FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 1

Facial masculinity predicts men’s actual and perceived aggressiveness

Neil R. Caton1,5, Amy Zhao1, David M. G. Lewis2,3,

and Barnaby J. W. Dixson1,4

1
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
2
College of Science, Health, Engineering, and Education, Murdoch University, Australia.
3
Centre for Healthy Ageing, Health Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Australia.
4
School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.
5
To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Word count: 4,808 words

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 2

Abstract

Status obtained via dominance is a phylogenetically ancient feature of human social systems.

Yet empirical evidence that men’s secondary sexual traits reliably predict success in intra-

sexual contests has been hard to demonstrate. The present work provides the first test of

whether masculine craniofacial structures in men predicts aggressiveness in contest

competition and whether people accurately assess such aggressiveness from masculine facial

cues. After placing 32,447 facial landmarks on the facial stimuli of 457 male fighters,

multivariate geometric morphometric analyses extracted 142 distinct facial metrics and

revealed that men with better developed masculine facial traits (e.g., large jaw, large

browridge, deep-set eyes) attempted more strikes and successfully struck their opponents,

including targeting the face. When rating the facial stimuli of these male fighters, participants

(N = 500) used men’s masculine facial traits to accurately predict these same components of

aggressiveness, including targeting the face. These findings remained robust after accounting

for the fighter’s age, total fights, weight division, height, fight duration, and their opponent’s

striking frequency. Our findings provide the first evidence that humans accurately forecast

men’s agonistic behavior from variation in facial morphology, suggesting perceptual systems

have evolved to perceive physical formidability among contemporaries and competitors.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 3

Significance statement

Masculine facial features in men are linked to numerous social outcomes, including greater

wealth, career progression, lifetime reproductive success, and success in politics, business,

and romantic partner choice. A prominent theoretical explanation for these links is that such

facial features signal men’s potential to dominate rivals in contest competition, where male

social rank is maintained through intimidation, coercion, and physical aggression. Yet

empirical evidence that men’s secondary sexual traits reliably predict success in intra-sexual

contests has been hard to demonstrate. The present work provides the first test of whether

men’s craniofacial features predicts fighting ability in contest competition and that human

psychology can forecast these behaviors by observing men’s faces; men with masculine facial

features more frequently struck their rivals, including in the face, and by attending to men’s

faces, human possessed the ability to accurately predict the frequency with which men struck

their rivals, including in the face.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 4

Facial masculinity predicts men’s actual and perceived aggressiveness

Hierarchy and the pursuit of status defines human social systems cross-culturally. An

individual’s position within their social system impacts key fitness indicators including

access to resources, influential social partners, and mates (Cheng et al., 2013; von Rueden &

Jaeggi, 2016). Social dominance and prestige are distinct paths through which social status is

achieved (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Social rank obtained via prestige may be unique to

humans, attributed to individuals high in agreeableness and self-esteem who rise through the

ranks by attaining the respect of their peers via perceived competence (Durkee et al., 2020).

In contrast, social rank attained via dominance is phylogenetically ancient, defining

social systems in mammals (Clutton-Brock, 2017) including nonhuman primates (Grueter et

al., 2015). Under dominance-based competition, male social rank is maintained through

intimidation, coercion, and physical aggression (Maner, 2017), generating contest-based

competition, and favouring the evolution of elaborate weaponry (e.g., tusks, horns, and

claws) that signal fighting ability (McCullough et al., 2014) and ornaments (e.g., fleshy

appendages, capes of hair and coloration) that signal social dominance (Dixson et al., 2005;

Grueter et al., 2015). Success in agonistic contests is associated with male survival and

reproductive success (Rico-Guevara & Hurme, 2019; Wong, & Candolin, 2005).

Assessing social and physical dominance also underpins human peer assessments

within hierarchical structures (Todorov et al., 2015), particularly under contest competition

(Puts, 2016). Even in the absence of prior social interactions, people consistently assign facial

dominance and trustworthiness to the faces of anonymous people (Oosterhof & Todorov,

2006) with strong concordance cross-culturally (Jones et al., 2021). These judgments occur in

a tenth of a second (Willis & Todorov, 2006) and inform preferences for political candidates,

choices of romantic partners, and death sentences in criminal trials (Todorov et al., 2008;

2015). Perceived facial dominance predicts preferences for political leaders during periods of
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 5

violent conflict for their ability to respond aggressively (Lausten & Petersen, 2015, 2017),

Military leaders are judged as looking more dominant than business or political leaders

(Mazur et al., 1984), with facial dominance among military cadets predicting higher rank

later in their career (Mazur et al., 1984; Mazur & Mueller, 1996) and mating success (Mazur

et al., 1994). The pursuit of status via dominance among men is positively associated with

reproductive success across small-scale societies, irrespective of subsistence mode (von

Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016).

Facial Masculinity

Some of the most salient facial characteristics used to evaluate social attributes are

those that show the largest differences between the sexes (Todorov, 2017). Human faces are

sexually dimorphic, wherein men have, on average, larger jaws, brow ridges, midfaces,

deeper set eyes, and thinner lips than women (Whitehouse et al., 2015). These morphological

features, collectively termed facial masculinity, develop under the organizational effects of

androgens in utero (Whitehouse et al., 2015), are elaborated upon during pubertal surges of

androgens (Marečková et al., 2011), and are fully developed by early adulthood

(Roosenboom et al., 2018).

Dominance is assigned to masculine male faces in under a tenth of a second (Albert et

al., 2021) and may augment men’s bargaining power during male-male conflicts (Sell et al.,

2009; Třebický et al., 2013; Zilioli et al., 2014). Facially masculine men are more likely to be

elected as team members for aggressive sports (i.e., boxing vs chess) due to perceived

aggressiveness (Hehman et al., 2015), political leaders (Todorov et al., 2005), business

leaders (Wang et al., 2019), and have greater financial success as CEOs (Wong et al., 2011).

These judgments may reflect a kernel of truth, as facially masculine men report higher

behavioural dominance, assertiveness, and aggressiveness (Mefodeva et al., 2020; Geniole et

al., 2015), which is positively associated with body size, height, and muscularity (Fink et al.,
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 6

2007; Holzleitner & Perrett, 2016; Windhager et al., 2011). Mating success is also higher

among men with more masculine faces and bodies under conditions of male-male

competition (Hill et al., 2013; Kordsmeyer et al., 2018), including among soldiers fighting

during wars (Loehr & O’Hara, 2013). Thus, facial masculinity may reflect men’s dominance

in same-sex competition for status within hierarchical social structures.

Hand-to-Hand Combat

If men’s facial masculinity accurately communicates formidability, then facially

masculine men should perform better in physical contests than less facially masculine men.

