Philandering men have unfaithfulness written all over their faces, according to research that suggests men and women are able to spot cheating chaps just by looking at them.
Experts found men with more “masculine” faces were more likely to be thought to be unfaithful, and such men also self-reported more cheating or “poaching” of other men’s partners.
However, they stressed the results were modest, and said people should be wary of deciding whether someone is a love rat based on impressions of facial features alone.
Photo: EPA
The team said being suspicious of men with masculine features — such as a strong browridge, strong jaw and thinner lips — might have offered an evolutionary advantage, allowing heterosexual women to spot a flaky partner and men to recognize a potential rival who might seduce their partner or leave them raising someone else’s child.
Previous research has suggested women are able to spot unfaithful men from their mugshot, with the masculinity of the man’s face a key factor in the judgment, while weaker effects have been found for men weighing up images of women. However, it was unclear whether people could also spot a philanderer of the same sex.
Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, researchers described how they asked heterosexual white participants to judge the facial features of 189 white adults who had been photographed and taken part in previous research. Overall, 293 men and 472 women rated pictures of women, while 299 men and 452 women judged images of men, rating on a scale of one to 10 how likely they thought each person was to be unfaithful.
Those in the pictures had previously reported the extent of any cheating and whether they had “poached” a partner from someone else. Their photos had already been rated for attractiveness, untrustworthiness and how masculine or feminine they appeared.
The results showed men and women as a whole gave higher scores of unfaithfulness to the images of men who had self-reported more cheating or poaching.
“Therefore, perceived unfaithfulness may indeed contain some kernel of trust in male faces,” the authors said.
However, there was no such effect for the images of women. When the team examined what about the men’s faces might have offered clues to their unfaithfulness, they found the standout feature was how masculine the face appeared. Further analysis confirmed facial masculinity was linked to self-reported unfaithfulness, although it did not completely predict it.
However the team stressed many other factors are linked to whether someone is unfaithful.
“The actual unfaithfulness varies in our sample of faces, and 4 to 8 percent of this variation is accounted for by the average perceived unfaithfulness of those faces,” said Yong Zhi Foo, the first author of the research from the University of Western Australia.
The team said they were surprised that participants only saw cheating and poaching of partners in the face of men, and suggested it could be down to a number of factors, including women being less prone to cheating than men, or that women’s use of cosmetics masks links between facial features and behaviors.
They said further experiments with a wider range of photographed participants — including older people who might have had more time to be unfaithful — were necessary.
Kristen Knowles, an evolutionary psychologist from Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh, who was not involved in the study, said it was interesting the research made a clear connection between perceptions of infidelity and actual infidelity.
She said the results may only be seen in men as women may be less likely to self-report they have cheated on a partner or poached someone else’s.
But Knowles stressed it should not be assumed that men with masculine faces were likely to be unfaithful.
“We should be aware that these behaviors are incredibly complex, and are likely to be influenced by many factors, including social and cultural effects, personality, genetics and life experiences,” she said.
In the March 9 edition of the Taipei Times a piece by Ninon Godefroy ran with the headine “The quiet, gentle rhythm of Taiwan.” It started with the line “Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention.” I laughed out loud at that. This was out of no disrespect for the author or the piece, which made some interesting analogies and good points about how both Din Tai Fung’s and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC, 台積電) meticulous attention to detail and quality are not quite up to
April 21 to April 27 Hsieh Er’s (謝娥) political fortunes were rising fast after she got out of jail and joined the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in December 1945. Not only did she hold key positions in various committees, she was elected the only woman on the Taipei City Council and headed to Nanjing in 1946 as the sole Taiwanese female representative to the National Constituent Assembly. With the support of first lady Soong May-ling (宋美齡), she started the Taipei Women’s Association and Taiwan Provincial Women’s Association, where she
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) hatched a bold plan to charge forward and seize the initiative when he held a protest in front of the Taipei City Prosecutors’ Office. Though risky, because illegal, its success would help tackle at least six problems facing both himself and the KMT. What he did not see coming was Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (將萬安) tripping him up out of the gate. In spite of Chu being the most consequential and successful KMT chairman since the early 2010s — arguably saving the party from financial ruin and restoring its electoral viability —
It is one of the more remarkable facts of Taiwan history that it was never occupied or claimed by any of the numerous kingdoms of southern China — Han or otherwise — that lay just across the water from it. None of their brilliant ministers ever discovered that Taiwan was a “core interest” of the state whose annexation was “inevitable.” As Paul Kua notes in an excellent monograph laying out how the Portuguese gave Taiwan the name “Formosa,” the first Europeans to express an interest in occupying Taiwan were the Spanish. Tonio Andrade in his seminal work, How Taiwan Became Chinese,
RSS