The Effect of Target Sex, Sexual Dimorphism, and Facial Attractiveness on Perceptions of Target Attractiveness and Trustworthiness.

Yuanyan Hu, Najam Ul Hasan Abbasi, Yang Zhang, Hong Chen
Author Information
  1. Yuanyan Hu: Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
  2. Najam Ul Hasan Abbasi: Department of Psychology, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  3. Yang Zhang: Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
  4. Hong Chen: Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.

Abstract

Facial sexual dimorphism has widely demonstrated as having an influence on the facial attractiveness and social interactions. However, earlier studies show inconsistent results on the effect of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness judgments. Previous studies suggest that the level of attractiveness might work as a moderating variable among the relationship between sexual dimorphism and facial preference and have often focused on the effect of sexual dimorphism on general attractiveness ratings, rather than concentrating on trustworthiness perception. Male and female participants viewed target male and female faces that varied on attractiveness (more attractive or less attractive) and sexual dimorphism (masculine or feminine). Participants rated the attractiveness of the faces and reported how much money they would give to the target person as a measure of trust. For the facial attractiveness ratings, (a) both men and women participants preferred masculine male faces to feminine male ones under the more attractive condition, whereas preferred feminine male faces to masculine male ones under the less attractive condition; (b) all participants preferred feminine female faces to masculine female ones under the less attractive condition, while there were no differences between feminine female faces and masculine female faces under the more attractive condition. For the target trustworthiness perception, (a) participants showed no preference between masculine male faces and feminine male faces, neither under the more attractive condition nor the less attractiveness condition; (b) however, all the participants preferred masculine female faces over feminine female faces under the more attractive condition, exhibiting no preference between feminine female faces and masculine female faces under the less attractive condition. These findings suggest that the attractiveness of facial stimulus may be a reason to interpret the inconsistent results from the previous studies, which focused on the effect of facial sexual dimorphism on the facial attractiveness. Furthermore, implications about the effect of target facial sexual dimorphism on participants' trustworthiness perception were discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Biol Psychol. 2011 Jul;87(3):453-5 [PMID: 21540073]
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 22;269(1507):2285-9 [PMID: 12495494]
  3. Neurosci Lett. 2012 May 31;517(2):65-70 [PMID: 22410307]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 7;111(40):14388-93 [PMID: 25246593]
  5. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec;3(12):452-460 [PMID: 10562724]
  6. J Appl Psychol. 2009 May;94(3):742-55 [PMID: 19450010]
  7. Eur J Orthod. 1999 Apr;21(2):137-43 [PMID: 10327737]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2009 Oct;20(10):1194-8 [PMID: 19686297]
  9. Behav Ecol. 2013 May;24(3):579-589 [PMID: 23555177]
  10. PLoS One. 2009;4(1):e4138 [PMID: 19127295]
  11. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 10;10(7):e0132979 [PMID: 26161954]
  12. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Oct 1;13(10):415-20 [PMID: 21238370]
  13. J Evol Biol. 2016 Nov;29(11):2311-2320 [PMID: 27488414]
  14. Biol Lett. 2014 Apr 30;10(4):20130850 [PMID: 24789138]
  15. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 12;9(11):e112157 [PMID: 25389770]
  16. Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 7;273(1592):1355-60 [PMID: 16777723]
  17. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 16;10(7):e0132726 [PMID: 26181579]
  18. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Aug 7;270 Suppl 1:S93-5 [PMID: 12952647]
  19. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226 [PMID: 16318594]
  20. Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22;273(1583):135-40 [PMID: 16555779]
  21. Vision Res. 2009 Mar;49(8):862-9 [PMID: 19285521]
  22. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Jun;36(3):751-8 [PMID: 20515201]
  23. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Aug 7;268(1476):1617-23 [PMID: 11487409]
  24. J Comp Psychol. 2003 Sep;117(3):264-71 [PMID: 14498802]
  25. Nature. 1998 Aug 27;394(6696):884-7 [PMID: 9732869]
  26. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008 Jun;3(2):119-27 [PMID: 19015102]
  27. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Aug;34(4):884-93 [PMID: 18665733]
  28. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 12;12 (10 ):e0181306 [PMID: 29023451]
  29. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2014 Nov;5(6):621-634 [PMID: 26308869]
  30. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 28;8(8):e72259 [PMID: 24015226]
  31. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Nov 22;275(1651):2651-6 [PMID: 18713717]
  32. Br J Psychol. 2002 Nov;93(Pt 4):451-64 [PMID: 12519528]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0facesattractivenessfemalefacialattractivemasculinefemininesexualdimorphismconditionmaleparticipantslesseffecttrustworthinesstargetpreferredstudiespreferenceperceptiononesFacialinconsistentresultssuggestfocusedratingsbTargetAttractivenesswidelydemonstratedinfluencesocialinteractionsHoweverearliershowjudgmentsPreviouslevelmightworkmoderatingvariableamongrelationshipoftengeneralratherconcentratingMaleviewedvariedParticipantsratedreportedmuchmoneygivepersonmeasuretrustmenwomenwhereasdifferencesshowedneitherhoweverexhibitingfindingsstimulusmayreasoninterpretpreviousFurthermoreimplicationsparticipants'discussedEffectSexSexualDimorphismPerceptionsTrustworthiness

Similar Articles

Cited By