Darwin (1872) first proposed that human psychology (i.e., rage) had been shaped by the act

of “striking or fighting with an enemy.” Hand-to-hand combat is an ancient feature of human

conflict resolution, reflected by a four million year-long co-evolutionary arms race between

hominin skull morphology and the upper body and fists (Carrier & Morgan, 2014; Caton &

Dixson, 2021; Caton & Lewis, 2021a; Caton & Lewis, 2021b; Morgan & Carrier, 2013).

Striking an opponent with fists occurs globally (Morgan & Carrier, 2013), including among

hunter-gatherers (e.g., Yanomamö of Brazil and Venezuela; Chagnon, 1968), in the

archaeological record (Lorentz & Casa, 2020; Scott & Buckley, 2014), in humanity’s earliest

written sources (e.g., Exodus 21:18; Ezekiel 6:11; Matthew 26:67), and exceeds the

frequency of weapon-based combat in modern cultures (Carrier & Morgan, 2014). The head

is the most frequent target of strikes (Fenton et al., 2003; Hånell & Rostami, 2021), with 46-

67% of fight in modern US samples being associated facial fractures (Carrier & Morgan,

2014). Head strikes cause severe damage to respiratory, nervous, and musculoskeletal

systems, resulting in fractures, loss of consciousness, and even death (Fenton et al., 2003;

Flynn et al., 2016). Despite Darwin’s (1872) 150-year-old claim that human psychology has

been shaped by the human capacity to specifically strike their adversaries, no research has

tested this hypothesis.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 7

In contemporary societies, sporting competitions provide a means to test how

agonistic exchanges translate into status acquisition (Lombardo, 2012), with recent studies

using data from professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters competing in the Ultimate

Fighting Championships (UFC). The UFC is the largest promotional company for MMA

competitions and includes the most elite fighters in the world. Fights occur between two

individuals who compete using boxing, grappling, kickboxing, and wrestling. Contests are

‘no-holds barred’ and victory is awarded through submission, knockouts, or judge decisions,

with winners collecting large payments recently estimated at $500,000 for a single bout

payout (Schild & Zettler, 2021). UFC fighters with more masculine faces have the most

victories (Třebický et al., 2015; Zilioli et al., 2014) and are judged as most aggressive

(Třebický et al., 2013). Naïve participants also accurately selected winners from UFC bouts

and, in turn, judged winners as looking the most masculine, strongest, and aggressive (Little

et al., 2015).

Yet empirical evidence that men’s secondary sexual traits reliably predict success in

intra-sexual contests has been hard to demonstrate (Caton et al., 2022; Lane & Briffa, 2021;

Sell, 2021). Previous research has used single-metric methods that do not adjust for

allometric growth (i.e., facial width-to-height ratio; Zilioli et al., 2014)1 or has only found

associations between craniofacial structure and win percentage in a limited sample of 33

heavyweight fighters (Třebický et al., 2013) which is an openweight category without weight

restrictions (Sell, 2021) and failed to replicate in a recent pre-registered replication (Caton et

al., 2022). Furthermore, no research has examined facial masculinity in the context of

perceived and actual agonistic behaviour (e.g., striking with fists) in contest competition.

The present work provides the first test of whether masculine craniofacial structures

in men predicts agonistic behaviour in contest competition and whether people accurately

assess such agonistic behaviour from masculine facial cues, after accounting for allometry.
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 8

Here, we focussed on striking behaviour as the prime agonistic behaviour of humans (Carrier

& Morgan, 2014; Morgan & Carrier, 2013), allowing the present work to provide the first

evidence for Darwin’s (1872) 150-year-old claim that human psychology has been shaped by

the act of “striking or fighting with an enemy.”

With the above in mind, the current study uses data from 457 MMA fighters

competing in the UFC to test whether masculine facial shape is positively associated with

male overall strikes, landed and unsuccessful strikes towards an adversary (Hypothesis 1).

We also hypothesized that masculine facial shape would be positively associated with more

strikes delivered by fighters on their opponents head (Hypothesis 2). Next, we hypothesized

that naïve raters would draw on masculine facial features when assessing fighters capacity for

aggression (Hypothesis 3). Finally, raters should accurately attribute men’s facial

masculinity to the frequency of overall strikes, landed strikes, unsuccessful strikes, and

strikes on the head (Hypothesis 4).

Method
Participants
UFC Fighters
In line with previous research on human contest competition (Aung et al., 2021;

Dixson et al., 2018; Little et al., 2015; Třebický et al., 2013; Třebický et al., 2015; Zilioli et

al., 2014), data were collected from the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC; ufc.com).

Data from the UFC has proved paramount to human contest competition, which requires very

large sample sizes to detect effects, should they exist (Richardson & Gilman, 2019). Our

dataset contained a total of 274,374 overall strikes, 120,259 landed strikes, 154,115

unsuccessful strikes, and 78,917 strikes landed to an opponent’s head. All lifetime fight

statistics and fighter photographs (which have been beneficial in this line of research because

fighters have approximately neutral facial expressions; Třebický et al., 2013) were collected

from ufc.com for all 715 fighters.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 9

As part of a larger project (masked citation for blinded peer review), which was a pre-

registered direct replication of Třebický et al. (2013) that aimed to replicate the association

between facial shape and fighting success (i.e., total wins divided by total fights), we

excluded fighters whose head was slightly tilted, whose hair had obstructed their face, whose

beards were deemed to be too large such that they would obstruct landmarking procedures,

and female fighters. This larger project (masked citation for blinded peer review) excluded

these participants to be precisely in line with the methodology of Třebický et al. (2013) who

removed these sub-sets of participants. After removing these participants, our final sample

consisted of the 457 fighters chosen as part of this pre-registered direct replication (masked

citation for blinded peer review).

Demographic data regarding the fighter’s age (M = 30.82; SD = 4.65), height (inches;

M = 70,88; SD = 4.65), weight (lbs; M = 172.39, SD = 36.02), and weight class (flyweight: N

= 24; bantamweight: N = 60; featherweight: N = 56; lightweight: N = 76; welterweight: N =

87; middleweight: N = 47; light heavyweight: N = 57; heavyweight: N = 50) were used as

covariates. Further, information on the fighters’ total fights (M = 20.00; SD =10.24), average

fight duration (seconds; M = 629.15; SD = 189.57), and percentage of strikes landed to their

opponent’s head (M = 63.90; SD = 15.45) were covariates, the latter of which was entered as

a covariate to rule out the possibility that facial shape is associated with certain fighting styles

that prioritise head-based strikes.

