Dominant Looking Male Teenagers

Copulate Earlier
Allan Mazur
S~rucuse University
Carolyn Halpern
University of North Curolina
J. Richard Udry
University of North Carolinu
Many theorists suggest that dominant males leave more offspring than submissive
males, hut this seems not to he true among humans. Possibly dominant human males
have more copulatory opportunity, but they or their partners prevent conception.
Teenage boys were judged to look either dominant or submissive in facial appearance.
They were also rated on attractiveness and pubertal development. Dominant looking
boys are more likely to report coital opportunity than submissive looking boys, net of
attractiveness and pubertal development.
KEY WORDS: Dominance; Fitness; Coitus.
A
common assumption of sociobiology is that an individual will act to
maximize its inclusive fitness within the limits of its resources.
Many theorists hypothesize that high ranking or dominant mem-
bers of a status hierarchy maximize inclusive fitness by having
more offspring than low ranked or submissive individuals, because they
have more resources (e.g., Alexander 1974; Wilson 1975). There is consider-
able evidence from animal species, including primates, that high dominance
rank is associated with high reproductive success (Dewsbury 1982; Robinson
1982; Cowlishaw and Dunbar 1991; but see Bercovitch 1991 for a different
view).
When the hypothesis has been tested in large-scale human societies, social
hierarchy is usually equated with macro-level socioeconomic status as mea-
sured by wealth, education, and occupational prestige. Within industrial socie-
ties, generally speaking, the poor and least educated have the most children
(e.g., Nam and Gustavus 1976; Perusse 1993). Vining (1986) and others
believe this argues against an evolutionary interpretation of human action.
Received June 14, 1993; revised January 26, 1994.
Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Professor Allan Mazur. 246 Scottholm Terrace,
Syracuse NY 13244.
Ethology and Sociobiology 15: 87-94 (1994)
0 Elsevier Science Inc. 1994
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0162.3095/94/$7.00
88 A. Mazur et al.
Social mammals live in smallish communities where individuals know and
interact with one another, not in huge societies whose members are mostly
strangers. The proper analogy to an animal dominance hierarchy is not socio-
economic status in mass society but the status hierarchy in a primary group of
interacting humans who know one another. To the extent that we can identify
individuals as dominant or submissive in their personal dealings with others,
the hypothesis suggests that dominant individuals have more offspring than
submissives.
Physical features including height and a mesomorphic or athletic phy-
sique are correlated with leadership amon g humans (Stogdill 1974). Human
faces are reliably judged by raters to look dominant or submissive, with
remarkable agreement across cultures (Keating et al. 1981). West Point cadets
from the Class of 19.50 were rated as facially, dominant or submissive by
judges who examined their graduation portraits. and these ratings correlate
with military rank at graduation and 20 years later (Mazur et al. 1983; Mazur
and Mueller 1992). Therefore we ask here if dominant looking people have
greater opportunity to have offspring than submissive looking people.
Following this logic, Mueller ( 1991) asked if the dominant-looking West
Pointers, then in retirement with their procreation essentially completed, had
more children than their submissive looking classmates. They did not. Possibly
these dominant men copulated more than submissive men without producing
larger families, a distinct possibility given the availability of modern contra-
ception (Barkow and Burley 1980). Todays norms proscribe large families,
and conception is easily avoided or terminated. Any illegitimate children who
were produced probably escaped tabulation. Thus, dominant men might have
had disproportionate opportunities to produce offspring, yet this could easily
escape detection in differential family size.
Here we ask directly if dominant looking males have more opportunity for
copulation than submissive looking males. We compare this possibility with
the conventional assumption that handsome males have more copulatory
opportunity than less attractive males (Hatfield 1986). Although dominant
looks and handsome looks are positively correlated, sexual access ought to be
better predicted by dominant looks than handsomeness if dominant-looking
males do indeed have more access to resources.
Our subjects are young men of high school age. passing through adoles-
cence. Obviously sexual behavior is a function of degree of maturation.
Therefore we ask if physical appearance-whether dominant or attractive-
predicts copulatory behavior net of degree of maturation.
METHODS
Subjects
Potential subjects were randomly selected for a j-year panel study of hormones
and sexual behavior from a list of all white males in grades 7 and 8 of a mixed
Dominant Looking Males Copulate Earlier 89
urban, suburban, and rural school district in a southeastern state. Interviewers
visited each home to solicit and obtain signed consent, first from a parent, and
then from the boy who had to give periodic blood samples. About half the boys
solicited were recruited for the project (n = 127); refusals were about evenly
split between parents and adolescents. Demographic and reported sexual activ-
ity are similar to those found for earlier studies of sexual behavior that were
less demanding and yielded higher recruitment rates (Halpern et al. forthcom-
ing, a). Three-quarters of the sample had annual household incomes exceeding
$30,000 in 1987; a third exceeded $50,000. Forty-two percent of fathers and
36% of mothers had a college degree or higher; only 10% of parents did not
complete high school.
Eighty-two boys completed the final round of the 3-year study when
participants were in the 10th and 1 lth grades (mean age = 16.5 years, range =
1.5 years). Facial dominance ratings could be obtained for 58 of these boys,
who are the subjects of this report.
Questionnaire Measures
Every six months the boys filled out a questionnaire in their homes while an
interviewer was present. This analysis used, the final questionnaire in the series.
A heavy petting variable is defined as the sum of six items asking how
often the subject has had these experiences: touching breasts over clothes,
touching breasts under or without clothes, girl touching penis over clothes, girl
touching penis under or without clothes, touching girls sex organs over
clothes, and touching girls sex organs under or without clothes. The value of
each item ranges from 0 (never experienced) to 4 (experienced more than 10
times). Such questions are conventionally used but of unknown validity.
Two coitus variables are defined, one as a dichotomy (whether or not the
boy ever had coitus), and one as a cumulative experience ranging from 0
(never experienced) to 4 (experienced more than 10 times). By the final round
of data collection, 43% of the boys had intercourse at least once.
Pubertal development is indexed by a factor score based on subjects
self-ratings of eight items: Tanner stage of pubic hair, Tanner stage of genital
growth (Tanner 1962), presence/patterns of facial hair, density of facial hair,
density/texture of axillary hair, density/texture of leg hair, growth in penis size,
and voice deepening. A principal components factor analysis was performed
on a pooled data set that combined all rounds of self ratings and generated a
single factor with an eigenvalue of 4.91. Pooling data over rounds allowed for
the generation of factor scores based on a wider range of physical develop-
ment; an individuals score thus reflects his position relative to the physical
development of the entire sample over the 3-year period. A validity study on a
sample of 48 males ages 12-16 comparing pediatricians assessments and
pubertal factor scores based on these self-assessment items yielded a correla-
tion of .72 (Morris and Udry 1980).
90 A. Mazur et al.
Portrait Measures
Using established procedures (Mazur et al. 1984), facial dominance was
measured from high school yearbook portraits, usually senior portraits. These
were copied on slides for projection in random order in front of college classes
of 17-28 students who acted as judges. Judges were told to rate each face on a
seven-point scale of dominance-submissiveness (1 = very submissive, 4 =
neutral or undecided, 7 = very dominant). Judges were instructed that a
dominant person tells other people what to do, is respected, influential, and
often a leader; submissive or subordinate people are not influential or assertive
and are usually directed by others. On 80% of the slides, at least half the
ratings were on two adjacent scale values, indicating more clustering than
would be expected if choices were equally likely across the seven-point scale.
The median score for each slide was taken as the measure of facial dominance.
These values ranged from 2 (moderately submissive) to 6 (moderately domi-
nant) with a median value of 4.
Dominance scores were regressed on several variables upon which the
portraits varied, including degree of smiling, direction of gaze, formal vs.
casual dress, age of student, and wearing glasses vs. not. Only wearing glasses
had a significant or sizable effect, with men in glasses scoring on average one
point less dominant than other men. Therefore wearing glasses is included in
the analysis as a control variable.
Physical Attractiveness
Subjects handsomeness was assessed by both self-ratings and interviewer
ratings, each using the same five-point scale ranging from not good-looking
to very good-looking. The correlation is .21 @ = .06, n = 77) between the
final round of self-ratings and interviewer ratings, which were made an
average of 1.8 years earlier. Interviewer ratings are used in the statistical
models because of their presumed greater objectivity, however repeating the
analysis with self-ratings does not alter the results.
RESULTS
A Pearson correlation matrix of all variables in the analysis (Table 1) shows
that the three measures of sexual activity are closely related with pairwise
correlations of 64 or higher. On each of these measures, the most sexually
active boys are those who are more dominant looking, more attractive, and
more pubertally developed.
The matrix also shows moderate correlations among some of the indepen-
dent variables. It is especially noteworthy that dominant looking boys tend to
be attractive, and both dominant and attractive boys tend not to wear glasses.
Given this shared variation, we cannot precisely partition the effects of these
variables on sexual behavior. Since most of the boys were through puberty at
Dominant Looking Males Copulate Earlier 91
Table 1. Pearson Correlation Matrix (n = 58)
Attract
Pub.
Dev. Glasses
Heavy Had
Petting Coitus
Cum.
coitus
Facial Dominance
Attractiveness
Pub. Dev.
