ویژگی های نژادی و تفاوت های فردی در ارزیابی زنان از جذابیت صورت و شخصیت مردان

Prior research investigating the perception of men's faces has not considered the hybrid nature of black and white racial characteristics. Fifteen faces ranging from “pure” black or white to “hybrid” black and white were rated in the present research. Main effects for race of face were hypothesized. Predominantly black faces were expected to receive higher ratings for dominance and gender identity characteristics. Predominantly white faces were expected to receive the highest attractiveness rating and higher ratings for nurturant and expressive characteristics. The results supported the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of parental investment theory and existing research.

The face carries the most weight in the perception of men (Symons, 1995 and Wade, 2000). Not surprisingly, a great deal of research has examined male facial attractiveness (see e.g. Bernstein et al., 1982, Cunningham et al., 1990, Grammer and Thornhill, 1994, Johnston et al., 2001, Jones, 1995, Keating, 1985, Scheib et al., 1999 and Zebrowitz et al., 1993). Yet, there is a void in the literature examining the perception of both black and white men's faces . The hybrid nature of blacks and whites has not been considered (see Bernstein et al., 1982 and Zebrowitz et al., 1993). White men's faces tend to be shorter and narrower with smaller features concentrated in the center of the face. Black men's faces tend to be longer and wider with larger features that are more spread apart (Howells, 1973 and Howells, 1989). However, Davis, 1991, Krogman and Iscan, 1986 and Spickard, 1992, report that blacks and whites can also be hybrids of one another due to racial intermixing throughout history. Consequently, they also overlap in facial characteristics (Krogman & Iscan 1986). Therefore, research should examine men's faces that are “all” black and “all” white as well as faces that are black and white hybrids. Much of the research on facial attractiveness perception is from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychological research suggests that men are evaluated based on their perceived parental investment potential (Buss and Schmitt, 1993, Symons, 1995 and Trivers, 1972). Dominance, maturity, warmth, attractiveness, masculinity, strength, and social competence are inferred from the male face. These characteristics, singly or in combination, are used to make inferences regarding men's phenotypic quality (absence of disease), gender identity, and sexual maturity. In turn, those criteria (phenotypic quality (absence of disease), gender identity, and sexual maturity), singly or in combination, influence inferences women make about men's parental investment potential. Men and women have qualitatively and quantitatively different levels of investment in an offspring's development (Kenrick et al., 1990 and Trivers, 1972). A man's level of investment in the offspring's development depends on his relationship with the mother (Buss and Schmitt, 1993 and Trivers, 1972). A man, at the lowest level of parental investment, can provide good genes, while at the highest level of investment he will be able to provide food, shelter, and security for the mother in the present and the family in the future (Kenrick et al., 1994 and Trivers, 1972). A woman will seek a mate who can provide these indirect resources. Women desire and select mates that are healthy, masculine, and sexually mature (Buss and Schmitt, 1993 and Trivers, 1972). Men whose facial dimensions index these characteristics receive the highest ratings from women. Mazur et al., 1994 and Kenrick, 1987 report that men with broader faces are perceived as more dominant. Cunningham et al. (1990) also suggest that men who receive the highest ratings of attractiveness, masculinity and strength are men who possess both mature and childlike features. Men with broad faces with large chins, large foreheads, and lower set eyes are rated as most attractive, most dominant, most masculine, and strongest. Additionally, Johnston et al. (2001) report that men with longer, broader, lower jaws and more pronounced brow ridges than the average male face are considered most attractive. Personality (social desirability and social competence) can also be inferred from facial dimensions. Zebrowitz et al. (1993) report that men with rounded, more childlike features receive higher ratings for warmth. Zebrowitz et al. (1993) also report that black men, with their larger facial dimensions, are perceived as less socially competent than white men. Since the face carries so much weight in the perception of men and we do not know how men with varying degrees of black and white characteristics are perceived the present study was conducted to fill this void. This research examined how women rate men's faces that range from “all” black to “all” white. Consistent with prior research (Cunningham et al., 1990 and Zebrowitz et al., 1993), a repeated measures design was utilized.

Black men with faces that have more black characteristics or predominantly black characteristics are perceived as more “fit” from an evolutionary perspective than men with fewer black characteristics. However, one should not conclude that these males are “better” choices than white men. Both black men with these characteristics and white men could be “best” choices. Men can invest at two levels, a lower more physical (genetic) level and a higher financial as well as genetic level . These results suggest that women feel black men with predominantly black facial characteristics are better choices at the genetic level of parental investment. Women may feel these men fare better on the purely physical component of mate value. This may be due to black men's lower socioeconomic status in the US (US Bureau of the Census, 1992). Singh (1995) reports that financial status may also be used as a mate selection characteristic. This conclusion is further supported by the findings regarding attractiveness perception where predominately white faces received higher attractiveness ratings. Predominantly black faces may not have been rated as most attractive due to the fact that white males have greater financial status. Financial status is related to facial attractiveness. Frieze, Olsen and Russell (1991) report that men with attractive faces have greater financial status than men with unattractive faces. Additionally, Hume and Montgomerie (2001) report that men's facial attractiveness is best predicted by the socioeconomic status of the environment where they were reared. Alternatively, since culture can shape evolutionary criteria these findings may be a product of racial stereotyping where black men are stereotyped as being physically dominant (Dovidio and Gaertner, 1986, Wade, 1991 and Wade, 1996). Since men can compete intrasexually for access to women, (Buss, 1988, Buss and Dedden, 1990 and Wade and McCrea, 1999) future research should examine how black and white men perceive men's faces that vary from “all” black to “all” white. Additionally, since black women can also be a mixture of white and black (Krogman & Iscan, 1986), future study should examine women's faces that are a mixture of white and black. Since facial dimensions can vary within races (personal comment from Ronald Henss, January 2003) future research should also further examine how facial shape affects the perception of black and white men within each racial group. Lastly, future research should examine actual faces with varying racial characteristics as actual faces may carry more ecological validity than drawings. These results add to the literature on social perception and further add to the value of evolutionary theory as a tool for explaining social behavior and perception.