We also entered the average amount of significant strikes that fighters’ opponents had

successfully inflicted on them (per minute; M = 3.70, SD = 2.15) to examine whether our

findings are explained by reactive rather than proactive aggression (Wrangham, 2018). As

our main predictor variables, we entered variables pertaining to fighters’ significant overall

(attempted) strikes (M = 672.49; SD = 654.90), significant landed strikes (M = 294.75; SD =

280.47), significant unsuccessful strikes (M = 377.73; SD = 385.46), and significant strikes

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 10

landed to their opponent’s head (M = 192.01; SD = 185.47). Detailed definitions are included

in James et al. (2017).

Raters

As part of the pre-registered direct replication for our larger project (masked citation

for blinded peer review), 500 US-based MTurk workers (287 males, 212 females, one

“other”; Mage = 38.59, SDage = 11.56) participated in the current study. Each worker provided

informed consent. All workers held a 95% approval rating for the completion of at least 100

studies (Peer et al., 2014) and were compensated with $1.00 USD for the 5-minute study

(ethics approval: masked; project number: 2021/HE001045). Each rater rated a subset of the

facial photographs on perceived aggressiveness. Specifically, 50 photographs were randomly

sampled and presented in random order for each rater, who rated the perceived

aggressiveness of each photo on a 7-point scale (1 = not aggressive at all, 7 = very

aggressive). Raters’ judgments of aggressiveness showed strong reliability (intraclass

correlation: .86). Consistent with prior research (Třebický et al., 2013), men and women did

not differ in their judgments of the man’s aggressiveness; thus, male and female judgments

were collapsed.

Procedure
GMM analyses were conducted to examine the facial traits associated with actual and

perceived aggressiveness. Seven independent research assistants performed facial

landmarking procedures on the entire original dataset of 715 faces (i.e., 102 faces per

research assistant) for use in other projects, but we used landmarking data for the final

selection of 457 photographs for the present study. Research assistants conducted the facial

landmarking procedures in the tpsDig2 software (version 2.31) using 35 landmarks (i.e.,
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 11

anatomically homologous points that represent the same position in distinct stimuli) and 36

semi-landmarks (i.e., which represent the curves and outlines situated between two separate

landmarks; see Figure S1 in the ESM for the landmarking order). This means that 32,447

landmarks were placed on 457 facial stimuli. Landmark and semi-landmarks positions were

informed by Třebický et al. (2013).

Next, we used the Geomorph package in R to import and analyse the landmark data

(R code available on the OSF). Semi-landmarks were specified using the define.sliders

function, and then a generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA) was performed on all coordinates.

GPA standardises the rotation, translation, and scaling between stimuli, the latter of which

algebraically removes the influence of allometry (Třebický et al., 2013). A principal

components analysis (PCA) was then performed on the resulting facial shape coordinates

using the gm.prcomp function, which is used to ensure multivariate normality (Třebický et

al., 2013). This resulted in 142 distinct principal components – therefore, 142 distinct facial

metrics, which stands in stark contrast to previous research on facial width-to-height ratio,

which is a single facial metric – to be used in the following multivariate analyses.

In line with prior research (Třebický et al., 2013), all principal components (hereon

referred to as “facial shape”) were retained for use in our Procrustes ANOVAs with 9,999

iterations, performed using the procD.lm function. Thin-plate spline deformation grids in

tpsRegr (version 1.45) were then conducted to observe the results of the shape data, which

were magnified three times for visibility purposes (Třebický et al., 2013). Composite

visualisations created in tpsSuper (version 2.05) accompanied these deformation grids as a

pictorial aid to ease interpretability.

Multiple regression analyses were then conducted to observe whether participants

could directly track the frequency with which men would strike their adversaries, especially

in their adversary’s face. Analyses progressively included all aforementioned covariates, with
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 12

total fights and body size (because participants’ morphology perceptions could be influenced

by allometry, especially as normal regression analyses do not adjust for allometry) being

included as initial control variables. Regression analyses were also complemented by

equivalent multi-level models1. Multi-level model results, which exhibited the same results,

are reported in the ESM because all multi-level models resulted in a singular fit. R code and

datasets are available on the Open Science Framework (masked link for PsyArXiv upload).

Results

Hypothesis 1: Masculine facial shape predicts the frequency of strike-based aggression

Significant Overall Strikes. There was a significant relationship between significant overall

strikes and facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 3.90, p = .01, R2 = .01. This

association remained robust after progressively including height, age, fight duration, and the

frequency with which the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight (ESM). This association

also did not differ across weight classes, but held across all fighters (ESM). Thin-plate spline

deformation grids revealed the significant shape changes associated with the frequency with

which men struck their adversaries overall. Deviations from the mean facial configuration

associated with overall strikes included dilations and contractions of the grid around the eyes,

nose, lips, and the lower and upper mandible (Figure 1). Men who more frequently struck

their adversary, successfully and unsuccessfully, had deep-set eyes, a larger jaw, a square

chin, puckered lips, and a wider nose.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 13

Figure 1. Male Fighters with More Masculine Craniofacial Structure Deliver More Strikes to
Opponents than Less Facially Masculine Fighters. Thin-plate spline deformation grids
(tpsRegr) and composite visualisations (tpsSuper) for the association between men’s facial
shape and overall strikes attempted. High and low visualisations represent the upper and
lower bounds of the distribution, magnified three times for visibility purposes.
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 14

Significant Landed Strikes. There was a significant relationship between significant landed

strikes and facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 3.27, p = .02, R2 = .01. This

association remained robust after progressively including height, age, fight duration, and the

frequency with which the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight, which allowed us to

rule out multiple alternative explanations (ESM). This association held for all fighters,

regardless of body size, as there was no difference in this association across weight classes

(ESM). Thin-plate spline deformation grids revealed the significant shape changes associated

with the frequency with which men successfully landed strikes on their adversary. Deviations

from the mean facial configuration associated with landed strikes included dilations and

contractions of the grid around the eyes, nose, lips, and the lower and upper mandible (Figure

2). Men who more frequently successfully struck their adversary had deep-set eyes, a larger

jaw, a square chin, puckered lips, and a wider nose.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 15

Figure 2. Men with a Masculine Facial Shape More Frequently Land Strikes on their
Adversary. Thin-plate spline deformation grids (tpsRegr) and composite visualisations
(tpsSuper) for the association between men’s facial shape and landed strikes (i.e.,
successfully enacted aggression). High and low visualisations represent the upper and lower
bounds of the distribution, magnified three times for visibility purposes.

Significant Unsuccessful Strikes. There was a significant relationship between significant

unsuccessful strikes and facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 4.10, p = .01, R2

= .01. This association remained robust after progressively including height, age, fight

duration, and the frequency with which the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight (ESM).

This association also did not differ across weight classes, but held across all fighters (ESM).

Thin-plate spline deformation grids revealed the significant shape changes associated with

the frequency with which men unsuccessfully landed strikes on their adversary (i.e.,

aggressive intent). Similar to the above, deviations from the mean facial configuration

associated with landed strikes included dilations and contractions of the grid around the eyes,

nose, lips, and the lower and upper mandible (Figure 3). Men who more frequently

unsuccessfully struck their adversary had deep-set eyes, a larger jaw, a square chin, puckered

lips, and a wider nose.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 16

Figure 3. Men with Masculine Facial Shape Exhibit Greater Aggressive Intent Towards an
Adversary. Thin-plate spline deformation grids (tpsRegr) and composite visualisations
(tpsSuper) for the association between men’s facial shape and unsuccessful strikes (i.e.,
aggressive intent, independent of actual aggression). High and low visualisations represent
the upper and lower bounds of the distribution, magnified three times for visibility purposes.
Hypothesis 2: Masculine facial shape predicts strike-based aggression to an adversary’s

head. There was a significant relationship between the fighter’s frequency of significant

strikes to their opponent’s head and the fighter’s facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1,

408) = 2.57, p = .047, R2 = .01. Again, this association remained robust after progressively

including height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighter’s opponent

struck them in the fight (ESM). There was no difference across weight classes (ESM). Men’s

craniofacial morphology is an indicator of a man’s ability to strike their adversary in their

craniofacial morphology. Thin-plate spline deformation grids revealed the significant shape

changes associated with the frequency with which men landed strikes to their adversary’s
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 17

head. Deviations from the mean facial configuration associated with landed strikes included

dilations and contractions of the grid around the eyes, nose, lips, and the lower and upper

mandible (Figure 4). Men who more frequently struck their adversary in their head had deep-

set eyes, a larger jaw, a square chin, puckered lips, and a wider nose.

Figure 4. Men with a Masculine Facial Shape Land More Strikes on their Adversary’s Head.
Thin-plate spline deformation grids (tpsRegr) and composite visualisations (tpsSuper) for the
association between men’s facial shape and the frequency of strikes to an adversary’s head.
High and low visualisations represent the upper and lower bounds of the distribution,
magnified three times for visibility purposes.

Hypothesis 3: Masculine facial shape predicts perceived aggressiveness. There was a

significant relationship between perceived aggressiveness and facial shape, F(1, 455) = 7.07,

p < .001, R2 = .02. This association remained robust after controlling for total fights, weight,

height, and fighters’ age (ESM). Thin-plate spline deformation grids revealed the significant
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 18

shape changes associated with perceptions of men’s aggressiveness. Like the facial shape

associated with actual aggression (Hypothesis 1 and 2), deviations from the mean facial

configuration associated with perceived aggression included dilations and contractions of the

grid around the eyes, nose, lips, the lower and upper mandible, as well as down-pressed

brows (Figure 5). Men perceived as more aggressive had deep-set eyes, a larger jaw, a square

chin, puckered lips, and a wider nose, suggesting facial masculinity is an honest indicator of

men’s capacity for aggression, and human perceptions of men’s aggressiveness use men’s

non-allometric facial cues to predict men’s actual combat aggressiveness. Next, we show that

human perceptions of men’s aggressiveness can directly track the frequency with which a

man will strike their adversary.

Figure 5. Men with a Masculine Facial Shape Are Perceived as More Aggressive. Thin-plate
spline deformation grids (tpsRegr) and composite visualisations (tpsSuper) for the association
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 19

between men’s facial shape and perceived aggressiveness. High and low visualisations
represent the upper and lower bounds of the distribution of the observed range.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of aggressiveness can directly forecast within-fight aggression

using men’s facial masculinity.

People can detect the frequency that masculine-faced men strike their adversary.

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the frequency of

the fighter’s overall strikes, as our measure of overall aggression, even after controlling for

total fights and weight, β = .10, t(404) = 2.40, p = .02. This association remained robust after

progressively including height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’

opponents landed strikes on them (ESM) and when using equivalent multi-level models

(ESM).

People can detect the frequency that masculine-faced men successfully strike an adversary.

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the frequency of

the fighter’s landed strikes, as our measure of successfully enacted aggression, even after

controlling for total fights and weight, β = .09, t(404) = 2.18, p = .03. This association

remained robust after progressively including height, age, fight duration, and the frequency

with which the fighters’ opponents landed strikes on them (ESM) and when using equivalent

multi-level models (ESM).

People can detect masculine-faced men’s aggressive intent. Participants’ perceptions of the

fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the frequency of the fighter’s unsuccessful

strikes, as our measure of aggressive intent, even after controlling for total fights and weight,

β = .10, t(404) = 2.46, p = .01. This association remained robust after progressively including

height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents landed

strikes on them (ESM) and when using equivalent multi-level models (ESM).
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 20

People can detect the frequency that masculine-faced men strike an adversary’s head.

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the frequency of

the fighter’s landed strikes to their opponent’s head, even after controlling for total fights and

weight, β = .09, t(407) = 2.28, p = .02. This association remained robust after progressively

including height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents

landed strikes on them (ESM) and when using equivalent multi-level models (ESM). Human

aggressiveness perceptions utilise men’s craniofacial morphology to forecast their capacity

for real-world aggression against adversaries, especially their aggressive capacity to strike

their adversary in their craniofacial morphology.

Discussion

Social status acquired via dominance occurs across mammals, including humans, and

favours physical and behavioral traits that enhance intimidation, coercion and physical

aggression (Maner, 2017). While previous research has reported that masculine facial

morphology in men (e.g., large jaw, large nose, deep-set eyes) is positively associated with

physical strength and self-reported aggressiveness, no studies have demonstrated that facially

masculine men express greater aggression and fighting ability in physical encounters – that is,

those behavioral traits that enhance intimidation, coercion, and physical aggression in contest

competition. Here, we show that mixed-martial-arts (MMA) fighters competing in the

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) with more pronounced masculine facial traits

delivered more strikes during bouts (Hypotheses 1), especially towards the head

(Hypotheses 2). If masculine facial cues reflect the capacity to inflict injury, evolution

should favour perceptual abilities to accurately perceive aggression from such facial features

(Sell, 2012). We found that participants rated men with masculine faces as more aggressive

(Hypothesis 3), which also predicted the number of attempted strikes, successful strikes,

notably those on opponents’ head (Hypothesis 4). These findings represent the first evidence
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 21

that masculine facial structure is an honest signal of men’s formidability within contest

competitions.

In addition to communicating threat in its neutral state, masculine facial features also

overlap with the muscular movements employed when generating angry facial expressions

(e.g., wider nose, puckered lips), enhancing the efficacy of their display (Craig et al., 2019;

Dixson et al., 2021), perceptions of men’s strength (Sell et al., 2014), and the credibility of

threats (Reed et al., 2014). We demonstrate that men with more pronounced masculine

craniofacial features are both more physically formidable and are perceived as looking more

aggressive than men with less masculine faces. Given the overlap between with the muscular

movements involved in performing angry facial expressions and craniofacial masculinity, it is

possible that facial masculinity is positively associated with generating more threatening

facial displays of anger. Future research extending our findings to incorporate facial emotions

in concert with craniofacial structure would be worthwhile to illustrate whether agonistic

displays also represent honest signals of formidability (Sell et al., 2014).

