1. Effects of sex and gender role identification on male face evaluation Kathryn R. Macapagal, M.Ed. 1,2, Heather A. Rupp, Ph.D. 2, & Julia R. Heiman, Ph.D. 1,2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences 1 & The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction 2 Indiana University; Bloomington, Indiana Correspondence: Kathryn R. Macapagal (karmacap@indiana.edu) Effects of sex and gender role identification on male face evaluation Kathryn R. Macapagal, M.Ed. 1,2, Heather A. Rupp, Ph.D. 2, & Julia R. Heiman, Ph.D. 1,2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences 1 & The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction 2 Indiana University; Bloomington, Indiana Correspondence: Kathryn R. Macapagal (karmacap@indiana.edu) Introduction  First impressions from nonverbal cues are important in shaping subsequent social interactions. Men and women use facial cues to evaluate potential competitors and mates.  Face perception studies demonstrate that ratings of male faces are dependent on observer (e.g., facial masculinity) and target characteristics (e.g., personality).  Observer adherence to traditional or stereotypic gender roles may be another factor influencing male face perception.  Traditionally masculine men demonstrate competitive and aggressive behaviors and personality 1. Traditionally feminine women demonstrate preferences for descriptions of more masculine men and view them more positively 2.  These gender roles may bias men’s ratings of competition (masculine, aggressive) and women’s ratings of social affiliation (attractive, trustworthy) when viewing photos of men varying in facial masculinization and feminization.  Hypotheses  Men will give higher ratings of competitive traits to the photos than women.  Women will give higher ratings of affiliative traits to the photos than men.  These sex differences will be more pronounced in individuals with strong gender role identification and when rating more masculinized and feminized photos. Introduction  First impressions from nonverbal cues are important in shaping subsequent social interactions. Men and women use facial cues to evaluate potential competitors and mates.  Face perception studies demonstrate that ratings of male faces are dependent on observer (e.g., facial masculinity) and target characteristics (e.g., personality).  Observer adherence to traditional or stereotypic gender roles may be another factor influencing male face perception.  Traditionally masculine men demonstrate competitive and aggressive behaviors and personality 1. Traditionally feminine women demonstrate preferences for descriptions of more masculine men and view them more positively 2.  These gender roles may bias men’s ratings of competition (masculine, aggressive) and women’s ratings of social affiliation (attractive, trustworthy) when viewing photos of men varying in facial masculinization and feminization.  Hypotheses  Men will give higher ratings of competitive traits to the photos than women.  Women will give higher ratings of affiliative traits to the photos than men.  These sex differences will be more pronounced in individuals with strong gender role identification and when rating more masculinized and feminized photos. Methods  Participants  41 heterosexual males and females between age 18-27 (mean age=19.51±1.7).  Self-report measures  Hypermasculinity Inventory 1 : Assesses male identification with traditionally masculine, or ‘macho’ attitudes and behaviors regarding sex, violence, and danger. Possible scores range from 0-30.  Hyperfemininity Scale 3 : Assesses female identification with traditionally feminine attitudes regarding women’s roles in a relationship and using sexuality to maintain and acquire relationships. Possible scores range from 0-26.  Photo rating task  Stimuli (Figure 1): 60 black and white photos of male faces 4 ; included 20 originals (Org), which were 30% masculinized (M30) and 30% feminized (F30) 5.  Photo task (Figure 2): Participants rated how attractive, aggressive, masculine, and trustworthy each face appeared to them on a 7-point Likert scale (1=not at all; 7=extremely).  Trait ratings and photos counterbalanced for order.  Participants told to rate photos as quickly as possible within a 5-s window.  Participants were not informed of photo manipulations.  Data analysis  Median split divided Hypermasculinity Scale (mdn=8.0) and Hyperfemininity Index (mdn=9.0) into low and high groups for analysis.  4 (Trait) x 3 (Face Masculinization) x 2 (Sex/Gender Role) repeated measures MANOVA with trait ratings as dependent variables. Methods  Participants  41 heterosexual males and females between age 18-27 (mean age=19.51±1.7).  Self-report measures  Hypermasculinity Inventory 1 : Assesses male identification with traditionally masculine, or ‘macho’ attitudes and behaviors regarding sex, violence, and danger. Possible scores range from 0-30.  Hyperfemininity Scale 3 : Assesses female identification with traditionally feminine attitudes regarding women’s roles in a relationship and using sexuality to maintain and acquire relationships. Possible scores range from 0-26.  Photo rating task  Stimuli (Figure 1): 60 black and white photos of male faces 4 ; included 20 originals (Org), which were 30% masculinized (M30) and 30% feminized (F30) 5.  Photo task (Figure 2): Participants rated how attractive, aggressive, masculine, and trustworthy each face appeared to them on a 7-point Likert scale (1=not at all; 7=extremely).  