliable marker of sexual difference. Instead, the study points toward a simpler measurement that may hold the key to understanding facial evolution. These findings were published in the [journal](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106781) Evolution and Human Behavior.
The human face is a complex landscape that conveys biological information to others. We instinctively look at faces to judge health, age, and emotion. Beyond these immediate signals, researchers have hypothesized that facial structure reveals deeper evolutionary traits. The primary metric used to test this is the facial width-to-height ratio, often abbreviated as fWHR. To get this number, a researcher measures the distance between the cheekbones and divides it by the distance between the brow and the upper lip.
The prevailing theory has been that men with wider, shorter faces possess higher levels of testosterone and are more formidable. Previous studies have linked a high ratio in men to aggressive behavior in sports and financial success in business. The underlying assumption is that this facial structure evolved because it signaled a competitive advantage to potential mates or rivals. This concept relies on the existence of sexual dimorphism, which is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics.
For years, evolutionary psychologists and biologists have investigated the idea that the shape of a man’s face can predict his behavior. A specific measurement known as the facial width-to-height ratio has garnered attention as a potential biological billboard for aggression and dominance. A new comprehensive analysis, however, challenges the validity of this metric.
The research suggests that this specific ratio is not a reliable marker of sexual difference. Instead, the study points toward a simpler measurement that may hold the key to understanding facial evolution. These findings were published in the [journal](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106781) Evolution and Human Behavior.
The human face is a complex landscape that conveys biological information to others. We instinctively look at faces to judge health, age, and emotion. Beyond these immediate signals, researchers have hypothesized that facial structure reveals deeper evolutionary traits. The primary metric used to test this is the facial width-to-height ratio, often abbreviated as fWHR. To get this number, a researcher measures the distance between the cheekbones and divides it by the distance between the brow and the upper lip.
The prevailing theory has been that men with wider, shorter faces possess higher levels of testosterone and are more formidable. Previous studies have linked a high ratio in men to aggressive behavior in sports and financial success in business. The underlying assumption is that this facial structure evolved because it signaled a competitive advantage to potential mates or rivals. This concept relies on the existence of sexual dimorphism, which is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics.
Evolutionary psychology is mostly bull. Like, yes, it matters historically, yes this stuff did shape human development but its not even the top 20 things that contribute to our day to day behavior most days.
Insecure men who have been hinging their self worth on evidence of their masculinity as represented by immutable traits that they didn’t have to earn or put effort into maintaining and that can’t be taken from them are in shambles.
A study from evolutionary psychology has a flaw? A flaw?! I am shocked!!
Think if that’s your stock photo you had taken. Compliment or not?
When are they going to figure out that at this point a lot of women just want nice smelling men with clean breath and a pleasant disposition far more than gruff, ripped “alpha” males
I think we’re a bit beyond cave woman want big square jaw man to take down mammoth and fight predators
According to the article, it seems that the study found the importance of the lateral width of the face.
Therefore, the title could also be changed to the following:
“More evidence for the theory of macho facial width in evolutionary psychology.”
If it were strongly believed that ratio, rather than width, was important, the current title would also be accurate, but in reality that is probably not the case. I’m fed up with the tendency to prioritize impact when presenting research.