The findings we present also support the functional significance of face perception

(Todorov et al., 2015), with implications for social judgments across numerous domains,

including elections, criminal sentencing, and romantic partner choice (Oosterhof & Todorov,

2008; Willis & Todorov, 2006). For example, structural facial cues are associated with

striking-based aggression, fists are the most commonly used physical attribute in

interpersonal violence (Carrier & Morgan, 2014), punch-related assault charges are common

in the criminal justice system (Flynn et al., 2016), and men with masculine faces are

stereotyped as criminals (Funk et al., 2017). Thus, future research could examine the extent to

which masculine structural facial cues bias the perceptions of jurors, judges, and probation,

parole, and police officers (e.g., juror decision-making, shooter bias paradigm) for individuals

facing assault-related charges. Such research is important for developing appropriate

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 22

interventions for face-related biases, as recent interventions among jurors were unsuccessful

(Jaeger et al., 2020). If there are associations between facial shape and criminality and violent

behavior, then this could also serve as a theoretical foundation for hypothesized associations

between facial shape and other areas related to engaging in criminal behavior, such as

suicidal ideation and mental health and related areas (Ross et al., 2019; Ross et al., 2020;

Ross et al., 2020) and cost-inflicting mate retention behaviors and dark communication styles

(e.g., Caton & Horan, 2019; Caton & Horan, 2020) not due to direct associations per se but

the shared covariance between facial shape and antisocial dispositions more generally.

Conclusion

Drawing on evidence from nonhuman animals, sexual selection via male-male contest

competition is argued to have shaped the evolution of aggressive displays, secondary sexual

traits and fighting styles in men (Puts, 2016). Our study provides the first evidence that facial

masculinity in men is an honest signal of men’s aggressive capacity and intent within same-

sex contests. Further, naïve raters used these masculine craniofacial indicators when judging

men’s formidability and aggressiveness. These data suggest that sexual dimorphism in facial

morphology and perceptual systems for assessing and forecasting men’s aggressiveness

conform to predictions generated from evolutionary theory.

Notes
[1] Multivariate geometric morphometric analyses are incompatible with multi-level
modelling; thus, previous research has not used multi-level modelling for multivariate
geometric morphometric analyses (Třebický et al., 2013).
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 23

Acknowledgements

N. R. C. designed the study, recruited participants, collected data, conducted and interpreted

data analyses, and drafted the manuscript. A. Z. performed the multi-level modelling, and D.

M. G. L. and B. J. W. D. provided critical revisions.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Data Availability Statement

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are provided on the Open Science

Framework (masked link for PsyArXiv upload).

Funding Statement

The authors acknowledge that they received no funding in support for this research.
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 24

References

Albert, G., Wells, E., Arnocky, S., Liu, C. H., & Hodges‐Simeon, C. R. (2021). Observers

use facial masculinity to make physical dominance assessments following 100‐ms

exposure. Aggressive Behavior, 47(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21941

Aung, T., Goetz, S., Adams, J., McKenna, C., Hess, C., Roytman, S., Cheng, J. T., Zilioli, S.,

& Puts, D. (2021). Low fundamental and formant frequencies predict fighting ability

among male mixed martial arts fighters. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79408-6

Carrier, D. R., & Morgan, M. H. (2014). Protective buttressing of the hominin

face. Biological Reviews, 90(1), 330-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12112

Caton, N. R., & Dixson, B. (2021, November 24). Human third-party observers accurately

track fighting skill and vigour along their unique paths to victory.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cxvaw

Caton, N., & Horan, S. M. (2019). Deceptive affectionate messages in close relationships: A

mate retention tactic deployed under the threat of partner infidelity. Evolutionary

Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919867902

Caton, N. R., & Horan, S. M. (2021, August 14). Deceptive affection is strategically

expressed under relational threat—but not towards partners with low mate value.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8wm9j

Caton, N. R., & Lewis, D. M. G. (2021a, November 3). Intersexual and intrasexual selection

for neck musculature in men: Attractiveness, dominance, and actual fighting success.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yez3t
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 25

Caton, N. R., & Lewis, D. M. G. (2021b, August 31). Intrasexual selection for upper limb

length in Homo sapiens. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fw6s9

Caton, N. R., Pearson, S. G., Dixson, B. J. W. (2022). Is facial structure an honest cue to real-

world dominance and fighting ability in men? A pre-registered direct replication of

Třebický et al. (2013). Stage 2 submission. Accepted pending minor revision at

Evolution and Human Behavior.

Chagnon N. A. (1968). Yanamamo: The Fierce People. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to

the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social

rank and influence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(1), 103. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0030398

Clutton-Brock, T. (2017). Reproductive competition and sexual selection. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1729), 20160310.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0310

Craig, B. M., Nelson, N. L., & Dixson, B. J. (2019). Sexual selection, agonistic signalling,

and the effect of beards on recognition of men’s anger displays. Psychological

Science, 30, 728-738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619834876

Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: J. Murray.

Dixson, A., Dixson, B., & Anderson, M. (2005). Sexual selection and the evolution of

visually conspicuous sexually dimorphic traits in male monkeys, apes, and human

beings. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16(1), 1-19.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2005.10559826
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 26

Dixson, B. J. W, Barkhuizen, C. L., & Craig B. M. (2021). Beardedness increases the speed,

accuracy and explicit judgments of facial threat. Adaptive Human Behavior and

Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-021-00169-1.

Dixson, B. J., Sherlock, J. M., Cornwell, W. K., & Kasumovic, M. M. (2018). Contest

competition and men's facial hair: Beards may not provide advantages in

combat. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 147-153.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.004

Durkee, P. K., Lukaszewski, A. W., & Buss, D. M. (2020). Psychological foundations of

human status allocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35),

21235-21241. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006148117

Emlen, D. J. (2008). The evolution of animal weapons. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution,

and Systematics, 39, 387-413.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173502

Fenton, T. W., DeJong, J. L., & Haut, R. C. (2003). Punched with a fist: the etiology of a

fatal depressed cranial fracture. Journal of forensic sciences, 48(2), 277-281.

Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12664983/

Fink, B., Neave, N., & Seydel, H. (2007). Male facial appearance signals physical strength to

women. American Journal of Human Biology, 19, 82-87.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20583

Flynn, A., Halsey, M., & Lee, M. (2016). Emblematic violence and aetiological cul-de-sacs:

On the discourse of ‘one-punch’(non) fatalities. British Journal of

Criminology, 56(1), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv039

Geniole, S. N., Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2015).

Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of

threat. PloS One, 10(7), e0132726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132726

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 27

Grueter, C. C., Isler, K., & Dixson, B. J. (2015). Are badges of status adaptive in large

complex primate groups?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 398-406.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.03.003

Hånell, A., & Rostami, E. (2020). How can a punch knock you out?. Frontiers in

Neurology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.570566

Hehman, E., Leitner, J. B., Deegan, M. P., & Gaertner, S. L. (2015). Picking teams: When

dominant facial structure is preferred. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59,

51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.007

Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference

as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and

human behavior, 22(3), 165-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4

Hill, A. K., Hunt, J., Welling, L. L., Cárdenas, R. A., Rotella, M. A., Wheatley, J. R., ... &

Puts, D. A. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's

traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(5), 334-341.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.004

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(3), e0240284.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240284

Holzleitner, I. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2016). Perception of strength from 3D faces is linked to

facial cues of physique. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 217-229.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.11.004

James, L. P., Robertson, S., Haff, G. G., Beckman, E. M., & Kelly, V. G. (2017). Identifying

the performance characteristics of a winning outcome in elite mixed martial arts

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 28

competition. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20, 296-301.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.001

Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Flake, J. K., Liuzza, M. T., Antfolk, J., Arinze, N. C., ... &

Sirota, M. (2021). To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of

social perception apply?. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(1), 159-169.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01007-2

Kordsmeyer, T. L., Hunt, J., Puts, D. A., Ostner, J., & Penke, L. (2018). The relative

importance of intra-and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic

traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4), 424-436.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.008

Kronmal, R. A. (1993). Spurious correlation and the fallacy of the ratio standard

revisited. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in

Society), 156(3), 379-392. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983064

Lane, S. M., & Briffa, M. (2020). Perceived and actual fighting ability: determinants of

success by decision, knockout or submission in human combat sports. Biology

letters, 16(10), 20200443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0443

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(4), 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(6), 1083-1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403

Little, A. C., Třebický, V., Havlíček, J., Roberts, S. C., & Kleisner, K. (2015). Human

perception of fighting ability: Facial cues predict winners and losers in mixed martial
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 29

arts fights. Behavioral Ecology, 26(6), 1470-1475.

https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv089

Loehr, J., & O'Hara, R. B. (2013). Facial morphology predicts male fitness and rank but not

survival in Second World War Finnish soldiers. Biology Letters, 9(4), 20130049.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0049

Loehr, J., & O'Hara, R. B. (2013). Facial morphology predicts male fitness and rank but not

survival in Second World War Finnish soldiers. Biology letters, 9(4), 20130049.

https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0049

Lombardo, M. P. (2012). On the evolution of sport. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(1),

147470491201000101. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000101

Lorentz, K. O., & Casa, B. (2020). First metacarpal fractures from Chalcolithic Cyprus: A

fall or a fist?. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 30(5), 712-735.

https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2905

Maner, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 26(6), 526-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417714323

Marečková, K., Weinbrand, Z., Chakravarty, M. M., Lawrence, C., Aleong, R., Leonard,

G., ... & Paus, T. (2011). Testosterone-mediated sex differences in the face shape

during adolescence: subjective impressions and objective features. Hormones and

behavior, 60(5), 681-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.004

Mazur, A., Halpern, C., & Udry, J. R. (1994). Dominant looking male teenagers copulate

earlier. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-

3095(94)90019-1

Mazur, A., Mazur, J., & Keating, C. (1984). Military rank attainment of a West Point class:

Effects of cadets' physical features. American Journal of Sociology, 90(1), 125-150.

https://doi.org/10.1086/228050
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 30

McCullough, E. L., Tobalske, B. W., & Emlen, D. J. (2014). Structural adaptations to diverse

fighting styles in sexually selected weapons. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 111, 14484-14488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409585111

Mefodeva, V., Sidari, M. J., Chau, H., Fitzsimmons, B., Antoine, G., Clarkson, T. R., ... &

Dixson, B. J. (2020). Multivariate intra-sexual selection on men’s perceptions of male

facial morphology. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-020-00128-2

Morgan, M. H., & Carrier, D. R. (2013). Protective buttressing of the human fist and the

evolution of hominin hands. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(2), 236-244.

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.075713

Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as a predictor of

later military rank. Social forces, 74(3), 823-850. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/74.3.823

Nakagawa, S., Kar, F., O’Dea, R. E., Pick, J. L., & Lagisz, M. (2017). Divide and conquer?

Size adjustment with allometry and intermediate outcomes. BMC biology, 15(1), 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0448-5

Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face

evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087-11092.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105

Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data

quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023-1031.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

Puts, D. (2016). Human sexual selection. Current opinion in psychology, 7, 28-32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.011
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 31

Reed, L. I., DeScioli, P., & Pinker, S. A. (2014). The commitment function of angry facial

expressions. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1511-1517.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531027

Richardson, T., & Gilman, R. T. (2019). Left-handedness is associated with greater fighting

success in humans. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-

51975-3

Rico‐Guevara, A., & Hurme, K. J. (2019). Intrasexually selected weapons. Biological

Reviews, 94(1), 60-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12436

Roosenboom, J., Indencleef, K., Lee, M. K., Hoskens, H., White, J. D., Liu, D., ... &

Weinberg, S. M. (2018). SNPs associated with testosterone levels influence human

facial morphology. Frontiers in Genetics, 9, 497.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00497

Ross, V., Caton, N., Gullestrup, J., & Kõlves, K. (2019). Understanding the barriers and

pathways to male help-seeking and help-offering: a mixed methods study of the

impact of the Mates in Construction Program. International journal of environmental

research and public health, 16(16), 2979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162979

Ross, V., Caton, N., Gullestrup, J., & Kõlves, K. (2020). A longitudinal assessment of two

suicide prevention training programs for the construction industry. International

journal of environmental research and public health, 17(3), 803.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030803

Ross, V., Caton, N., Mathieu, S., Gullestrup, J., & Kõlves, K. (2020). Evaluation of a suicide

prevention program for the energy sector. International journal of environmental

research and public health, 17(17), 6418. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176418

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 32

Schild, C., & Zettler, I. (2021). Linking voice pitch to fighting success in male amateur

mixed martial arts athletes and boxers. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2021.45

Scott, R. M., & Buckley, H. R. (2014). Exploring prehistoric violence in Tonga:

Understanding skeletal trauma from a biocultural perspective. Current

Anthropology, 55(3), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1086/676477

Sell, A. (2012). Evolved cognitive adaptations. In J. Vonk & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of comparative evolutionary psychology (pp. 61-79). Oxford

University Press.

