Second to Fourth Digit Ratio, Testosterone and Perceived Male
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Received 20March 2003 Accepted 30 June 2003 Publishedonline 21August 2003 Second to fourth digitratio, testosterone andperceived maledominance Nick Neave1* ,Sarah Laing 1,BernhardFink 2 and JohnT. Manning 3 1Human CognitiveNeuroscience Unit, Schoolof Psychology and SportSciences, NorthumberlandBuilding, NorthumbriaUniversity, Newcastleupon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK 2Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institutefor Urban Ethology, Althanstrasse 14, Vienna, Austria 3Departmentof Psychology, University ofCentral Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK Previous studieshave shownthat male faceswith extreme featuresassociated with testosteroneare per- ceivedas dominant and masculine. Women have beenreported to prefer more masculinizedmale faces asthey may considertestosterone markers tobe an ‘honest’indication ofgood health, andsuch consider- ationsmay underlietheir aestheticpreferences. However, pronounced testosterone facial markers are also associatedwith dominance,and several negative personality traits. This suggeststhat female aesthetic preferencesmay bean adaptive compromise betweenpositive attributes associatedwith higher than aver- age testosterone,and negative attributes associatedwith more extreme masculinization. This currentstudy attempts toclarify therole ofhormone markers in female perceptionsof dominance, masculinity and attractiveness,in male facial images. Recentevidence suggests that therelative length ofthe 2nd to 4th finger (2D :4D ratio) is apointer toprenatal testosteronelevels andmay thusserve as a windowto the prenatal hormonal environment.We measured 2D :4D in asample ofmale college studentsand took salivary samples toanalyse circulating levels oftestosterone. Women rated facial images ofthese males for dominance,masculinity andattractiveness. Our resultsshow that male 2D :4D wassignificantly negatively related toperceived dominance and masculinity butnot attractiveness. Circulating testosteronelevels were notrelated todominance, masculinity or attractiveness.These findings suggest that: (i) high prenatal levels oftestosterone serve to ‘ organize’male facial featuresto subsequently reflect dominance and masculine characteristics presumably activated during puberty;and (ii) attractivenessis notdirectly related totestos- teronelevels. We conclude that facial dominanceand masculinity reflecta male’s perceivedstatus rather than his physical attraction towomen. Keywords: finger length ratio; testosterone;dominance; masculinity 1. INTRODUCTION 1996), further suggesting alink todominance behaviour (Mazur &Booth 1998). The faceplays acrucial role in animal andhuman social AsMazur &Booth (1998) pointedout, early exposure cognition andbehaviour. Evidencefrom primates shows tohigher levels oftestosterone are likely toproduce more that certain brain structuresspecialize in perceiving facial male-like characteristics (masculinization) andfewer expressionsof emotionsand intentions, and in regulating female characteristics (defeminization) whereasless emotional andbehavioural responsesto these expressions exposureto testosterone causes the reverse. These pre- (Morris et al. 1996). Humanfaces signal qualities that are andperinatal hormoneeffects are regarded asorganizing stable over time, suchas attractiveness as a potential mate thearchitecture ofthebody andbrain. Whenmale testos- (Grammer &Thornhill 1994; Barber 1995) or dominance teroneincreases later in life during puberty,it is thought (Zebrowitz& Montepare1992; Collins& Zebrowitz toactivate pre-existing structures;for example, in males 1995; Mueller &Mazur 1997). Although weassume that higher androgenserum levels at puberty together with a facial beauty conveysa wealth ofinformation concerning higher androgenreceptor expression at certain skeletal anindividual’ s mate value, theactual role ofperceived sites,may contributeto sex differences in facial mor- facial dominancestill remains equivocal. phology (Kasperk et al.1997). In males,a high testoster- Facial dominancemay signal subjectiveintentions one-to-oestrogenratio facilitates thelateral growth ofthe (Maynard-Smith &Harper 1988; Harper 1991) aswell as cheekbones,mandibles andchin, the forward growth of an objectivepotential for action (Mazur &Booth 1998). thebones of the eyebrow ridges, and the lengthening of Featuresthat contributeto perceived facial dominance, thelower facial bone,all ofwhich are consideredmascu- suchas strong jawsor broad cheekbones (see, for line facial features(Thornhill &Gangestad1999; Fink & example, Cunningham et al. 1990), may indicatesuperior Penton-Voak2002; Grammer et al. 2003). Oestrogen physical strength.Several authorshave suggestedthat inhibits this growth, leading toa feminizedfacial shape suchfeatures may