No evidence for sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio in four large adult samples

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The human anger face evolved to enhance cues of strength (2014, background): “Sexually dimorphic features with a male bias include prominent cheekbones, wider noses, lower browridges, and larger chins (Penton-Voak et al., 2001; Lefevre et al., 2012; Trebicky et al., 2013).”
Telling facial metrics: facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men (2013, background): “Firstly, while recent findings show no sex difference in fWHR (Lefevre et al., 2012; Özener, 2012), there are”
Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. (2015, background): “Furthermore, it was determined that the measure is not sexually dimorphic (Kramer et al. 2012, Lefevre et al. 2012), and there have been several failures to replicate the finding that it predicts aggressive behavior (Deaner et al. 2012, Gómez-Valdés et al. 2013).”
In the face of dominance: Self-perceived and other-perceived dominance are positively associated with facial-width-to-height ratio in men (2014, background): “In all three studies fWHR was not sexually dimorphic, corroborating previous research (GómezValdés et al., 2013; Lefevre et al., 2012; Özener, 2011).”