Sell, A. (2021). Male adaptations to assess fighting ability. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary

Psychological Science, 4681-4691. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_937

Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2014). The human anger face evolved to enhance cues of

strength. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(5), 425-429.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.008

Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human

adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body

and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575-

584. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1177

Todorov, A. (2017). Face value. Princeton University Press.

Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions

from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional

significance. Annual review of psychology, 66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-

113011-143831

Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation

of faces on social dimensions. Trends in cognitive sciences, 12(12), 455-460.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 33

Třebický, V., Fialová, J., Kleisner, K., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Havlíček, J. (2015).

Further evidence for links between facial width‐to‐height ratio and fighting success:

Commentary on Zilioli et al. (2014). Aggressive Behavior, 41(4), 331-334.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21559

Třebický, V., Havlíček, J., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Kleisner, K. (2013). Perceived

aggressiveness predicts fighting performance in mixed-martial-arts fighters.

Psychological Science, 24(9), 1664-1672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613477117

Von Rueden, C. R., & Jaeggi, A. V. (2016). Men’s status and reproductive success in 33

nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive

strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10824-10829.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606800113

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(7), 1074-1081.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619849928

Whitehouse, A. J., Gilani, S. Z., Shafait, F., Mian, A., Tan, D. W., Maybery, M. T., Keelan, J.

A., hart, R., Handelsman, D. J., Goonawardene, M., & Eastwood, P. (2015). Prenatal

testosterone exposure is related to sexually dimorphic facial morphology in

adulthood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1816),

20151351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1351

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms

exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592-598.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x

Windhager, S., Schaefer, K., & Fink, B. (2011). Geometric morphometrics of male facial

shape in relation to physical strength and perceived attractiveness, dominance, and

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 34

masculinity. American Journal of Human Biology, 23(6), 805-814.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.21219

Wong, B. B., & Candolin, U. (2005). How is female mate choice affected by male

competition?. Biological Reviews, 80(4), 559-571.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006809

Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Haselhuhn, M. P. (2011). A face only an investor could

love: CEOs’ facial structure predicts their firms’ financial

performance. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1478-1483.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418838

Wrangham, R. W. (2018). Two types of aggression in human evolution. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 115, 245-253.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713611115

Zilioli, S., Sell, A. N., Stirrat, M., Jagore, J., Vickerman, W., & Watson, N. V. (2014). Face

of a fighter: Bizygomatic width as a cue of formidability. Aggressive Behavior, 41,

322-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21544
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 35

Supplemental Material

Method

Figure S1

Facial Landmarking Order

Note. Image presented to research assistants depicting the facial landmarking order, as

borrowed from Kleisner et al. (2010) and created in tpsDig2. Landmarks positions were

further elucidated using Microsoft Paint. For the purpose of instructing research assistants,

the fighter’s face is zoomed into for better landmark visibility.

FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 36

Results

Hypothesis 1: Masculine facial shape predicts the frequency of strike-based aggression

Significant Overall Strikes

There was a significant relationship between significant overall strikes and facial

shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 3.90, p = .01, R2 = .01. In addition to total

fights, this association remained robust after controlling for height, F(1, 404) = 3.38, p = .02,

R2 = .01. In addition to these variables, this association remained robust after controlling for

age, F(1, 403) = 3.55, p = .02, R2 = .01. This association again remained robust after

additionally controlling for fight duration, F(1, 402) = 2.81, p = .04, R2 = .01. Even further,

this association remained robust after additionally controlling for the frequency with which

the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight, F(1, 401) = 2.91, p = .03, R2 = .01, indicating

that facial shape is associated with proactive rather than reactive aggression. There was no

interaction between overall strikes and weight class on facial shape, F(1, 399) = 1.82, p = .11,

R2 = .004, indicating that the association between facial shape and overall strikes did not vary

across the weight classes.

Significant Landed Strikes

There was a significant relationship between significant landed strikes and facial

shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 3.27, p = .02, R2 = .01. In addition to total

fights, this association remained robust after controlling for height, F(1, 404) = 3.07, p = .03,

R2 = .01. In addition to these variables, this association remained robust after controlling for

age, F(1, 403) = 3.26, p = .02, R2 = .01. This association again remained robust after

additionally controlling for fight duration, F(1, 402) = 2.55, p = .046, R2 = .01. Even further,

this association remained robust after additionally controlling for the frequency with which

the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight, F(1, 401) = 2.66, p = .04, R2 = .01, indicating
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 37

that facial shape is associated with proactive rather than reactive aggression. There was no

interaction between landed strikes and weight class on facial shape, F(1, 399) = 1.22, p = .24,

R2 = .003, indicating that the association between facial shape and landed strikes did not vary

across the weight classes.

Significant Unsuccessful Strikes

There was a significant relationship between significant unsuccessful strikes and

facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1, 405) = 4.10, p = .01, R2 = .01. In addition to total

fights, this association remained robust after controlling for height, F(1, 404) = 3.36, p = .02,

R2 = .01. In addition to these variables, this association remained robust after controlling for

age, F(1, 403) = 3.50, p = .02, R2 = .01. This association again remained robust after

additionally controlling for fight duration, F(1, 402) = 2.80, p = .04, R2 = .01. Even further,

this association remained robust after additionally controlling for the frequency with which

the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight, F(1, 401) = 2.87, p = .04, R2 = .01, indicating

that facial shape is associated with proactive rather than reactive aggression. There was no

interaction between landed strikes and weight class on facial shape, F(1, 399) = 2.24, p = .07,

R2 = .01, indicating that the association between facial shape and unsuccessful strikes did not

vary across the weight classes.

Hypothesis 2: Masculine facial shape predicts strike-based aggression to an adversary’s

head

There was a significant relationship between the fighter’s frequency of significant

strikes to their opponent’s head and the fighter’s facial shape, controlling for total fights, F(1,

408) = 2.57, p = .047, R2 = .01. In addition to total fights, this association remained robust

after controlling for percentage of strikes to their opponent’s head, F(1, 407) = 3.21, p = .02,

R2 = .01, indicating that the association between facial shape and the frequency of strikes to

an opponent’s head is not due to certain fighting styles which prioritise head over other
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 38

bodily strikes. In addition to these variables, this association remained robust after controlling

for height, F(1, 406) = 3.07, p = .03, R2 = .01. This association again remained robust after

additionally controlling for age, F(1, 405) = 3.25, p = .02, R2 = .01. This association again

remained robust after additionally controlling for fight duration, F(1, 401) = 2.57, p = .048,

R2 = .01. Even further, this association remained robust after additionally controlling for the

frequency with which the fighter’s opponent struck them in the fight, F(1, 400) = 2.62, p

= .046, R2 = .01, indicating that facial shape is associated with proactive rather than reactive

aggression to an opponent’s head. There was no interaction between overall strikes and

weight class on facial shape, F(1, 398) = 1.15, p = .29, R2 = .003, indicating that the

association between facial shape and overall strikes did not vary across the weight classes.

