Sex Differences and Age Changes in Digit Ratios: Implications for the Use of Digit Ratios in Medicine and Biology

  • John T. ManningEmail author


The term digit ratio is often taken to mean the ratio of the lengths of the second and fourth digits (2D:4D). This ratio has been reported to show sex differences such that on average males have longer fourth digits relative to their second digit than do females. The sex difference in 2D:4D appears in the foetus as early as the ninth week, it is found in infants, children and adults, and the 2D:4D of infants is strongly correlated with their 2D:4D when they become adults. The sex difference results from a different male and female growth trajectory of 4D relative to 2D. It has been suggested that the sex dependent growth trajectory of 4D relative to 2D is the consequence of the effects of prenatal testosterone (PT) relative to prenatal estrogen (PE) on finger growth, such that high PT and low PE may result in low values of 2D:4D. Excluding the thumb, the fingers show six ratios and a number of these show sex differences. However, only 2D:4D, 2D:3D and 3D:4D show both sex differences and are relatively stable with growth in children. Therefore, 2D:4D, 2D:3D and 3D:4D are the most likely digit ratios to reflect levels of prenatal sex steroids. Diseases that show a sex difference in their expression may be influenced by PT and PE. Most work has concentrated on 2D:4D and its links to developmental disorders (e.g. autism, Asperger’s syndrome and ADHD), cardio-vascular disorders (e.g. MI), cardiovascular efficiency (e.g. running speed), and cancers (e.g. breast and cervical cancer). Further work is necessary to quantify the strength of such links in order to establish whether 2D:4D may be of predictive value for these diseases. In addition other links with such diseases as prostate cancer are likely to be investigated.


Cervical Cancer Sexual Dimorphism Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Digit Ratio Finger Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Second finger or digit, the ‘index finger’


Third finger or digit, the ‘middle finger’


Fourth finger or digit, the ‘ring finger’


Fifth finger or digit, the ‘little finger’


The ratio between the length of 2D and 4D


The ratio between the length of 2D and 3D


The ratio between the length of 2D and 5D


The ratio between the length of 3D and 4D


The ratio between the length of 3D and 5D


Ratio between the length of 4D and 5D


  1. Allaway HC, Bloski TG, Pierson RA, Lujan ME. Am J Hum Biol. 2009;21:365–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker F. Am Anthrop. 1888;1:51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brabin L, Roberts SA, Farzareh F, Fairbrother E, Kitchener HC. Am J Hum Biol. 2008;20:337–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown WM, Hines M, Fane BA, Breedlove SM. Horm Behav. 2002;42:380–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burriss RP, Little AC, Nelson EC. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell N, Manning JT. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:143–148.Google Scholar
  7. Ciumas C, Hirschberg AL, Savic I. Cerebral Cort. 2009;19:1167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Bruin EI, Verheij F, Wiegman T, Ferdinand RF. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;43:160–4.Google Scholar
  9. Fink B, Thanzami V, Seydel H, Manning JT. Am J Hum Biol. 2006;18:776–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kratochvil L, Flegr J. Biol Lett. 2009; 5:643–46.Google Scholar
  11. Malas MA, Dogan S, Evcil EH, Desdicioglu K. Early Hum Dev. 2006;82:469–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manning JT. Digit ratio: a pointer to fertility, behavior and health. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  13. Manning JT, Bundred PE. Brit J Cardiol. 2001;8:720–3.Google Scholar
  14. Manning JT, Leinster SJ. The Breast. 2001;10:355–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manning JT, Scutt D, Wilson J, Lewis-Jones DI. Hum Rep. 1998;13:3000–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manning JT, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Sanders G. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001;43:160–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Manning JT, Stewart A, Bundred PE. Early Hum Dev. 2004;80:161–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manning JT, Fink B, Neave N, Caswell N. Arch Sex Behav. 2005;34:329–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manning JT, Churchill AJ, Peters M. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36:223–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martel MM. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;122:273–81.Google Scholar
  21. McFadden D, Shubel E. Horm Behav. 2002;42:492–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre MH, Ellison PT, Lieberman DE, Demerath E, Towne B. Proc Roy Soc B. 2005;272:1473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMechan AP, O’Leary-Moore SK, Morrison SD, Hannigan JH. Dev Psychobiol. 2004;45:251–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Okten A, Kalyoncu M, Kalyoncu M, Yaris N. Early Hum Dev. 2002;70:47–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peters M, Mackenzie K, Bryden P. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;117:209–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Romano M, Rubolini D, Martinelli R, Bonisoli AA, Saino N. Horm Behav. 2005;48:342–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saino N, Rubolini D, Romano M, Boncoraglio G. Naturwissenschaften. 2007;94:207–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Talarovicova A, Krskova L, Blazecova J. Horm Behav. 2009; 55:235–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trivers RL, Manning JT, Jacobson A. Horm Behav. 2006;49:150–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Voracek M, Dressler SG. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21:1329–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams JH, Greenhalgh KD, Manning JT. Early Hum Dev. 2003;72:57–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, School of Human SciencesUniversity of SwanseaSwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations