OBSERVATIONS Are Attractive Men’s Faces Masculine or Feminine? The Importance of Controlling Confounds in Face Stimuli Lisa M. DeBruine, Benedict C. Jones, and Finlay G. Smith University of Aberdeen Anthony C. Little Stirling University Women’s preferences for male masculinity are highly variable. Although many researchers explain this variability as reflecting systematic individual differences in how women resolve the tradeoff between the costs and benefits of choosing a masculine partner, others suggest that methodological differences between studies are responsible. A recent study found general femininity preferences for judgments of faces that were manipulated in sexual dimorphism of shape but general masculinity preferences for judgments of faces that were based on perceived masculinity. Using the original stimuli, we replicated these previous results but found equivalent general femininity preferences for both types of faces when nonface confounds in the stimuli (e.g. hairstyle) were eliminated through masking. We conclude that care must be taken to control potential confounds in stimuli and that the influence of nonface cues on preferences for facial masculinity deserves further study. Keywords: faces, masculinity, femininity, attractiveness, methodology Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016457.supp Although nonhuman female animals tend to show strong pref- erences for masculine male traits (Andersson, 1994), women’s preferences for male masculinity are highly variable (DeBruine et al., 2006; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Little, Jones, Penton-Voak, Burt, & Perrett, 2002; Rhodes, 2006). Some researchers have suggested that preferences for relatively feminine male faces are an artifact of the computer graphic manipulations used in some studies (Rennels, Bronstad, & Langlois, 2008; Rhodes, 2006), whereas others have suggested that variable attraction to mascu- linity reflects differences between groups in the resolution of a tradeoff between the benefits (e.g., greater genetic health) and the costs (lower investment in relationships and children) of choosing a masculine partner (e.g., Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Little et al., 2002). Studies that used computer-graphic methods to manipulate sex- ual dimorphism of two-dimensional shape in male face images have variously observed general preferences for masculinity (DeBruine et al., 2006; Feinberg, DeBruine, Jones, & Little, 2008; Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; Little, Cohen, Jones, & Belsky, 2007; Little, Jones, DeBruine, & Feinberg, 2008), femininity (Little, Burt, Penton-Voak, & Perrett, 2001; Little et al., 2002; Penton-Voak et al., 1999, Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Perrett et al., 1998; Rhodes, Hickford, & Jeffery, 2000; Welling et al., 2007, Welling, Jones, & DeBruine, 2008, Study 1), and average levels of sexual dimorphism of face shape (Cornwell et al., 2004; Swaddle & Riersen, 2002; Welling et al., 2008, Study 2). Studies that correlated attractiveness ratings and masculinity rat- ings of unmanipulated male faces mostly observed general female preferences for masculinity (e.g. Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990; Koehler, Simmons, Rhodes, & Peters, 2004; Neave, Laing, Fink, & Manning, 2003; O’Toole, Price, Vetter, Bartlett, & Blanz, 1999), although some studies found no significant relationship between women’s masculinity ratings and attractiveness ratings of male faces (Penton-Voak et al., 2001; Rhodes et al., 2003). Some researchers have concluded from the aforementioned studies that differences in findings for women’s general preferences for male facial masculinity are explained by differences in the methods used to assess masculinity preferences (Rhodes, 2006). As mentioned previously, differences among groups in mascu- linity preferences may also contribute to differences among studies in whether people prefer masculine or feminine characteristics in men’s faces (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Little et al., 2001). Such a tradeoff account of women’s preferences for masculine men (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) is supported by evidence that men’s masculine traits signal both positive and negative attributes. As men’s facial masculinity is a cue of present, past, and even prenatal testosterone levels (Burriss, Little, & Nelson, 2007; Penton-Voak & Chen, 2004; Pound, Penton-Voak, & Surridge, 2009), it can also be used as a cue of other testosterone-related traits. Facial masculinity in human males is associated with a lower incidence of disease (Rhodes, Chan, Zebrowitz, & Simmons, 2003; Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006), supporting the hypothesis that male masculinity signals genetic Lisa M. DeBruine, Benedict C. Jones, and Finlay G. Smith, School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen; Anthony C. Little, Department of Psychology, University of Stirling. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa M. DeBruine, School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scot- land, United Kingdom AB24 3FX. E-mail: l.debruine@abdn.ac.uk Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2010 American Psychological Association Human Perception and Performance 2010, Vol. 36, No. 3, 751–758 0096-1523/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016457 751