open access

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)
Original article
Submitted: 2019-12-09
Accepted: 2020-03-12
Published online: 2020-04-10
Get Citation

The craniofacial indicators of aggression: a cross-sectional multiparametric anthropometry study

B. Gülcen1, İ. C. Pelin2, E. B. Özener3
·
Pubmed: 32301106
·
Folia Morphol 2021;80(1):55-62.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Balikesir University, Balikesir, Türkiye
  2. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, Türkiye
  3. Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Letters, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Türkiye

open access

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Submitted: 2019-12-09
Accepted: 2020-03-12
Published online: 2020-04-10

Abstract

Background: The craniofacial features of a person are unique and critical in the evaluation of age, gender, and ethnicity. The relationships between craniofacial properties and behavioural patterns have been one of the most common research topics.

Materials and methods: There are studies on the association of facial width-to- -height ratio (fWHR) and aggressive behaviour in men; however, no consensus has been reached as there are inconsistent study results. Most of the studies focus on measuring the pre-determined fWHR in searching for a link to aggression. As the literature lacks data on the associations of multiple craniofacial ratios and aggression, we aimed to study the correlation of aggressive behaviour and multiparametric anthropometric measurements of the craniofacial region in a study group consisting of university students aging 18–38 years.

Results: The aggression questionnaire results showed that male students had statistically higher scores than females in all subdomains, except physical aggression. Anthropometric studies revealed that males had higher mean values of craniofacial dimensions and indices than females, except the frontal height, the total lip height, frontal index, and cranial length-head circumference index. The statistical analyses for correlations showed that frontal, upper facial, and total facial height-facial width indices correlated with general and verbal aggression, frontal and upper facial indices correlated with physical aggression, and upper facial and total facial height-facial width indices correlated with indirect aggression only in males.

Conclusions: We conclude that our study represents the first example of an extensive craniofacial anthropometric research that correlates several craniofacial measurements and ratios with various aggression subdomains.

Abstract

Background: The craniofacial features of a person are unique and critical in the evaluation of age, gender, and ethnicity. The relationships between craniofacial properties and behavioural patterns have been one of the most common research topics.

Materials and methods: There are studies on the association of facial width-to- -height ratio (fWHR) and aggressive behaviour in men; however, no consensus has been reached as there are inconsistent study results. Most of the studies focus on measuring the pre-determined fWHR in searching for a link to aggression. As the literature lacks data on the associations of multiple craniofacial ratios and aggression, we aimed to study the correlation of aggressive behaviour and multiparametric anthropometric measurements of the craniofacial region in a study group consisting of university students aging 18–38 years.

Results: The aggression questionnaire results showed that male students had statistically higher scores than females in all subdomains, except physical aggression. Anthropometric studies revealed that males had higher mean values of craniofacial dimensions and indices than females, except the frontal height, the total lip height, frontal index, and cranial length-head circumference index. The statistical analyses for correlations showed that frontal, upper facial, and total facial height-facial width indices correlated with general and verbal aggression, frontal and upper facial indices correlated with physical aggression, and upper facial and total facial height-facial width indices correlated with indirect aggression only in males.

Conclusions: We conclude that our study represents the first example of an extensive craniofacial anthropometric research that correlates several craniofacial measurements and ratios with various aggression subdomains.

Get Citation

Keywords

anthropometry, aggression, craniofacial, anatomy, behaviour

About this article
Title

The craniofacial indicators of aggression: a cross-sectional multiparametric anthropometry study

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Original article

Pages

55-62

Published online

2020-04-10

Page views

1223

Article views/downloads

1354

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2020.0039

Pubmed

32301106

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2021;80(1):55-62.