relate tocirculating testosteronelevels with high eyebrows,more gracile jawand fuller lips. A (Grammer &Thornhill 1994; Thornhill &Gangestad preferencefor sex-typical traits may operate in females’ judgementsof male facial attractiveness,and males’ pref- erencesfor female faces.Whereas some studies support thehypothesis that womenprefer masculinizedmale faces, *Authorfor correspondence ([email protected]). other studiesindicate that womendo not have clear Proc.R. Soc.Lond. B (2003) 270, 2167–2172 2167 Ó 2003 TheRoyal Society DOI10.1098/ rspb.2003.2502 2168N. Neaveand others Perceptions of male dominance preferencesfor suchtraits in males.Perrett et al. (1998) age andis correlated with testosteroneconcentrations showedthat females ’ preferencesfor male faceswere (Manning et al. 1998; Ronalds et al. 2002); (ii) alow apparently driven by stereotypical personality attributions: 2D :4D ratio is associatedwith male-typical attributes highly masculinizedmale faceswere perceived as less suchas better spatial ability (Manning& Taylor 2001), warm, lesshonest and more dominantthan feminized left-handedness(Manning et al. 2000) anda predis- male faces.Such attributions may have akernel oftruth, positiontowards autism (Manning et al. 2001); (iii) the ashigh testosteronehas beenlinked with anti-social waist: hip ratio ofmothers, a positive correlate oftestos- behaviour in men(Dabbs et al. 1991). terone,is negatively associatedwith the2D :4D ratio of In mammals, thegrowth ofsecondary sexual traits is their children (Manning et al. 1999); and(iv) children linked tolevels ofandrogens (Owens & Short 1995), with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, ageneticdisorder whichdepress immune systemfunction (Folstad &Karter associatedwith high prenatal androgens,have lower 1992). Evolutionary theory suggeststhat only males in 2D :4D ratios than normal controls(Brown et al. 2002). goodcondition can bear the ‘handicap’ oflarge secondary Astestosteroneis strongly implicated in establishing the sexual traits that representan honest advertisement of sexually dimorphic 2D :4D ratio, andas this hormonehas male viability. Assignalling facial dominanceis therefore also beenlinked with male dominancebehaviours, Man- costly,it is assumedthat dominantlooks may signal high ning (2002) proposedthat alow2D :4D ratio may be status.Across a widevariety ofspecies, behaviours associatedwith assertivenessand dominance but as yet, intendedto achieve, maintain andenhance status are this possiblelink remains speculative.In thecurrent paper observedprimarily among high-testosteroneindividuals weaimed toestablish whetherorganizational levels oftes- (Kraus et al. 1999; Josephs et al. 2003). If perceivedfacial tosterone(as measured by 2D :4D ratio) are related to dominancedoes indeed relate toapotential for high status activational levels oftestosterone, and perceived facial in male dominancehierarchies, thenin thehuman ‘dominance’, and ‘masculinity ’.Wepredicted that males resource-basedmating system(Buss 1989; Kenrick& with low2D :4D (i.e.high prenatal levels oftestosterone) Keefe1992), it may signal afitnessrelevant quality wouldbe rated by femalesas being higher in dominance (Dewsbury1982; Mueller 1993; Ellis 1995). andmasculinity. It is particularly important for humansto distinguish In addition,although someevidence demonstrates a betweendominant behaviour, which aims at achieving and female preferencefor exaggerated male facial character- maintaining high statusand greater control ofresources istics(e.g. Scheib et al. 1999) therelationship between over aconspecific,and aggressive behaviour, which aims facial dominanceand attractiveness remains unclear. at inflicting physical injury onaconspecific.In this paper, Swaddle& Reierson(2002) recentlyshowed that high tes- weonly discussthe former. While therelationship tosteronefaces reveal dominance.However, they didnot betweentestosterone levels andhuman aggression remains findevidence of directional selectionfor increased(or equivocal (Archer 1991), Mazur &Booth (1998) con- decreased)testosterone in termsof male facial attractive- cludedthat high levels oftestosterone were linked with ness.Consequently, these authors argued that this reflects dominanceand competitiveness in human males;specifi- stabilizing selectionacting ontestosterone through mate cally, they suggestedthat testosteronerises in theface of preferences.We thereforeaimed toinvestigate thepossible achallenge andactivates behaviours intendedto dominate relationship betweenmale 2D :4D ratio andfacial attract- andenhance status. ivenessjudgements made by females.We predictedthat if In support,several studieshave reportedlinks between womenconsider dominant and masculine faces as attract- testosteroneand human dominanceencounters (Booth et ive, then—in addition todominance and masculinity — al. 1989; Schaal et al. 1996; Salvador et al. 1999; Dabbs