A new study published in Evolutionary Psychological Science suggests that people judge men with wider faces as more capable of protecting children, with facial proportions shaping impressions of parenting style, motivation and mating strategies.
The research centres on the facial width-to-height ratio, which compares the horizontal width of the face from cheekbone to cheekbone with the vertical distance from the upper lip to the brow. Previous work has shown that wider male faces are commonly read as physically stronger and more dominant. A 2015 meta-analysis, for example, linked larger facial width-to-height ratios with perceptions of greater formidability.
Building on these findings, a 2021 study indicated that people actively prefer wider-faced men for roles within groups that require physical strength and defence. Separately, other research has tied physical strength to protective parenting stereotypes, suggesting that perceptions of strength can translate into expectations of parenting behaviour.
The new study attempts to fuse these lines of inquiry. From an evolutionary standpoint, mothers historically faced demanding physical and caloric pressures while raising infants, so cues signalling a potential protector could have conferred a survival advantage. The researchers tested whether facial cues associated with formidability also lead people to view a wider-faced man as a more motivated protector of children.
Lead author Mitch Brown, a teaching assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Science at the University of Arkansas, explained the motivation behind the work. “What motivated me to conduct this research was a growing interest in the parental motivational systems that clarified the multidimensional nature of parenting that necessitates people to make tradeoffs in some parental decisions,” he said.
Brown added that facial width-to-height ratio has become a convenient proxy for inferring formidability, noting that the feature can convey both anger and strength when viewed face to face, making it a useful model for examining the tradeoff between protection and nurturance.
The researchers ran four separate experiments. In Study 1, 101 undergraduate students evaluated 20 standardised photographs of White male faces with neutral expressions, half with high fWHR and half with low. Participants rated each man’s likely effectiveness at protecting and nurturing his children. Wider-faced men scored higher on protection, averaging 4.23 on a seven-point scale, compared with 3.84 for narrower-faced counterparts. There was no statistically significant difference in nurturing ratings between the two groups.
In Study 2, 111 participants constructed a hypothetical coalition using the same faces, selecting up to five men for protection and up to five for nurturing. Wider-faced men were chosen more often for protective roles—2.78 selections on average versus 1.15 for narrow-faced men—while nurturing selections were more evenly split. Perceptions of protection were linked to beliefs that wider-faced men were stronger and more aggressive.
Study 3, involving 194 participants, examined neural processing by presenting faces upright and inverted. When faces were upright, wider-faced men again appeared superior at protection; inverted faces, which disrupt configural processing of facial structure, diminished this protective advantage. Nurturing judgments for narrower faces persisted even when faces were upside down, suggesting reliance on specific facial features for those assessments.
“The effects in Study 3 did not provide a clear answer for how perceivers view parental ability when facial processing is disrupted,” Brown said. “The results imply that perceptions of protection may depend on holistic facial configuration, whereas nurturing judgments could rest on individual features.”
The fourth study surveyed 206 participants using modified questionnaires to gauge perceived motivations behind protecting or nurturing children, and preferences for short-term versus long-term mating strategies. Wider-faced men were rated as more motivated to protect (3.51) and less inclined toward nurturing (3.11) than their narrower-faced peers (3.40 and 3.47, respectively). They also appeared more oriented toward short-term mating strategies.
Brown noted that the observed effects on perceived ability were larger than those on motivation, suggesting fWHR might be a more reliable cue to physical capacity than to motivational traits. “The effects are fairly large, which may reflect an apparently loud signal value in the faces,” he said. “However, perceptions of ability appeared larger than that of motivation.”
The researchers caution that real-world judgments are more complex than laboratory tests. The photographs used showed only faces, without body size, and participants were drawn from Western university populations. They emphasise that cultural differences may shape how facial features are interpreted, and that future work should compare facial proportions with actual parenting behaviours.
Brown stressed that the facial width-to-height ratio should not be interpreted as a direct marker of hormones. “I am not indicating that fWHR itself is selected, nor am I arguing that the total feature is indicative of testosterone,” he said. “There appears to be a broad signal value that is apparent to perceivers through fWHR that is consistently informing perceptions of men’s parental abilities.”
The study’s authors also highlighted a tension with other recent work. While the new findings align with earlier PsyPost-covered research suggesting stronger men are perceived as better protectors, they differ from a 2023 study that found no link between facial masculinity and actual or perceived paternal involvement. The authors note the distinction between assessing perceptions based on facial proportions versus broader facial sexual dimorphism.
Looking ahead, the team aims to explore how these first impressions influence real-world, high-stakes decisions. Brown said: “My next steps are to apply these ideas into legal domains… it would be inappropriate for perceivers to rely on visual information as the basis of legal decision-making without concomitant evidence.” He added that work is already underway to examine whether fWHR could influence custody decisions in divorce proceedings and whether such inferences might unfairly impede fair treatment under the law.
Ultimately, the researchers argue that while facial cues of formidability can shape stereotypes about parenting, the signal is ambivalent. “Formidability is a wide concept with many facets in the broad construct,” Brown concluded. “Future research would benefit from parsing these components to clarify the heterogeneity in the literature.”
The study, Formidable Facial Structures Inform Perceptions of Men’s Ability to Protect Offspring, was authored by Mitch Brown, Donald F. Sacco, Nicholas P. Maxwell, Lindsey E. Eagan and Steven G. Young.
