Psychopathic Traits and Endocrine Function as Predictors of Costly and Non-Costly Reactive Aggression

I investigated factors of psychopathy (fearless dominance, self-centered impulsivity) and hormones (testosterone, cortisol, estradiol) in predicting costly and non-costly reactive aggression. I hypothesized that whereas self-centred impulsivity (SCI) would promote costly aggression, fearless dominance (FD) would promote non-costly aggression. Costly aggression was measured using the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm and noncostly aggression was measured using one-shot dictator games. In women (n = 97; M age = 19.86 years), greater SCI and lower baseline estradiol predicted greater costly aggression; also, greater FD predicted greater non-costly aggression, particularly among women with lower SCI. In men (n = 104; M age = 20.15 years), psychopathy and endocrine function did not predict costly aggression; however, greater FD and greater increases in testosterone were associated with greater non-costly aggression. Thus, there are sex-specific links between psychopathic personality traits, hormones, and aggressive behaviour, and psychopathic traits and endocrine function predict aggressive behaviour independently of each other

Taking Control of Aggression: Perceptions of Aggression Suppress the Link Between Perceptions of Facial Masculinity and Attractiveness

Women’s preferences for masculine-looking male faces are inconsistent across studies, with some studies finding a positive relationship between masculinity and attractiveness and others finding a negative relationship or no association. One possible reason for this inconsistency is that the perception of masculinity is also associated with perceptions of aggression, which may be viewed as particularly costly to women (aggressive individuals are more likely to experience injury or death). Based on the proposal that women’s preference for masculinity is in conflict with their aversion for aggression in male faces, we hypothesized that the bivariate associations between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness would be weak or negative, but would be positive and significantly stronger after controlling statistically for perceptions of aggression. Across three studies involving three sets of faces (n = 25, 54, 24) and five sets of raters (n = 29, 30, 26, 16, 10), this hypothesis was supported with the average correlation between perceptions of masculinity and attractiveness (r = -.09) reversing in direction and substantially increasing in magnitude after perceptions of aggression were controlled statistically (r = .35). Perceived masculinity may thus involve both attractive and unattractive components, and women’s preferences for masculinity may involve weighing its relative costs and benefits

Facing Aggression: Cues Differ for Female versus Male Faces

The facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio), is a sexually dimorphic metric associated with actual aggression in men and with observers’ judgements of aggression in male faces. Here, we sought to determine if observers’ judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio in female faces. In three studies, participants rated photographs of female and male faces on aggression, femininity, masculinity, attractiveness, and nurturing. In Studies 1 and 2, for female and male faces, judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio even when other cues in the face related to masculinity were controlled statistically. Nevertheless, correlations between the face ratio and judgements of aggression were smaller for female than for male faces (F1,36 = 7.43, p = 0.01). In Study 1, there was no significant relationship between judgements of femininity and of aggression in female faces. In Study 2, the association between judgements of masculinity and aggression was weaker in female faces than for male faces in Study 1. The weaker association in female faces may be because aggression and masculinity are stereotypically male traits. Thus, in Study 3, observers rated faces on nurturing (a stereotypically female trait) and on femininity. Judgements of nurturing were associated with femininity (positively) and masculinity (negatively) ratings in both female and male faces. In summary, the perception of aggression differs in female versus male faces. The sex difference was not simply because aggression is a gendered construct; the relationships between masculinity/femininity and nurturing were similar for male and female faces even though nurturing is also a gendered construct. Masculinity and femininity ratings are not associated with aggression ratings nor with the face ratio for female faces. In contrast, all four variables are highly inter-correlated in male faces, likely because these cues in male faces serve as ‘‘honest signals’’

Facing Aggression: Cues Differ for Female versus Male Faces

The facial width-to-height ratio (face ratio), is a sexually dimorphic metric associated with actual aggression in men and with observers' judgements of aggression in male faces. Here, we sought to determine if observers' judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio in female faces. In three studies, participants rated photographs of female and male faces on aggression, femininity, masculinity, attractiveness, and nurturing. In Studies 1 and 2, for female and male faces, judgements of aggression were associated with the face ratio even when other cues in the face related to masculinity were controlled statistically. Nevertheless, correlations between the face ratio and judgements of aggression were smaller for female than for male faces (F1,36 = 7.43, p = 0.01). In Study 1, there was no significant relationship between judgements of femininity and of aggression in female faces. In Study 2, the association between judgements of masculinity and aggression was weaker in female faces than for male faces in Study 1. The weaker association in female faces may be because aggression and masculinity are stereotypically male traits. Thus, in Study 3, observers rated faces on nurturing (a stereotypically female trait) and on femininity. Judgements of nurturing were associated with femininity (positively) and masculinity (negatively) ratings in both female and male faces. In summary, the perception of aggression differs in female versus male faces. The sex difference was not simply because aggression is a gendered construct; the relationships between masculinity/femininity and nurturing were similar for male and female faces even though nurturing is also a gendered construct. Masculinity and femininity ratings are not associated with aggression ratings nor with the face ratio for female faces. In contrast, all four variables are highly inter-correlated in male faces, likely because these cues in male faces serve as “honest signals”

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e. a controlling message) compared to no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly-internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared to the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly-internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing: Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat

The facial width-to-height ratio (FWHR) is the width of the face divided by the height of the upper face. There is mixed evidence for the hypothesis that the FWHR is a cue of threat and dominance in the human face. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of all peer-reviewed studies (and 2 unpublished studies) to estimate the magnitude of the sex difference in the FWHR, and the magnitude of the relationship between the FWHR and threatening and dominant behaviours and perceptions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the authors reported an analysis involving the FWHR. Our analyses revealed that the FWHR was larger in men than in women (d= .11, n = 10,853), cued judgements of masculinity in men (r= .35, n of faces = 487; n of observers = 339), and was related to body mass index (r= .31, n = 2,506). Further, the FWHR predicted both threat behaviour in men (r= .16, n = 4,603) and dominance behaviour in both sexes (r= .12, n = 948) across a variety of indices. Individuals with larger FWHRs were judged by observers as more threatening (r = .46, n of faces = 1,691; n of observers = 2,076) and more dominant (r= .20, n of faces = 603; n of observers = 236) than those with smaller FWHRs. Individuals with larger FWHRs were also judged as less attractive (r = -.26, n of faces = 721; n of observers = 335), especially when women made the judgements. These findings provide some support for the hypothesis that the FWHR is part of an evolved cueing system of intra-sexual threat and dominance in men. A limitation of the meta-analyses on perceptions of threat and dominance were the low number of stimuli involving female and older adult faces

Pearson product moment correlations between the face ratio and ratings of female faces (n = 31) in Study 2.

<p>Correlations in boldface are significant, <i>p</i><.05, two-tailed.</p><p>*significant after Bonferonni correction (p<0.008).</p

Effect sizes (<i>r</i>s) included in the meta-analysis on the relationships between the FWHR and threat behaviour (Panel A) and between the FWHR and perceptions of threat (Panel B).

<p>The mean weighted effect sizes <b>(</b></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><b><mi>r</mi></b></p><b><mo>¯</mo><p></p><mi>s</mi><p></p><p></p>)</b> are highlighted in grey, with men and women separated for Panel A and combined for Panel B. *<i>p</i> < .0001. ^aeffect size was removed from the final analysis.<p></p

Example of female and male stimuli used in Studies 1, 2 and 3.

<p>The faces differ in width-to-height ratio (face ratio). The lines drawn on the faces were not shown to observers and are included here to illustrate the landmarks used to measure the face ratio.</p