Women prefer masculine faces only when they appear safe

Recent research suggests that women weigh potential threats more heavily than physical appeal when evaluating the faces of potential partners. The findings indicate that while masculine facial features are often preferred, this preference vanishes if the face also communicates aggression. These results were published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Evolutionary psychologists have long studied how humans select mates. One prevailing theory involves sexual dimorphism, which refers to the physical differences between males and females. In men, high levels of testosterone during puberty often result in specific facial traits. These include a broader jaw, a prominent brow ridge, and thinner cheeks.

These masculine traits can signal good health and strong genetic potential. However, they can also signal dominance or a lack of warmth. Consequently, women often face a dilemma when choosing a partner. They must balance the desire for good genes against the need for a supportive and safe companion.

This decision-making process is known as a trade-off strategy. Researchers have previously looked at how external factors influence this choice. For example, women might prefer different traits depending on whether they feel secure in their environment. But less attention has been paid to the specific cues within the face itself.

Huilin Zhu of Southwest University and Yue Wu of Shaanxi Normal University led an investigation into this dynamic. Along with their colleagues, they sought to understand how attractiveness and aggressiveness interact. They hypothesized that women prioritize avoiding risk over acquiring genetic benefits.

The researchers conducted four distinct studies to test this hypothesis. The first study involved 139 female participants recruited through an online platform. The team used digital technology to manipulate photographs of male faces.

They started with twenty photographs of young men. Using computer software, they identified specific landmarks on each face. They then morphed these images to appear either more masculine or more feminine. This resulted in pairs of faces that differed in shape but retained the identity of the original photo.

Participants viewed these pairs and selected the face they found more attractive. The researchers had previously categorized the original faces based on perceived attractiveness and aggressiveness. This allowed them to analyze how these underlying qualities influenced the women’s choices.

The results revealed a specific hierarchy in preference. When a face was perceived as highly aggressive, women preferred the feminized version. This occurred regardless of whether the original face was considered handsome or plain. The signal of aggression appeared to override other aesthetic considerations.

A different pattern emerged when the faces were rated as low in aggression. In these non-threatening contexts, physical beauty played a larger role. When a low-aggression face was also highly attractive, women showed a strong preference for the masculinized version. This suggests that masculinity is desirable, but only when it feels safe.

The second study introduced the element of relationship context. The researchers recruited 108 distinct female participants for a laboratory experiment. The women viewed the same pairs of synthesized faces used in the first study.

However, the prompt was different this time. Participants were asked to choose a face based on two different scenarios. One scenario involved a short-term romance, such as a casual date. The other involved a long-term commitment, potentially leading to marriage.

The data showed that the trade-off strategy was most evident in the long-term context. When women considered a long-term partner, high aggression dampened their preference for masculinity. They appeared to prioritize safety and reliability for committed relationships.

In the short-term context, this pattern was not statistically significant. The interaction between attractiveness and aggressiveness was less distinct when the relationship was casual. This aligns with theories suggesting that safety concerns are heightened when choosing a life partner.

The third study aimed to verify these findings with more precise materials. The researchers felt that the faces in the first two studies might not have been distinct enough. They wanted to ensure the differences in attractiveness and aggression were obvious.

They selected a new set of twenty faces from a larger pool of photographs. These faces were strictly categorized into high or low groups for both traits. Ninety-nine women participated in this survey, focusing again on the long-term relationship context.

The results confirmed the patterns observed earlier but with greater intensity. In the condition with low aggression and high attractiveness, the preference for masculinity was very strong. Conversely, high aggression consistently neutralized this preference. The clearer distinction between the images likely led to these more robust results.

The final study sought to address a limitation of using computer-generated images. In the real world, people do not choose between two morphed versions of the same person. To improve ecological validity, the team used photographs of real, unaltered faces.

They presented 138 women with 64 natural photographs of male faces. Instead of a forced choice, the participants rated each face on a scale. They evaluated the images for attractiveness, aggressiveness, and masculinity.

The statistical analysis supported the conclusions of the previous three experiments. A man’s masculinity positively predicted his attractiveness rating, but this relationship depended on aggression. If the man looked aggressive, his masculinity contributed much less to his perceived appeal.

These four studies collectively propose an integrated model of mate selection. The researchers argue that women employ a “risk-first” processing strategy. The assessment of threat appears to happen before the assessment of benefit.

High facial attractiveness can usually act as a “gain signal.” It amplifies the positive qualities associated with masculine features. But this amplification effect is fragile. It breaks down in the presence of threat cues.

This aligns with the “staying alive” theory in evolutionary psychology. This theory posits that females have evolved to be particularly sensitive to interpersonal threats. Because females historically bore the primary costs of reproduction and child-rearing, physical safety was paramount.

Prioritizing risk avoidance would have provided an adaptive advantage. A partner who appears aggressive might possess resources or strength. However, he also presents a risk of intimate partner violence or harm to offspring.

The study suggests that women cognitively integrate these conflicting cues. They do not view masculinity in a vacuum. Instead, they interpret it through the lens of potential danger.

The authors note several caveats to their research. The participants in all four studies were young Chinese women. Most were university students or highly educated. This demographic is not representative of the entire global population.

Cultural background plays a role in how personality traits are perceived. What is seen as aggressive in one culture might be viewed differently in another. Similarly, standards of beauty vary across different societies.

The researchers recommend that future inquiries expand the demographic pool. It would be beneficial to include women from diverse age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds. Additionally, the study relied on faces of Asian descent.

Future research should examine whether these trade-offs persist with faces from different racial groups. This would help determine if the risk-aversion strategy is a universal human trait. It is possible that different environments necessitate different trade-off strategies.

The study, “Integrating facial cues within the trade-off strategy: How attractiveness and aggressiveness shape women’s preferences for male facial sexual dimorphism,” was authored by Huilin Zhu, Yue Wu, Caoyuan Niu, and Lijun Zheng.