Glasses
Heavy Petting
Ever Had Coitus
,360 .22c -.4@ .31b .37a .326
.I7 -.296 .24c .3w .29h
- .22c ,306 ,266 ,320
-.I7 -.Ol .Ol
,710 .64a
.88a
the time of the final questionnaire, their level of physical maturity is not
significantly related to appearance of being either dominant or attractive.
In order to examine the relative contributions of attractiveness and domi-
nance to sexual experience when pubertal development and glasses are con-
trolled, regression analyses including combinations of three or four predictors
were run. Table 2 summarizes the results of these analyses, and also includes
the results of a model using only the control variables for comparison.
Ordinary least squares regression is used when the dependent variable is heavy
petting or cumulative coitus. When the dependent variable is ever had coitus, a
dichotomous measure, logistic regression is used. For the logistic models, the
significance of the difference between global chi-square values is calculated.
In the three-variable model using attractiveness as well as the two control
variables (glasses and pubertal development), attractiveness is not a significant
predictor of heavy petting but it does significantly predict both coital measures.
The additional variance in petting or cumulative coitus that is accounted for by
attractiveness is not significant. However, the addition of attractiveness does
produce a significant difference in chi-square values for ever had coitus.
In the three-variable model using facial dominance in addition to the
control variables, dominance is a marginal predictor of heavy petting and a
Table 2. Standarized Regression Coefficients and Variance Accounted for in
Building Full Model
Cumulative Heavy Petting Cumulative Coitus Ever Had Coitus
Standard Model Test R? Standard Model Test R2 Standard Model
Coeff. R Change Coeff. R? Change Coeff. Significance
Glasses -.I06 .06* .079 ,071 ,056 NS
Pubertal Development .272* .341** .338*
Glasses -.os9 .07* ,155 .13** ,163
*
Pubertal Development .251+ .309** ,319
Attractiveness0 .I78 NS .283* NS .387*
Glasses ,002 .10* .235+ .16** .325+ **
Pubertal Development .24l+ .297* .320+
Facial Dominance .254 NS .362** PK.05 .597**
Glasses ,020 .09* .265* .19** .393+ **
Pubertal Development ,230 .280* ,310
Attractivenew .I25 NS ,210 NS .313+
Facial Dominance ,219 NS .303* NS .s57**
**p 5 .Ol; *p 5 .05; /I 5 .10;
~lnterwewers rating\ 0fartractivrnesF 01 = S8).
92 A. Mazur et al.
very significant predictor of both coital measures. The additional variance in
cumulative coitus that is accounted for by facial dominance is significant, as is
the difference in chi-square values for ever had coitus.
Comparison of these three-variable models suggests that dominance is a
better predictor of sexual activity than is attractiveness. In addition, the
three-variable models indicate that the relationships between each predictor
and sexual activity are not entirely due to the level of pubertal development of
the boy.
When dominance and attractiveness are included with the control vari-
ables, neither is a significant predictor of heavy petting. For coital behavior.
dominance is significant, but attractiveness is not. The additional variance in
cumulative coitus accounted for by dominance (60/o), beyond that contributed
by the control variables and attractiveness, is not statistically significant. This
may be partly due to the significant correlation (r = .36) between attractiveness
and dominance. The addition of dominance to the three-variable logistic model
of every had coitus, however. produces a significant difference in chi-square
values.
DISCUSSION
Attractiveness and dominant appearance each account for variance in sexual
experience beyond that explained by pubertal development, but dominance is
the better predictor. This result is consistent with our expectation that dominant
looking men have earlier coital opportunities than submissive looking men.
Lacking data on female choice, we cannot say if dominant looking men
have more sexual access because women give it to them, or because the men
obtain it for themselves, or for both reasons (Small 1992). Possibly women are
especially attracted to dominant looking males, assuming from facial cues that
these men are capable of protecting them or of providing resources if they have
children; or, women may enjoy the popularity of consorting with a man who is
salient in the status hierarchy. Alternatively. dominant looking males may
obtain sexual experience through their own superior efforts to exploit sexual
opportunities, as in the prosaic situation of a high school dance, where the
assertive boy immediately seeks a female partner while the shy boy is too
bashful to ask for a dance, much less a greater intimacy.
Dominant appearance and attractiveness are imperfectly correlated, so it is
worth asking what makes one boy look dominant while another appears
submissive? Qualitative inspection of portraits, especially comparing boys
judged attractive but not dominant, and vice versa, supports the generalization
by Mazur et al. (1984): Dominant faces are likely to be handsome or muscular,
oval or rectangular in shape, and with prominent as opposed to weak brow and
chin. Submissive faces are often round (pudgy) or narrow (skinny), less
attractive, and have glasses.
