Preference for leaders with high and low facial width-to-height ratios: moderating roles of political ideology and voting context
Słowa kluczowe:facial width-to-height ratio, dominance, political ideology, wartime, peacetime
It has been argued that human ancestors evolved greater sensitivity to certain traits that signal dominance in potential leaders. From this perspective, modern voters still favor certain physical characteristics during political elections. Indeed, previous studies have shown that voters prefer dominant candidates, especially when primed with wartime scenarios, and with conservative voters being more likely to choose a dominant leader. Because facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) was found to be positively associated with perceived dominance, we sought to investigate the effect of fWHR on leader preference by taking into an account voting context and voters’ political ideology.
Participants and procedure
A total of 148 participants took part in two online experiments in which we manipulated standardized facial images to represent faces with low and high fWHR. Furthermore, we assessed participants’ political ideology and asked them to rate the extent to which faces with low and high fWHR looked like leaders during wartime and peacetime scenarios.
Preference for leaders with high fWHR was positively related to participants’ political ideology, but only in a wartime scenario, suggesting that the more conservative participants were, the higher was their preference for leaders with high fWHR. This is consistent with the notion that preferences for dominant-looking leaders vary as a function of the contextual (voting context) and individual differences (political ideology).
The present findings provide new evidence for the contribution of fWHR in leader preference and significantly adds to the results of previous research demonstrating the roles of voters’ political ideology and politicians’ physical characteristics in perceiving leadership abilities.
Ahmed, S., Sihvonen, J., & Vähämaa, S. (2019). CEO facial masculinity and bank risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.029.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Banai, B., Laustsen, L., Pavela Banai, I., & Bovan, K. (2018). Presidential, but not prime minister, candidates with lower pitched voices stand a better chance of winning the election in conservative countries. Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918758736.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Borkowska, B., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour, 82, 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.024.
Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2651–2656. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0873.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x.
Durkee, P. K., & Ayers, J. D. (2021). Is facial width-toheight ratio reliably associated with social inferences? Evolution and Human Behavior, 42, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.06.003.
Geniole, S. N., Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2015). Evidence from metaanalyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS One, 10, e0132726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132726.
Haselhuhn, M. P., & Wong, E. M. (2012). Bad to the bone: Facial structure predicts unethical behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 571–576. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1193.
Hodges-Simeon, C. R., Albert, G., Richardson, G. B., McHale, T. S., Weinberg, S. M., Gurven, M., & Gaulin, S. J. (2021). Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach. PloS One, 16, e0240284. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240284.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. Klofstad, C. A. (2016). Candidate voice pitch influences election outcomes. Political Psychology, 37, 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12280.
Kosinski, M. (2017). Facial width-to-height ratio does not predict self-reported behavioral tendencies. Psychological Science, 28, 1675–1682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617716929.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
Laustsen, L. (2017). Choosing the right candidate: Observational and experimental evidence that conservatives and liberals prefer powerful and warm candidate personalities, respectively. Political Behavior, 39, 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9384-2.
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2015). Does a competent leader make a good friend? Conflict, ideology and the psychologies of friendship and followership. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.001.
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2017). Perceived conflict and leader dominance: Individual and contextual factors behind preferences for dominant leaders. Political Psychology, 38, 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403.
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2018). When the party decides: The effects of facial competence and dominance on internal nominations of political candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917732005.
Laustsen, L., Petersen, M. B., & Klofstad, C. A. (2015). Vote choice, ideology, and social dominance orientation influence preferences for lower pitched voices in political candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915600576.
Lefevre, C. E., & Lewis, G. J. (2014). Perceiving aggression from facial structure: Further evidence for a positive association with facial width-to-height ratio and masculinity, but not for moderation by selfreported dominance. European Journal of Personality, 28, 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1942.
Lefevre, C. E., Etchells, P. J., Howell, E. C., Clark, A. P., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2014). Facial width-to-height ratio predicts self-reported dominance and aggression in males and females, but a measure of masculinity does not. Biology Letters, 10, 20140729. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0729.
Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.3.4. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
Lewis, G. J., Lefevre, C. E., & Bates, T. C. (2012). Facial width-to-height ratio predicts achievement drive in US presidents. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 855–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.030.
Li, N. P., van Vugt, M., & Colarelli, S. M. (2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417731378.
Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 18–27. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.002.
MacDonell, E. T., Geniole, S. N., & McCormick, C. M. (2018). Force versus fury: Sex differences in the relationships among physical and psychological threat potential, the facial width‐to‐height ratio, and judgements of aggressiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21771.
Merlhiot, G., Mondillon, L., Méot, A., Dutheil, F., & Mermillod, M. (2021). Facial width-to-height ratio underlies perceived dominance on facial emotional expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 172, 110583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110583.
Pavela Banai, I., Banai, B., & Bovan, K. (2017). Vocal characteristics of presidential candidates can predict the outcome of actual elections. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.012.
Pavela Banai, I., Banai, B., & Mavar, M. (2020). Politicians’ facial width-to-height ratio and their electoral success. Psychological Topics, 29, 589–606. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.3.6 .
Petersen, M. B. (2016). Evolutionary political psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 2: Integrations (pp. 1084–1102). Wiley.
Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). The service-forprestige theory of leader-follower relations: a review of evolutionary psychology and anthropology literatures. In R. Arvey & S. Colarelli (Eds.), Biological foundations of organisational behavior (pp. 169–201). Chicago University Press.
R Core Team (2021). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
Silk, J. B. (2007). The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1994.
Spisak, B. R., Dekker, P. H., Krüger, M., & Van Vugt, M. (2012a). Warriors and peacekeepers: Testing a biosocial implicit leadership hypothesis of intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces. PLoS One, 7, e30399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030399.
Spisak, B. R., Homan, A. C., Grabo, A., & Van Vugt, M. (2012b). Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.006.
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: a software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096.
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: a novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643.
Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O’Connor, J. J., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Voice pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.004.
Todorov, A., Dotsch, R., Porter, J., Oosterhof, N., & Falvello, V. (2013). Validation of data-driven computational models of social perception of faces. Emotion, 13, 724–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032335.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589.
Todorov, A., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2011). Modeling social perception of faces. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2010.940006.
Třebický, V., Fialová, J., Kleisner, K., & Havlíček, J. (2016). Focal length affects depicted shape and perception of facial images. PloS One, 11, e0149313. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149313.
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychological Science, 25, 806–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613511823.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182.
Wang, D., Nair, K., Kouchaki, M., Zajac, E. J., & Zhao, X. (2019). A case of evolutionary mismatch? Why facial width-to-height ratio may not predict behavioral tendencies. Psychological Science, 30, 1074– 1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619849928.
Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2010). Individual differences in dominance perception: Dominant men are less sensitive to facial cues of male dominance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 967–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.006.
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
Zilioli, S., Sell, A. N., Stirrat, M., Jagore, J., Vickerman, W., & Watson, N. V. (2015). Face of a fighter: Bizygomatic width as a cue of formidability. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21544.