Facial threat affects trust more strongly than facial attractiveness in women than it does in men.

Johanna Brustkern, Markus Heinrichs, Mirella Walker, Bastian Schiller
Author Information
  1. Johanna Brustkern: Laboratory for Biological and Personality Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 8, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.
  2. Markus Heinrichs: Laboratory for Biological and Personality Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 8, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.
  3. Mirella Walker: Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Missionsstrasse 60/62, 4055, Basel, Switzerland.
  4. Bastian Schiller: Laboratory for Biological and Personality Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 8, 79104, Freiburg, Germany. schiller@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de.

Abstract

Trust is essential in initiating social relationships. Due to the differential evolution of sex hormones as well as the fitness burdens of producing offspring, evaluations of a potential mating partner's trustworthiness likely differ across sexes. Here, we explore unknown sex-specific effects of facial attractiveness and threat on trusting other-sex individuals. Ninety-three participants (singles; 46 women) attracted by the other sex performed an incentivized trust game. They had to decide whether to trust individuals of the other sex represented by a priori-created face stimuli gradually varying in the intensities of both attractiveness and threat. Male and female participants trusted attractive and unthreatening-looking individuals more often. However, whereas male participants' trust behavior was affected equally by attractiveness and threat, female participants' trust behavior was more strongly affected by threat than by attractiveness. This indicates that a partner's high facial attractiveness might compensate for high facial threat in male but not female participants. Our findings suggest that men and women prioritize attractiveness and threat differentially, with women paying relatively more attention to threat cues inversely signaling parental investment than to attractiveness cues signaling reproductive fitness. This difference might be attributable to an evolutionary, biologically sex-specific decision regarding parental investment and reproduction behavior.