It is important to reconcile the greater coital access of dominant looking
men with the fact that they do nor have a larger number of legitimate children
Dominant Looking Males Copulate Earlier 93
(Mueller 1991). Possibly dominant men have more illegitimate children. Alter-
natively, we emphasize that human adaptations are strongly affected by cul-
tural norms and conscious calculation which may not be reflected in countable
offspring (Barkow 1989; Tooby and Cosmides 1989; Symons 1990). Dominant
men may enjoy their greater sexual access, but unlike nonhuman procreators,
they or their partners may consciously limit natality to avoid disapprobation, or
to avoid long-term encumbrances, or for their own moral reasons.
In seeking biosocial explanations of human dominance, we hope to go
beyond ultimate evolutionary conjectures and also examine proximate mecha-
nisms involving motivation and physiology. Blood samples collected semi-an-
nually from the present subjects were used to assess the boys free testosterone
levels over the three years of study participation (Halpern and Udry 1992).
Facial dominance, as measured from high school graduation portraits, was
significantly correlated with testosterone measured at about age 13 (Y = .32,
p = ,008, n = 66) and at about age 15 (r = .24, p = .05, n = 63). Other
testosterone measurements, including those closest in time to the portraits,
were positively but not significantly correlated with facial dominance. Due to
missing data, sample size is reduced to n = 48 when testosterone is added to
the models in this article. Because of this, and the availability elsewhere of
analyses of testosterone and sexual activity (Halpern et al. forthcoming, b),
testosterone was excluded from the present analysis, however its inclusion
does not change the substantive findings reported here. Possibly basal testos-
terone levels are the proximate cause of both dominant facial appearance and
assertive actions associated with high position in the status hierarchy (Mazur
1985).
REFERENCES
Alexander. R. The evolution of social behavior. Amual Review qf Ecology md S~.stemntics
5:325-383, 1974.
Barkow, J. Darwk. Sex, und St&us: Biosociol Approaches to Miud und Culture, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1989.
Barkow, J., and Burley, N. Human fertility, evolutionary biology, and the demographic transition.
Ethology md Sociobiology I : 163-l 80, 1980.
Bercovitch, F. Social stratification, social strategies, and reproductive success in primates.
Etholoy! md Sociobiology I213 15-333, 199 I.
Cowlishaw. G., and Dunbar, R. Dominance rank and mating success in male primates. Animnl
Beholiour 4 1: 1045-I 056, 199 I.
Dewsbury. D. Dominance rank, copulatory behavior, and differential reproduction. The Quarter!\
Review, of Biology 57: 135 159, 1982.
Halpern, C.T.. and Udry, J.R. Variation in adolescent hormone measures and implications for
behavioral research. Jo~tnml of Resenrch on Adolescence 2: 103-122, 1992.
Halpern, C.T.. Udry. J.R., Campbell, B., and Suchindran, C. Testosterone and pubertal develop-
ment as predictors of sexual activity: a panel analysis of adolescent males. Psychoso-
mcrtic Medicine forthcoming,b.
Halpern, C.T., Udry. J.R., and Suchindran, C. Effects of repeated questionnaire administration in
longitudinal studies of adolescent males sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behnvior
forthcoming,a.
94 A. Mazur et al.
Hatfield. E. Mirror, Mirror: The tmportunce of Looks in Everyday Life, Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1986.
Keating, C., Mazur, A., and Segall, M. A cross-cultural exploration of physiognomic traits of
dominance and happiness. Ethology and Sociobiology 2:41-48, 1981.
Mazur, A. A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Socia/ Forces 64: 377402.
1985.
Mazur, A., Mazur, J., and Keating, C. Military rank attainment of a West Point class: effects of
cadets physical characteristics. American J ournal of Sociology 90: 125-l 50. 1984.
Mazur. A.. and Mueller, U. Facial dominance of West Point cadets predicts military rank 20+
years later. Manuscript, 1992.
Morris, N.M., and Udry, J.R. Validation of self-administered instrument to assess stage of
adolescent development. J ournal of Youth & Adolescence 9:27 I-280, 1980.
Mueller. U. Social and reproductive success: theoretical considerations and a case study of the
West Point class of 1950. Manuscript, 1991.
Nam. C., and Gustavus, S. The Dynamics of Demogrccphic Change, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1976.
Perusse, D. Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: testing the relationship at the
proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:267-322. 1993.
Small, M. Female choice in mating. American Scientisr 80: 142-15 I, 1992.
Stogdill, R. Hundbook of Leadership, New York: Free Press, 1974.
Symons. D. Adaptiveness and adaptation. Ethology und Sociobiology I I :427444, 1990.
Tanner, J.M. Growfh at Adolescence, Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1962.
Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Part I:
Theoretical consideration. Erholog~ cmd Sociobiology 10:2949. 1989.
Vining, Jr., D. Social versus reproductive success: the central theoretical problem of human
sociobiology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9: 187-216, 1986.
Wilson, E. Sociobiology: The Near Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.