The facial width‐to‐height ratio determines interpersonal distance preferences in the observer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is correlated with a number of aspects of aggressive behavior in men. Observers appear to be able to assess aggressiveness from male fWHR, but implications for interpersonal distance preferences have not yet been determined. This study utilized a novel computerized stop-distance task to examine interpersonal space preferences of female participants who envisioned being approached by a man; men's faces photographed posed in neutral facial expressions were shown in increasing size to mimic approach. We explored the effect of the men's fWHR, their behavioral aggression (measured previously in a computer game), and women's ratings of the men's aggressiveness, attractiveness, and masculinity on the preferred interpersonal distance of 52 German women. Hierarchical linear modelling confirmed the relationship between the fWHR and trait judgements (ratings of aggressiveness, attractiveness, and masculinity). There were effects of fWHR and actual aggression on the preferred interpersonal distance, even when controlling statistically for men's and the participants' age. Ratings of attractiveness, however, was the most influential variable predicting preferred interpersonal distance. Our results extend earlier findings on fWHR as a cue of aggressiveness in men by demonstrating implications for social interaction. In conclusion, women are able to accurately detect aggressiveness in emotionally neutral facial expressions, and adapt their social distance preferences accordingly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".