References

  1. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020 Feb;31:119-130 [PMID: 31883637]
  2. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Oct 28;368(1631):20130079 [PMID: 24167309]
  3. Horm Behav. 2016 Feb;78:211-9 [PMID: 26592455]
  4. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 12;366(1571):1638-59 [PMID: 21536551]
  5. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e79462 [PMID: 24265773]
  6. PLoS Med. 2010 Jul 27;7(7):e1000316 [PMID: 20668659]
  7. J Nonverbal Behav. 2007 Mar;31(1):1-20 [PMID: 21188285]
  8. Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Sep 12;285(1886): [PMID: 30209229]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Dec;85(6):1107-20 [PMID: 14674817]
  10. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Dec;18(12):707-708 [PMID: 29097784]
  11. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:519-45 [PMID: 25196277]
  12. Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Mar 22;282(1803):20142752 [PMID: 25694618]
  13. Psychosom Med. 1999 Mar-Apr;61(2):154-62 [PMID: 10204967]
  14. Psychol Bull. 2014 May;140(3):623-665 [PMID: 23586697]
  15. Horm Behav. 2007 Feb;51(2):202-6 [PMID: 17150220]
  16. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jun 7;269(1496):1095-100 [PMID: 12061950]
  17. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010 Jan;35(1):83-93 [PMID: 19632787]
  18. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1135:10-8 [PMID: 18574203]
  19. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011 Apr;124(3-4):229-36 [PMID: 20869180]
  20. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015 Jan 15;8:458 [PMID: 25642176]
  21. Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 14;6:29819 [PMID: 27412070]
  22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 18;104(38):15011-6 [PMID: 17827279]
  23. Nature. 2005 Jun 2;435(7042):673-6 [PMID: 15931222]
  24. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 28;13(3):e0193190 [PMID: 29590124]
  25. Exp Neurol. 2014 Sep;259:75-80 [PMID: 24518489]
  26. Cogn Emot. 2013;27(4):603-20 [PMID: 23017055]
  27. Evol Psychol. 2015 Feb 09;13(1):140-66 [PMID: 25664560]
  28. Emotion. 2013 Aug;13(4):724-38 [PMID: 23627724]
  29. Brain Cogn. 2013 Feb;81(1):95-117 [PMID: 23174433]
  30. Nature. 1999 Jun 24;399(6738):741-2 [PMID: 10391238]
  31. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:10009-16 [PMID: 19528645]
  32. Aggress Behav. 2019 Jan;45(1):82-92 [PMID: 30281153]
  33. Behav Brain Sci. 2017 Jan;40:e19 [PMID: 27283466]
  34. Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Jun 1;55(11):1047-55 [PMID: 15158422]
  35. Neuron. 2008 May 22;58(4):639-50 [PMID: 18498743]
  36. Brain Behav. 2016 Jun 05;6(7):e00497 [PMID: 27458547]
  37. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Dec;8(8):897-902 [PMID: 22842905]
  38. J R Soc Interface. 2020 Aug;17(169):20200491 [PMID: 32781937]
  39. Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 29;11(1):2637 [PMID: 33514841]
  40. J Sex Res. 2012;49(2-3):227-43 [PMID: 22380590]
  41. Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Jul 29;287(1931):20200976 [PMID: 32673552]
  42. Adv Genet. 2011;75:7-22 [PMID: 22078475]
  43. Biol Psychol. 2013 Apr;93(1):52-7 [PMID: 23352995]
  44. Psychol Bull. 2013 Sep;139(5):1090-112 [PMID: 23231532]
  45. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Feb;149(2):323-342 [PMID: 31294585]
  46. Hum Nat. 1993 Sep;4(3):237-69 [PMID: 24214366]
  47. PLoS One. 2020 Mar 26;15(3):e0230776 [PMID: 32214377]
  48. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Apr;110(4):609-24 [PMID: 26348599]
  49. Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):796-803 [PMID: 18721917]
  50. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 3;10(1):13066 [PMID: 32747655]
  51. J Neurosci. 2016 Apr 27;36(17):4719-32 [PMID: 27122031]
  52. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008 Jun;3(2):119-27 [PMID: 19015102]
  53. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:321-47 [PMID: 25559115]
  54. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 16;11(1):5978 [PMID: 33727579]
  55. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11087-92 [PMID: 18685089]
  56. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Jul;81(1):57-64 [PMID: 11474726]
  57. Science. 2006 Jan 6;311(5757):47-52 [PMID: 16400140]
  58. Psychol Sci. 2012 Jun;23(6):651-60 [PMID: 22593119]
  59. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009 Aug;34(7):1087-94 [PMID: 19297103]
  60. Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 19;9(1):4880 [PMID: 30890714]
  61. Biol Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 15;82(12):885-894 [PMID: 28629540]
  62. Psychol Bull. 2014 Sep;140(5):1205-59 [PMID: 24564172]
  63. Horm Behav. 2005 Mar;47(3):267-71 [PMID: 15708754]
  64. Psychol Sci. 2010 Mar;21(3):349-54 [PMID: 20424067]
  65. Science. 1999 Nov 26;286(5445):1692-5 [PMID: 10576727]
  66. Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 12;8(1):10513 [PMID: 30002413]
  67. Psychol Rev. 1993 Apr;100(2):204-32 [PMID: 8483982]

Grants

  1. SCHI 1311/3-1/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Beauty
Cues
Face
Female
Humans
Interpersonal Relations
Judgment
Male
Phenotype
Sex Factors
Sexual Behavior
Social Perception
Trust
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0attractivenessthreattrustfacialwomensexindividualsparticipantsfemalebehaviorfitnesspartner'ssex-specificmaleparticipants'affectedstronglyhighmightmencuessignalingparentalinvestmentTrustessentialinitiatingsocialrelationshipsDuedifferentialevolutionhormoneswellburdensproducingoffspringevaluationspotentialmatingtrustworthinesslikelydifferacrosssexesexploreunknowneffectstrustingother-sexNinety-threesingles46attractedperformedincentivizedgamedecidewhetherrepresentedpriori-createdfacestimuligraduallyvaryingintensitiesMaletrustedattractiveunthreatening-lookingoftenHoweverwhereasequallyindicatescompensatefindingssuggestprioritizedifferentiallypayingrelativelyattentioninverselyreproductivedifferenceattributableevolutionarybiologicallydecisionregardingreproductionFacialaffects

Similar Articles

Cited By (6)