Trait ratings and photos counterbalanced for order.  Participants told to rate photos as quickly as possible within a 5-s window.  Participants were not informed of photo manipulations.  Data analysis  Median split divided Hypermasculinity Scale (mdn=8.0) and Hyperfemininity Index (mdn=9.0) into low and high groups for analysis.  4 (Trait) x 3 (Face Masculinization) x 2 (Sex/Gender Role) repeated measures MANOVA with trait ratings as dependent variables. Discussion & Conclusions  Women gave higher ratings of Masculine and Trustworthy to the photos than did men.  We did not find support for gender role differences in male face ratings.  Small sample size and use of a 7-point rating scale instead of a forced-choice response format may have contributed to null results.  Consistent with previous research, masculinized faces were viewed as more aggressive, more masculine, and less trustworthy than feminized faces, and attractive ratings were not dependent on facial manipulation.  These results suggest that men and women interpret subtle masculine and feminine male facial cues similarly, but may use this information to achieve different, sex-specific goals in male intrasexual competition and female mate choice.  Men's and women's successful use of social and sexual strategies necessitate accurate evaluation of potential mates and competitors. However, perceptual biases in physical and personality judgments resulting from sex or socialized gender roles may lead to ineffective or risky social and sexual decision-making. Discussion & Conclusions  Women gave higher ratings of Masculine and Trustworthy to the photos than did men.  We did not find support for gender role differences in male face ratings.  Small sample size and use of a 7-point rating scale instead of a forced-choice response format may have contributed to null results.  Consistent with previous research, masculinized faces were viewed as more aggressive, more masculine, and less trustworthy than feminized faces, and attractive ratings were not dependent on facial manipulation.  These results suggest that men and women interpret subtle masculine and feminine male facial cues similarly, but may use this information to achieve different, sex-specific goals in male intrasexual competition and female mate choice.  Men's and women's successful use of social and sexual strategies necessitate accurate evaluation of potential mates and competitors. However, perceptual biases in physical and personality judgments resulting from sex or socialized gender roles may lead to ineffective or risky social and sexual decision-making. References 1 Mosher, D.L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). J. Rsch. Pers., 18, 154-160; 2 Maybach, K.L., & Gold, S.R. (1994). J. Sex. Res., 31, 91-98; 3 Murnen, S.K., & Byrne, D. (1991). J. Sex Res., 18, 479-489; 4 Janssen, E., Hahn, S., Rullo, J., & Sheya, A. (2007). Manuscript in prep.; 5 Rowland, D.A, & Perrett, D.I. (1995). IEEE Comp Graphics & App., 15, 70-76. References 1 Mosher, D.L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). J. Rsch. Pers., 18, 154-160; 2 Maybach, K.L., & Gold, S.R. (1994). J. Sex. Res., 31, 91-98; 3 Murnen, S.K., & Byrne, D. (1991). J. Sex Res., 18, 479-489; 4 Janssen, E., Hahn, S., Rullo, J., & Sheya, A. (2007). Manuscript in prep.; 5 Rowland, D.A, & Perrett, D.I. (1995). IEEE Comp Graphics & App., 15, 70-76. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Erick Janssen for the photos used in this study and for his helpful comments during study development and data analysis, and David Perrett for the use of Psychomorph software. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Erick Janssen for the photos used in this study and for his helpful comments during study development and data analysis, and David Perrett for the use of Psychomorph software. Figure 1. Photo manipulation M30 Org F30 Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Masculine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Masculine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aggressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aggressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Figure 2. Photo task example * † Figure 5. M30 vs Org p<.05, M30 vs F30 p<.10 Figure 4. M30 vs Org p<.01, M30 vs F30 p=.001 Figure 6. F30 vs Org p=.33 (ns), F30 vs M30 p=.01 Figure 6. F30 vs M30 p=.70, F30 vs Org p=.20, M30 vs Org p=.56 (ns) Results  Self-report measures  Hypermasculinity Inventory mean score=8.7, SD=4.4.  Hyperfemininity Scale mean score=8.8, SD=2.8.  Photo rating task  Figure 3. Sex differences in mean trait ratings. (F 1,39 =2.923, p=.095)  Figures 4-7. Interaction effect of male face masculinization and feminization on trait ratings. (F 6,234 =3.576, p<.01)  No effect of face manipulation on Attractive ratings.  No effect of gender role identification on trait ratings. Results  Self-report measures  Hypermasculinity Inventory mean score=8.7, SD=4.4.  Hyperfemininity Scale mean score=8.8, SD=2.8.  Photo rating task  Figure 3. Sex differences in mean trait ratings. (F 1,39 =2.923, p=.095)  Figures 4-7. Interaction effect of male face masculinization and feminization on trait ratings. (F 6,234 =3.576, p<.01)  No effect of face manipulation on Attractive ratings.  No effect of gender role identification on trait ratings. Figure 3. † F 1,39 =3.512, p<.07; *F 1,39 =5.471, p<.05