Overall, facial shape is an indicator of a man’s strike-based aggression to one of their

adversary’s most vulnerable anatomical regions: their head.

Hypothesis 3: Masculine facial shape, which predicts real-world aggression, is

consequently perceived as aggressive

There was a significant relationship between perceived aggressiveness and facial

shape, F(1, 455) = 7.07, p < .001, R2 = .02. This remained robust after controlling for total

fights, F(1, 454) = 7.03, p < .001, R2 = .02. In addition to total fights, this association

remained robust after controlling for weight and height, F(1, 452) = 4.35, p = .002, R2 = .01.

In addition to these variables, this association remained robust after controlling for age, F(1,

451) = 4.31, p = .002, R2 = .01.

Hypothesis 4: Using a man’s masculine facial shape, human perceptions of

aggressiveness can directly forecast within-fight aggression

People can perceive the frequency that masculine-faced men strike their adversary

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s overall strikes, as our measure of overall aggression, even after
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 39

controlling for total fights and weight, β = .10, t(404) = 2.40, p = .02. This association

remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = .09, t(403) = 2.27, p = .02. This

association remained robust after additionally controlling for age, β = .08, t(402) = 2.06, p

= .04. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for fight duration, β

= .09, t(401) = 2.27, p = .02. There was a significant association between perceived

aggressiveness and significant strikes overall, even after controlling for total fights, weight,

height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents landed

strikes on them, β = .09, t(400) = 2.23, p = .03.

People can perceive the frequency that masculine-faced men land strikes on an adversary

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s landed strikes, as our measure of successfully enacted aggression,

even after controlling for total fights and weight, β = .09, t(404) = 2.18, p = .03. This

association remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = .09, t(403) = 2.11, p

= .04. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for age and fight

duration, β = .08, t(401) = 2.09, p = .04. There was a significant association between

perceived aggressiveness and significant strikes landed, even after controlling for total fights,

weight, height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents

landed strikes on them, β = .08, t(400) = 2.04, p = .04.

People can perceive the frequency of masculine-faced men’s aggressive intent

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s unsuccessful strikes, as our measure of aggressive intent, even after

controlling for total fights and weight, β = .10, t(404) = 2.46, p = .01. This association

remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = .09, t(403) = 2.28, p = .02. This

association remained robust after additionally controlling for age, β = .09, t(402) = 2.10, p

= .04. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for fight duration, β
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 40

= .09, t(401) = 2.30, p = .02. There was a significant association between perceived

aggressiveness and significant unsuccessful strikes, even after controlling for total fights,

weight, height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents

landed strikes on them, β = .09, t(400) = 2.26, p = .02.

People can detect the frequency that masculine-faced men strike their adversary’s head

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s landed strikes to their opponent’s head, even after controlling for

total fights and weight, β = .09, t(407) = 2.28, p = .02. This association remained robust after

additionally controlling for the percentage of strikes to an opponent’s head, β = .09, t(406) =

2.16, p = .03. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β

= .09, t(405) = 2.13, p = .03. This association remained robust after additionally controlling

for age and fight duration, β = .08, t(400) = 2.10, p = .04. There was a significant association

between perceived aggressiveness and significant strikes to an opponent’s head, even after

controlling for total fights, percentage of strikes to an opponent’s head, weight, height, age,

fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents landed strikes on them,

β = .08, t(399) = 2.07, p = .04.

Multilevel Models

These present the same analyses as the multiple regression analyses presented in the

previous section, but now using multi-level models, with rater identification modelled into

the random intercept.

People can perceive the frequency that masculine-faced men strike their adversary

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s overall strikes, as our measure of overall aggression, even after

controlling for total fights and weight, β = 0.03, t(19745) = 5.79, p < .001. This association

remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = 0.03, t(19474) = 5.45, p <.001.
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 41

This association remained robust after additionally controlling for age, β = 0.03, t(19743) =

4.93, p <.001. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for fight

duration, β = 0.03, t(19742) = 5.44, p <.001. There was a significant association between

perceived aggressiveness and significant strikes overall, even after controlling for total fights,

weight, height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’ opponents

landed strikes on them, β = 0.03, t(19741) = 5.35, p <.001.

People can perceive the frequency that masculine-faced men land strikes on an adversary

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s landed strikes, as our measure of successfully enacted aggression,

even after controlling for total fights and weight, β = 0.03, t(19745) = 5.30, p < .001. This

association remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = 0.03, t(19744) =

5.12, p < .001. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for age, β =

0.03, t(19743) = 4.56, p <.001, and fight duration, β = 0.03, t(19742) = 5.05, p <.001. There

was a significant association between perceived aggressiveness and significant strikes landed,

even after controlling for total fights, weight, height, age, fight duration, and the frequency

with which the fighters’ opponents landed strikes on them, β = 0.03, t(19741) = 4.94, p <.001.

People can perceive the frequency of masculine-faced men’s aggressive intent

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s unsuccessful strikes, as our measure of aggressive intent, even after

controlling for total fights and weight, β = 0.03, t(19745) = 5.91, p < .001. This association

remained robust after additionally controlling for height, β = 0.03, t(19744) = 5.46, p < .001.

This association remained robust after additionally controlling for age, β = 0.03, t(19743) =

5.00, p <.001. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for fight

duration, β = 0.03, t(19742) = 5.49, p <.001. There was a significant association between

perceived aggressiveness and significant unsuccessful strikes, even after controlling for total
FACIAL MASCULINITY AND FIGHTING ABILITY 42

fights, weight, height, age, fight duration, and the frequency with which the fighters’

opponents landed strikes on them, β = 0.03, t(19741) = 5.41, p <.001.

People can detect the frequency that masculine-faced men strike their adversary’s head

Participants’ perceptions of the fighter’s aggressiveness positively predicted the

frequency of the fighter’s landed strikes to their opponent’s head, even after controlling for

total fights and weight, β = 0.03, t(19891) = 5.54, p < .001. This association remained robust

after additionally controlling for the percentage of strikes to an opponent’s head, β = 0.03,

t(19890) = 5.23, p < .001. This association remained robust after additionally controlling for

height, β = 0.03, t(19889) = 5.15, p < .001. This association remained robust after

additionally controlling for age, β = 0.03, t(19888) = 4.59, p <.001, and fight duration, β =

0.03, t(19740) = 5.06, p <.001. There was a significant association between perceived

aggressiveness and significant strikes to an opponent’s head, even after controlling for total

fights, percentage of strikes to an opponent’s head, weight, height, age, fight duration, and the

frequency with which the fighters’ opponents landed strikes on them, β = 0.03, t(19739) =

5.02, p <.001.