Social Status Moderates the Relationship Between Facial Structure and Aggression

Psychological Science

Volumn 24, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 2329-2334

  Goetz, Stefan M M ^a   Shattuck, Kraig S ^a   Miller, Robert M ^a   Campbell, Jocelyn A ^a   Lozoya, Elianna ^a   Weisfeld, Glenn E ^a   Carré, Justin M ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

aggressive behavior; facial features; social behavior

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGGRESSION; ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; FACE; FACIAL FEATURES; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR; FACIAL FEATURES; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; AGGRESSION; ANTHROPOMETRY; FACE; FEMALE; HIERARCHY, SOCIAL; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; SOCIAL CLASS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84886269395     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797613493294     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Adler N. E.,Epel E. S.,Castellazzo G.,Ickovics J. R.Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women.Health Psychology. 2000;19:586-592.
2. Carré J. M.,McCormick C. M.In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behavior in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2008;275:2651-2656.
3. Carré J. M.,McCormick C. M.,Mondloch C. J.Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior.Psychological Science. 2009;20:1194-1198.
4. Caspi A.,Hariri A. R.,Holmes A.,Uher R.,Moffitt T. E.Genetic sensitivity to the environment: The case of the serotonin transporter gene and its implications for studying complex diseases and traits.American Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;167:509-527.
5. Cherek D. R.,Tcheremissine O. V.,Lane S. D.Biology of aggression. Nelson R. J., ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:424-446.
6. Deaner R. O.,Goetz S. M. M.,Shattuck K.,Schnotala T.Body weight, not facial width-to-height ratio, predicts aggression in pro hockey players.Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46:235-238.
7. Haselhuhn M. P.,Wong E. M.Bad to the bone: Facial structure predicts unethical behavior.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011;279:1194-1198.
8. Hehman E.,Leitner J. B.,Deegan M. P.,Gaertner S. L.Facial structure is indicative of explicit support for prejudicial beliefs.Psychological Science. 2013;24:289-296.
9. Lefevre C. E.,Lewis G. J.,Perrett D. I.,Penke L.Telling facial metrics: Facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men.Evolution & Human Behavior. 2013;34:273-279.
10. Ozener B.Facial width-to-height ratio in a Turkish population is not sexually dimorphic and is unrelated to aggressive behavior.Evolution & Human Behavior. 2012;33:169-173.
11. Rule N. O.,Ambady N.,Adams R. B.,Macrae C. N.Accuracy and awareness in the perception and categorization of male sexual orientation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95:1019-1028.
12. Sell A.,Cosmides L.,Tooby J.,Sznycer D.,von Rueden C.,Gurven M.Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;273:575-584.
13. Stirrat M.,Perrett D. I.Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness.Psychological Science. 2010;21:349-354.
14. Stirrat M.,Perrett D. I.Face structure predicts cooperation: Men with wider faces are more generous to their in-group when out-group competition is salient.Psychological Science. 2012;23:718-722.
15. Stirrat M.,Stulp G.,Pollet T. V.Male facial width is associated with death by contact violence: Narrow-faced males are more likely to die from contact violence.Evolution & Human Behavior. 2012;33:551-556.
16. Weston E. M.,Friday A. E.,Lio P.Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the hominin face.PLoS ONE. 2007;2:1-8.
17. Wilson M.,Daly M.,Pound N.Sex differences and intrasexual variation in competitive confrontation and risk taking: An evolutionary psychological perspective Hormones, brain and behavior. 2009). Sex differences and intrasexual variation in competitive confrontation and risk taking: An evolutionary psychological perspective. In PfaffD. W.ArnoldA. P.EtgenA. M.FahrbachS. E.RubinR. T. (Eds.), Hormones, brain and behavior (2nd ed., pp. 2825-2852). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Pfaff D. W.Arnold A. P.Etgen A. M.Fahrbach S. E.Rubin R. T., ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2009:2825-2852.
18. Wong E. M.,Ormiston M. E.,Haselhuhn M. P.A face only an investor could love: CEOs' facial structure predicts their firms' financial performance.Psychological Science. 2011;22:1478-1483.