Angry faces: Research suggests link between facial structure and aggression
October 30, 2009Angry words and gestures are not the only way to get a sense of how temperamental a person is. According to new findings in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, a quick glance at someone's facial structure may be enough for us to predict their tendency towards aggression.
Facial width-to-height ratio (WHR) is determined by measuring the distance between the right and left cheeks and the distance from the upper lip to the mid-brow. During childhood, boys and girls have similar facial structures, but during puberty, males develop a greater WHR than females. Previous research has suggested that males with a larger WHR act more aggressively than those with a smaller WHR. For example, studies have shown that hockey players with greater WHR earn more penalty minutes per game than players with lower WHR.
Psychologists Justin M. Carré, Cheryl M. McCormick, and Catherine J. Mondloch of Brock University conducted an experiment to see if it is possible to predict another person's propensity for aggressive behavior simply by looking at their photograph. Volunteers viewed photographs of faces of men for whom aggressive behavior was previously assessed in the lab. The volunteers rated how aggressive they thought each person was on a scale of one to seven after viewing each face for either 2000 milliseconds or 39 milliseconds.
The photographs were very revealing: Volunteers' estimates of aggression correlated highly with the actual aggressive behavior of the faces viewed, even if they saw the picture for only 39 milliseconds. Even more interestingly, the volunteers' estimates were also highly correlated with WHR of the faces—the greater the WHR, the higher the aggressive rating, suggesting that we may use this aspect of facial structure to judge potential aggression in others. These findings indicate that subtle differences in face shape may affect personality judgments, which may, in turn, guide how we respond to certain individuals.
Source: Association for Psychological Science (news : web)
Oct 01, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
Another reason why government shouldn't fund ANYTHING!
Aggression and low IQ?
well, what people inside of a concentration camp would think? I am pretty sure they would eagerly want some aggression on their side! they seemed to be plenty of IQ on the victims' side. Aggression? they did not have that on their side. I am pretty sure the wanted - the more the better! Or just what happened to some of the people that went through that experience, they got a lot of weapons! The camps gave them a reality check.
Aggression can only be a bad feature in Disney, where some people live. The world is not made up of Chomskys. Innocence is not a virtue. I bet some weak minds wake up listening to "no alarms, no surprises" of Radiohead
Yeah, thank God the government didn't fund arpanet/internet ... Oh, wait. Well then, the highway system, good thing ... never mind. Well, it was great that the government never funded a guaranteed market in semiconductor chips because that would never ... well, in just that case. At least we have private carbon fiber composites because ... oh shoot. Well, how about genetic engineering ... I mean after the billions and billions the government spent.
Anyhow, you're can't read can you. This has to do with hormonal growth in widening the males face being correlated with aggression.
2) Another note to self: Laymen are not "aggressive" enough to learn scientific terms. They would prefer to watch reality TV and engage in other passive-aggressive hobbies, such as spectator sports.
A disenchanted (but ambitious aka "aggressive" M--->
[2] aggressor, aggressoris = illegal attacker [Latin]
Defence, even violent defence is not aggression.
And Lavater's physiognomy requiescat in pace.
It is poorly written. Just a sketch of an article that creates more questions than it answers.
http://www.canada...24ba36e9
http://www.viewzo...ace.html
Seems the wider faces are more agressive.