6,453
edits
Physiognomy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criminal/violent physiognomy
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* A Chinese study examined the association between [[fWHR]] and domestic violence in 144 individuals of both sexes (Wen & Zheng, 2020) found a medium effect size (d = .67) for greater fWHR (as measured to the midbrow) and the men's likelihood of being involved in a domestic violence incident in the past. No such association was found for the female subjects, though greater fWHR was associated with certain aspects of interpersonal dominance. The effect size was much more substantial for fWHR as measured to the midbrow compared to measuring it to the eyelid. However, both were statistically significant and fairly large compared to the usual effects one finds in the social sciences. This discrepancy in effect sizes for the two alternative forms of measuring of fWHR may suggest the midbrow measurement is more accurate in terms of discerning the effects this particular facial metric has on behavior. This discrepancy in the predictive validity for various measures of fWHR is something to keep in mind when interpreting the results of such research. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920300222</ref> | * A Chinese study examined the association between [[fWHR]] and domestic violence in 144 individuals of both sexes (Wen & Zheng, 2020) found a medium effect size (d = .67) for greater fWHR (as measured to the midbrow) and the men's likelihood of being involved in a domestic violence incident in the past. No such association was found for the female subjects, though greater fWHR was associated with certain aspects of interpersonal dominance. The effect size was much more substantial for fWHR as measured to the midbrow compared to measuring it to the eyelid. However, both were statistically significant and fairly large compared to the usual effects one finds in the social sciences. This discrepancy in effect sizes for the two alternative forms of measuring of fWHR may suggest the midbrow measurement is more accurate in terms of discerning the effects this particular facial metric has on behavior. This discrepancy in the predictive validity for various measures of fWHR is something to keep in mind when interpreting the results of such research. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920300222</ref> | ||
* A Chinese study claimed to be able to tell whether someone is a criminal based on machine learning, but the technique turned out to detect smiling instead.<ref>https://twitter.com/davidjayharris/status/1103636069180993537</ref> | * A Chinese study claimed to be able to tell whether someone is a criminal based on machine learning, but the technique turned out to detect smiling instead.<ref>https://twitter.com/davidjayharris/status/1103636069180993537</ref> | ||
* Stillman et al. (2010) had people rate the estimated propensity of violent behavior of a group of convicted violent and non-violent sexual offenders (N = 87) after a brief (2s) exposure to a static photograph of the offenders. It was found that participants were able to determine whether the offenders were violent or not above chance (d =.44), with no sex differences in these judgements' accuracy. However, women perceived a significantly higher level of threat from the men's photos than men (d =.38, though the significance was borderline marginal). An analysis of the individual target related factors that determined people's judgements of the men's violence proneness found that there was a mix of valid (predictive above chance) and invalid (not predictive or even deceptive cues) cues involved in rater's perceptions. The valid cues were generally markers of overall masculinity and robustness, such as facial masculinity and perceived strength, with age being negatively correlated with violent offending. Physical attractiveness, sadness, and smiles were poor cues of violent behavior, with the associations between these cues and actual offending being weak or non-existent. Interestingly, the deceptive cues included better grooming and general displays of positive affect (happiness), which were believed to be negatively associated with violent behavior. In reality, the actual link between these things and the presence of violent offending was non-existent. The strongest deceptive cues were certain displays of negative affect, such as anger and disgust, which contributed substantially to participants negative evaluations of the men in question, despite the link between these traits (as expressed in the static photos used in the study) and violent offending being non-significant.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.001</ref> | |||
===Homosexual physiognomy=== | ===Homosexual physiognomy=== | ||