Shape Differences Between the Faces of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men
Previous studies have shown that homosexual men differ from heterosexual men in several somatic traits and lay people accurately attribute sexual orientation based on facial images. Thus, we may predict that morphological differences between faces of homosexual and heterosexual individuals can cue to sexual orientation. The main aim of this study was to test for possible differences in facial shape between heterosexual and homosexual men. Further, we tested whether self-reported sexual orientation correlated with sexual orientation and masculinity–femininity attributed from facial images by independent raters. In Study 1, we used geometric morphometrics to test for differences in facial shape between homosexual and heterosexual men. The analysis revealed significant shape differences in faces of heterosexual and homosexual men. Homosexual men showed relatively wider and shorter faces, smaller and shorter noses, and rather massive and more rounded jaws, resulting in a mosaic of both feminine and masculine features. In Study 2, we tested the accuracy of sexual orientation judgment from standardized facial photos which were assessed by 80 independent raters. Binary logistic regression showed no effect of attributed sexual orientation on self-reported sexual orientation. However, homosexual men were rated as more masculine than heterosexual men, which may explain the misjudgment of sexual orientation. Thus, our results showed that differences in facial morphology of homosexual and heterosexual men do not simply mirror variation in femininity, and the stereotypic association of feminine looking men as homosexual may confound judgments of sexual orientation.
KeywordsGeometric morphometrics Homosexuality Facial shape Sexual orientation
JV was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (13-16959P), KK was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GACR P407/11/1464), JV, KK, and JH were supported by Charles University research center UNCE 204004. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article. We owe our thanks to Věra Pivoňková for helpful comments on the anthropometrical description of faces, to Adam Safron and Gerald Ostdiek for English corrections, and all the research participants for their willingness to cooperate in the project. We are also thankful to anonymous reviewers and the Editor for substantial improvement of the article.
- Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: The science of face perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dryden, I. L., & Mardia, K. V. (1998). Statistical shape analysis. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Enlow, D. H., & Hans, M. G. (1996). Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
- Farkas, L. G. (1981). Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Hammer, O., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm.
- Kolamunnage, R., & Kent, J. T. (2003). PCA for shape variation about an underlying symmetric shape. In R. G. Aykroyd, K. V. Mardia, & M. J. Langdon (Eds.), Stochastic geometry, biological structure and images (pp. 137–139). Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
- LeVay, S. (2010). Gay, straight, and the reason why: The science of sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lyons, M., Lynch, A., Brewer, G., & Bruno, D. (2013). Detection of sexual orientation (“gaydar”) by homosexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0144-7.
- R Core Development Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- Rohlf, J. F. (2008). tpsRelw (version 1.46). Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
- Rohlf, J. F. (2009a). TpsDig2 (version 2.14). Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
- Rohlf, J. F. (2009b). TpsRegr (version 1.36). Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
- Savriama, Y., Neustupa, J., & Klingenberg, C. (2010). Geometric morphometrics of symmetry and allometry in Micrasterias rotata (Zygnemophyceae, Viridiplantae). Nova Hedwigia, 136, 43–54.Google Scholar
- Schaefer, K., Fink, B., Grammer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., & Bookstein, F. L. (2006). Female appearance: Facial and bodily attractiveness as shape. Psychology Science, 48, 187–204.Google Scholar
- 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, 1664–1672.Google Scholar
- Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accurate identification of a preference for insertive versus receptive anal intercourse from static facial cues of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0092-2.
- Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul?. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., & Fink, W. L. (2004). Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. London: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar