Sexual Dimorphism: The Interrelation of Shape and Color.

Sex-typicality displayed as sexual dimorphism of the human face is a key feature enabling sex recognition. It is also believed to be a cue for perceiving biological quality and it plays an important role in the perception of attractiveness. Sexual dimorphism of human faces has two main components: sexual shape dimorphism of various facial features and sexual color dimorphism, generally manifested as dimorphism of skin luminance, where men tend to be darker than women. However, very little is known about the mutual relationship of these two facets. We explored the interconnection between the dimorphism of face shape and dimorphism of face color in three visually distinct populations (Cameroonian, Czech, and Vietnamese). Our results indicated that populations which showed a significant dimorphism in skin luminance (Cameroon, Vietnam) had low levels of sexual shape dimorphism, while a population with higher levels of sexual shape dimorphism (Czech Republic) did not exhibit a significant dimorphism of skin luminance. These findings suggest a possible compensatory mechanism between various domains of sexual dimorphism in populations differing in the levels of shape and color dimorphism.

Sexually dimorphic traits are associated with subsistence strategy in African faces from the Sahel/Savannah belt.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research revealed that in some African populations, food-production strategies are associated with facial shape. Nomadic pastoralists living in the African Sahel/Savannah belt have a different facial morphology than their sedentary neighbors. We investigated whether the lifestyle associated with a subsistence pattern has an impact on sexual dimorphism in the facial structure. METHODS: We employed several methods from geometric morphometrics and demonstrated such effect in four ethnically distinct populations that share the same geographic space. RESULTS: We show that the facial traits which correlate with a subsistence strategy are systematically associated with levels of facial sex-typicality. In particular, we found that faces with more pronounced pastoralist features have on average more masculine facial traits and that this effect is more pronounced in men than in women. CONCLUSIONS: In general, though, the magnitude of overall facial dimorphism does not differ between pastoralists and farmers. Pastoralists (in contrast to farmers) tend to have a more masculine facial morphology but facial differences between the sexes are in both groups the same.

Africans and Europeans differ in their facial perception of dominance and sex-typicality: a multidimensional Bayesian approach.

Biosocial impact of facial dominance and sex-typicality is well-evidenced in various human groups. It remains unclear, though, whether perceived sex-typicality and dominance can be consistently predicted from sexually dimorphic facial features across populations. Using a combination of multidimensional Bayesian approach and geometric morphometrics, we explored associations between perceived dominance, perceived sex-typicality, measured sexual shape dimorphism, and skin colour in a European and an African population. Unlike previous studies, we investigated the effect of facial variation due to shape separately from variation due to visual cues not related to shape in natural nonmanipulated stimuli. In men, perceived masculinity was associated with perceived dominance in both populations. In European women higher perceived femininity was, surprisingly, likewise positively associated with perceived dominance. Both shape and non-shape components participate in the constitution of facial sex-typicality and dominance. Skin colour predicted perceived sex-typicality in Africans but not in Europeans. Members of each population probably use different cues to assess sex-typicality and dominance. Using our methods, we found no universal sexually dimorphic scale predicting human perception of sex-typicality and dominance. Unidimensional understanding of sex-typicality thus seems problematic and should be applied with cautions when studying perceived sex-typicality and its correlates.

Sexual Dimorphism in Facial Contrast: A Case from Central Africa.

Apart from morphological differences, male and female faces also vary in color, especially in overall lightness and facial contrast, i.e., the contrast between the luminance and color of facial features (eyes, lips, or brows) and luminance and color of the surrounding skin. In many populations, it has been demonstrated that women tend to be lighter than men. Other differences were found in facial contrast: women have a higher contrast between the lightness of their eyes and lips and the surrounding skin. Manipulation of this contrast in an artificial genderless face can result in a masculine or feminine appearance. So far, however, this phenomenon has been studied mostly in Euro-American and East Asian samples, with little evidence from populations with darker facial tone. We explored natural sexual dimorphism in both facial contrast and lightness in an African, namely Cameroonian, sample, and compared it with results for a European, in particular Czech, population. Our findings showed that sexual differences in luminance contrast of eyes and brows were in both studied populations similar but in the Cameroonian sample, significant difference in lips contrast was absent. These results indicate that sex differences in facial contrast are a side effect of the sex differences in skin color and can be used as a proxy for skin color perception.

Nomadic pastoralists and sedentary farmers of the Sahel/Savannah Belt of Africa in the light of geometric morphometrics based on facial portraits.

OBJECTIVES: The Sahel/Savannah belt is a region where two sympatric human subsistence strategies-nomadic pastoralism and sedentary farming-have been coexisting for millennia. While earlier studies focused on estimating population differentiation and genetic structure of this ecologically remarkable region's inhabitants, less effort has been expended on understanding the morphological variation among local populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To fill this gap, we used geometric morphometrics to analyze the facial features of three groups of pastoralists and three groups of sedentary farmers belonging to three language families (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic) whose mitochondrial DNA sequences have been published previously. RESULTS: Our results show that pastoralists differ from farmers with several facial features. We also found that individuals who bear maternally inherited haplotypes of Eurasian ancestry do not significantly morphologically differ from individuals whose maternal ancestry is sub-Saharan. CONCLUSIONS: Our study follows up and builds upon population genetic and phylogeographic studies of Eurasian haplogroups in the Fulani pastoralists and sub-Saharan haplogroups in the Arab pastoralists, as well as studies on the spread of lactase persistence mutations and other genetic markers. Our results suggest that recent gene flows across the Sahel/Savannah belt were not strong enough to erase a genetic structure established by Paleolithic foragers and further shaped by the adoption of agropastoral food-producing strategies.

Toward a New Approach to Cross-Cultural Distinctiveness and Typicality of Human Faces: The Cross-Group Typicality/ Distinctiveness Metric.

In the present research, we took advantage of geometric morphometrics to propose a data-driven method for estimating the individual degree of facial typicality/distinctiveness for cross-cultural (and other cross-group) comparisons. Looking like a stranger in one's home culture may be somewhat stressful. The same facial appearance, however, might become advantageous within an outgroup population. To address this fit between facial appearance and cultural setting, we propose a simple measure of distinctiveness/typicality based on position of an individual along the axis connecting the facial averages of two populations under comparison. The more distant a face is from its ingroup population mean toward the outgroup mean the more distinct it is (vis-à-vis the ingroup) and the more it resembles the outgroup standards. We compared this new measure with an alternative measure based on distance from outgroup mean. The new measure showed stronger association with rated facial distinctiveness than distance from outgroup mean. Subsequently, we manipulated facial stimuli to reflect different levels of ingroup-outgroup distinctiveness and tested them in one of the target cultures. Perceivers were able to successfully distinguish outgroup from ingroup faces in a two-alternative forced-choice task. There was also some evidence that this task was harder when the two faces were closer along the axis connecting the facial averages from the two cultures. Future directions and potential applications of our proposed approach are discussed.