Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces

136 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 evolutionary psychology of leadership (2014, background): “Recent studies show that during war people prefer to vote for a leader who has more masculine facial features such as a strong jawline and narrow eyes (Little, Burriss, Jones, & Roberts, 2007; Spisak et al., 2011).”
Charisma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership (2017, background): “This means that some cues that are relevant in warfare such as facial masculinity may not be relevant when choosing a peacetime leader (Spisak et al., 2012).”
Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance: Individual and Contextual Factors Behind Preferences for Dominant Leaders (2017, background): “Importantly, in contrast to theoretical speculations in existing work (e.g., Little et al., 2007; Spisak et al., 2012b; Van Vugt & Grabo, 2015), subjects assigned to the cooperatively oriented No-Conflict condition were no more likely to choose the non-dominant leader face than subjects assigned to…”
The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders (2013, background): “Additionally, research shows that at times of intergroup conflict a more masculine leadership prototype is activated because masculinity is associated with dominance (Spisak et al., 2011; van Vugt & Spisak, 2008).”