Keywords

anthropometry
aggression
craniofacial
anatomy
behaviour

Authors

B. Gülcen
İ. C. Pelin
E. B. Özener

References (36)
  1. Alrajih S, Ward J. Increased facial width-to-height ratio and perceived dominance in the faces of the UK's leading business leaders. Br J Psychol. 2014; 105(2): 153–161.
  2. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: a meta-analytic review. Rev Gen Psychol. 2004; 8(4): 291–322.
  3. Bettencourt BA, Miller N. Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1996; 119(3): 422–447.
  4. Bird B, Jofré VC, Geniole S, et al. Does the facial width-to-height ratio map onto variability in men's testosterone concentrations? Evol Hum Beh. 2016; 37(5): 392–398.
  5. Buss AH, Warren WL. Aggression questionnaire: (AQ). Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles 2000.
  6. Can S. “Aggression Questionnaire” adlı ölçeğin Türk popülasyonunda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. GATA Haydarpaşa Eğitim Hastanesi, Istanbul 2002.
  7. Carré JM, McCormick CM. In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275(1651): 2651–2656.
  8. Costa M, Lio G, Gomez A, et al. How components of facial width to height ratio differently contribute to the perception of social traits. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2): e0172739.
  9. Dodangheh M, Mokhtari T, Mojaverrostami S, et al. Anthropometric study of the facial index in the population of medical students in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. GMJ Med. 2018: 51–57.
  10. Ekizoglu O, Hocaoglu E, Inci E, et al. Assessment of sex in a modern Turkish population using cranial anthropometric parameters. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2016; 21: 45–52.
  11. Farkas LG, Hreczko TM, Katic MJ, et al. Proportion indices in the craniofacial regions of 284 healthy North American white children between 1 and 5 years of age. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14(1): 13–28.
  12. Geniole SN, Denson TF, Dixson BJ, et al. Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7): e0132726.
  13. Goetz SMM, Shattuck KS, Miller RM, et al. Social status moderates the relationship between facial structure and aggression. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24(11): 2329–2334.
  14. Gómez-Valdés J, Hünemeier T, Quinto-Sánchez M, et al. Lack of support for the association between facial shape and aggression: a reappraisal based on a worldwide population genetics perspective. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1): e52317.
  15. Haselhuhn MP, Ormiston ME, Wong EM. Men's facial width-to-height ratio predicts aggression: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0122637.
  16. Hodges-Simeon CR, Hanson Sobraske KN, Samore T, et al. Facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is not associated with adolescent testosterone levels. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4): e0153083.
  17. Im S, Jin G, Jeong J, et al. Gender Differences in Aggression-related Responses on EEG and ECG. Exp Neurobiol. 2018; 27(6): 526–538.
  18. Kolar J, Salter EM. Craniofacial anthropometry: practical measurement of the head and face for linical, surgical, and research use. C C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois 1997.
  19. Köllner MG, Janson KT, Schultheiss OC. Commentary: sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio in human skulls and faces: a meta-analytical approach. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018; 9: 227.
  20. Kosinski M. Facial width-to-height ratio does not predict self-reported behavioral tendencies. Psychol Sci. 2017; 28(11): 1675–1682.
  21. Kramer R. Sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio in human skulls and faces: A meta-analytical approach. Evol Hum Beh. 2017; 38(3): 414–420.
  22. Lefevre C, Lewis G, Perrett D, et al. Telling facial metrics: facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men. Evol Hum Beh. 2013; 34(4): 273–279.
  23. Majeed MI, Haralur SB, Khan MF, et al. An anthropometric study of cranio-facial measurements and their correlation with vertical dimension of occlusion among Saudi Arabian subpopulations. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(4): 680–686.
  24. Matthews HS, Penington AJ, Hardiman R, et al. Modelling 3D craniofacial growth trajectories for population comparison and classification illustrated using sex-differences. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 4771.
  25. Muñoz-Reyes JA, Gil-Burmann C, Turiegano E. Digit Ratio 2D:4D, facial masculinization and aggressiveness in Spanish adolescents /Índice 2D:4D, masculinización facial y agresividad en adolescentes españoles. Estudios de Psicología. 2014; 35(2): 319–340.
  26. Noser E, Schoch J, Ehlert U. The influence of income and testosterone on the validity of facial width-to-height ratio as a biomarker for dominance. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0207333.
  27. Özener B. Facial width-to-height ratio in a Turkish population is not sexually dimorphic and is unrelated to aggressive behavior. Evol Hum Beh. 2012; 33(3): 169–173.
  28. Pandeya A, Atreya A. Variations in the facial dimensions and face types among the students of a Medical College. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2018; 56(209): 531–534.
  29. Pouya F, Eftekhar-Vaghefi SH, Salehinejad P. Anthropometric analysis of cephalofacial dimensions in Kerman, Iran. Acta Med Iran. 2017; 55(4): 241–248.
  30. Roosenboom J, Indencleef K, Lee MK, et al. SNPs associated with testosterone levels influence human facial morphology. Front Genet. 2018; 9: 497.
  31. Sharma RL, Pancholi P, Sharma S, et al. Anthropometric measurement of lips in adults of MP India. IJAR. 2017; 3(2): 210–212.
  32. Sirinturk S, Bagheri H, Govsa F, et al. Study of frontal hairline patterns for natural design and restoration. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017; 39(6): 679–684.
  33. Torres-Restrepo AM, Quintero-Monsalve AM, Giraldo-Mira JF, et al. Agreement between cranial and facial classification through clinical observation and anthropometric measurement among Envigado school children. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 50.
  34. Wang D, Nair K, Kouchaki M, et al. A case of evolutionary mismatch? Why facial width-to-height ratio may not predict behavioral tendencies. Psychol Sci. 2019; 30(7): 1074–1081.
  35. Weidler C, Habel U, Hüpen P, et al. On the complexity of aggressive behavior: contextual and individual factors in the taylor aggression paradigm. Front Psychiatry. 2019; 10: 521.
  36. Welker K, Goetz S, Carré J. Perceived and experimentally manipulated status moderates the relationship between facial structure and risk-taking. Evol Hum Beh. 2015; 36(6): 423–429.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.: +48 58 320 94 94, faks: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl