Another variable that appears to affect a woman’s judgment of male faces is her stage in the menstrual cycle. Heather Rupp of the University of Indiana’s Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction asked 12 women to evaluate 256 photos of male faces. The male faces were computer morphed to be more or less masculine, and additional information regarding the male’s riskiness (number of previous partners, condom use) was provided. The women were asked to indicate how likely they were to have sex with the male depicted in the photo while undergoing fMRI.
In women around the time of ovulation, Rupp observed more activity in brain areas associated with reward. At the same time, less activity appeared in areas of the brain associated with inhibition and risk. In other words, at her more fertile times, a woman may be predisposed to find sex more rewarding and be less inhibited in her choices.
Rupp also observed that women looking at highly masculine faces showed more activity in areas of the brain generally associated with risk assessment. Masculine features such as square chins and strong browlines (think Arnold Schwarzenegger) are usually indicative of a man’s testosterone level. In a previous post, we looked at how women often viewed men with very masculine faces to be attractive, but not necessarily good prospects for long-term relationships.
Unfortunately, when looking at men with risky sexual profiles, the women actually had less activity in parts of the brain involved with decision-making and reward than when they viewed low-risk men. This doesn’t sound like a smart move to me.
Rupp presented her data at a poster session at the recent Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego. We’ll be looking forward to seeing these results in print.
Rupp is also fairly well known for her interesting work on “where” men and women look when observing a member of the opposite sex [1]. Participants’ eye movements were tracked as they looked at sexual photos. This research showed that contrary to many stereotypes, men actually spent more time looking at women’s faces than women spent looking at men’s faces. According to Rupp, men and women spend “comparable” time looking at other physical features. Once again, this research shows the influence of hormonal state. Women on oral contraceptives spent more time looking a a man’s genitals, whereas women who did not use oral contraceptives looked at “contextual” elements of the photographs.
For some interesting information on facial beauty, check out Marquardt Beauty Analysis. They use computer generated “masks” as guides for making faces more beautiful, whether the application is make-up, cosmetic surgery, or cosmetic dentistry. You can see the differences between “beautiful” male and female faces here.
According to this analysis, the male face (on the right, in case you can’t tell) is more “intimidating and protective” than the female face. It features heavier brow ridges, flatter and narrower eyebrows, a slightly less “wide-eyed” look, a longer and/or wider nose, thinner lips, and a more square jaw.
1. Rupp, H.A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524-533.
8 Comments
SaraViggianelli · November 15, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I find it really interesting that women become less inhibited at the time of ovulation. Ovulation is the time when a woman is most able, (if not the only time) to become pregnant. You would think that she would want to pick a mate that would make the healthiest child, not the one that would give her the most reward. I also find it really interesting that women had more activity in the area of their brain that deals with risk assesment when looking at masculine looking men. I think that this is really true. We are always told that we can’t judge a guy by his looks, but I know I am much more weary of more masculin looking men when I am out.
Laura Freberg · November 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm
These are very insightful comments, Sara. The contradictory logic about inhibition and reward is a good example of why a lot of people get frustrated with evolutionary psychology. Once we are confronted with a finding like this, we have to figure out how to explain it in functionalist terms, but that always runs the risk of feeling circular and post hoc. So here goes…maybe the changes prevent a woman, who is normally assumed to be choosy, from being TOO inhibited to get pregnant in the first place.
Rebecca Burnside · November 17, 2007 at 2:55 pm
So women have always been this picky?
You’d think women would have developed more protective responses.
I suppose this just speaks to the benefit of monogamous relationships. Pick a mate you’d want in your most rational state, and then become pregnant within that relationship, thus keeping tabs on those crazy hormones.
nicole_g · November 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm
A lot of my friends do say they go for the “bad-boy” and this research explains why they might. It is interesting to see that the “bad-boy” has facial features that are distinctly different than a more nurturing man. I agree with Becky, I think we should look for some softer features in men because they seem to be better fathers and less promiscuous than men with square jaws who seem to be the “bad boys”. I still can’t believe that male facial features could be as highly correlated with testosterone levels as they are.
JacobAlv87 · November 21, 2007 at 10:29 pm
In my Ethics class last year we talked about mate selection in various societies, and one of the most interesting things I found was that women were attracted to men with stronger male-features (just as this study said). The theory is that men who seem more masculine are more likely to help produce healthier offspring. Also, in Genetics over summer, I learned that one of the main goals in nature is to “pass on the genes.” As long as the genes are passed on, the species could survive and evolve over thousands of years into a more advanced being.
emilyz · November 25, 2007 at 1:28 am
Ryujin has lectured about the relationship between faithfulness and height difference between romantic partners. He says that the closer in height the partners are, the more likely they are to be faithful to each other. This makes me wonder if there is a correlation between height and masculinity. It also brought to mind the question of what could be biologically accounting for the increased faithfulness between romantic partners with a smaller height difference. Could it be a biological unease with dominance (maybe a taller partner is more masculine, therefore having a higher chance of being promiscuous)? Or could it be a purely psychological issue (for example, it is subconsciously more comfortable to be eye level with a romantic partner)? It would be interesting to see if there is anything going on there with masculinity.
TNguyen · November 30, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I wonder if there are studies like this for bi-sexual or gay women. It would be interesting to see the results in brain activity for women who are not only attracted to men or not even attracted to men at all. I find it funny that when I was younger, I used to adore boys with baby faces, but now that I’m older, I am more attracted to guys with broad faces. It does make sense to me that testosterone correlates with masculine faces because it is the more masculine men that are aggressive, but at the same time looks are very deceiving.
reggie · March 13, 2008 at 4:43 pm
What about the fact that some guys actually do have some feminine features on their face. I’ve heard some women do find that attractive, the whole clean eyebrows and pierced ears thing. It’s not that these guys may be feminine, because they are actually not. I admit myself that I have pierced ears and I do pluck my eyebrows once in awhile, you know you got to keep that clean cut! I guess that guys can do the whole eyebrow thing because they sometimes want to stay clean and not have a bushy brow…I don’t know what it is…
Comments are closed.