What is a good fwhr?

One of the most used ratios in the face is the facial width-to-height ratio. It has many applications, from determining psychopathic tendencies to trustworthiness. One of the things that many studies (and people) are interested in is the connection between FWHR and attractiveness.

FWHR has links to male aggression and dominance. These links do not make a person automatically attractive, though they might. It is more likely that FWHR has positive links with short term attractiveness rather than long-term relationships from a woman’s perspective. The link between FWHR and attractiveness in women is not very apparent.

There are conflicting opinions about the relationship between FWHR and attractiveness. On the one hand, many studies cite a direct relationship between FWHR and attractiveness, even if it is just in the short term. But on the other hand, some meta-analyses of FWHR and attractiveness say that there is no direct link between them. This study by Geniole et al. (2015) tells us that FWHR negatively correlates with perceived attractiveness. The meta-analyses of several studies also concluded that women seem to perceive high fWHR as unattractive. This conclusion is due to the negative relationship between FWHR and attractiveness being higher whenever the judge was a woman.

Regardless, we already generally accept that women prefer masculine faces as opposed to feminized faces. With a high FWHR, a person’s face looks more masculine and distinct. This indication alone gives us reason to believe the positive relationship between a high FWHR and attractiveness.

To preface the rest of this article, an ongoing bias in reporting data regarding FWHR and attractiveness exists. Since the presently accepted idea is that the two are positively connected or significant to each other, the research that is more likely to get published should align with those ideas. According to Hasselhuhn et al. (2015), in another meta-analysis of FWHR and attractiveness, there is a problem called the ‘file drawer effect.’ This effect happens when the research that gets published is only that which has significant results. Thus, creating a biased representation of null results. This problem may affect the results that we will discuss throughout this article.

FWHR has many implications. In essence, we use it to determine the compactness of the middle of the face. FWHR is the ratio between the widest part of the face (or bizygomatic width) and the face’s length. In this context, the face’s length is not the face entirely, but only a part of it. We’ll talk more about the measurement in the next section.

Many people use FWHR as a metric for attractiveness. Ideally, one would use FWHR to see if they have a broad face. A broad face is generally a masculine feature that is attractive. A face that is too long and thin could result in an unattractive appearance. FWHR usually goes together with ratios and measurements like the midface ratio, the forehead height, and others.

But FWHR needs analysis together with the other parts of the face. FWHR, as a standalone ratio, is helpful, but not as much as it would be with other facial metrics. For example, having a good FWHR would mean little if you had an unusually long chin. That would mean that your face overall still looks quite long. Similarly, a large forehead could undermine the appearance of a decent FWHR. But FWHR is important even as a standalone ratio because many features concentrate in the face’s center. FWHR is not merely for the length of the face in the literal sense. It takes into account the space that matters. In this context, that space is the middle area where you will find the eyes and the nose.

The first step to measuring FWHR is to take note of the widest part of the face. Usually, this is the bizygomatic width. You can measure bizygomatic width by measuring the distance between one of your cheekbones to the other end. This process has to be with a stoic facial expression and looking directly at the camera (if you are using a photo). Many measurements go wrong because of facial expressions, so it is important to keep your face void of expression when measuring.

Next is measuring the length. This aspect of FWHR is a little bit of a debatable topic. Even the studies on FWHR do not all have the same metric for measuring length. The most common way to measure facial height is by noting the distance from the upper lip to the middle of the eyebrows. Alternatively, some studies also used the distance from the upper lip to the eyelids’ highest point. Although it is not much of a difference, the discrepancy could affect the results.

Wen et al. (2020) concluded that men with high FWHR were more aggressive based on two different FWHR measurements: one, measuring the upper lip’s length up to the mid-brow, and the other one up to the upper eyelid. Their findings stated that there seems to be more connection when using a measurement that goes up to the mid-brow, suggesting that it is a better measurement for FWHR.

The ideal FWHR is around 1.9. Some would also say that an FWHR of 2 is excellent, but there are conflicting opinions. Generally, you want an FWHR that is high at 1.8-1.9. The lower end of FWHR is around 1.4-1.6 and results in a long face that is not attractive.

FHWR adds to the masculinity of a face, making it more attractive. However, despite many forums saying that the ideal FWHR should be high, there’s little research to specifically back those claims. Still, some studies came to the same conclusion. This study by Valentine et al. (2014) concluded that FWHR is positively associated with short-term attraction. The specifics with short-term attraction makes sense since their experiment centered on speed dating. But the idea that higher FWHR has positive associations with attractiveness comes from the fact that men with higher FWHR look more dominant, and thus, more attractive. It is necessary to examine the other behaviors linked with FWHR to determine how a high ratio helps with attractiveness.

The correlation between FWHR and attractiveness is indirect more than it is direct. Only a few studies dedicate the exploration of FWHR and attractiveness in men in a direct sense. The study by Valentine on speed dating is an example. Most of the time, FWHR and its relation to attractiveness are due to other reasons such as perceived dominance or a high level of success. Many existing studies pursue the idea of FWHR and its link to many behavioral traits.

Let’s begin with testosterone. Many think that a high FWHR is related to testosterone levels. High testosterone levels generally give a more masculine appearance and thus, result in higher levels of attractiveness. And as a purported sexually dimorphic trait, it’s reasonable to conclude that FWHR and testosterone are directly related. However, this study by Noser et al. (2018) states that the relationship between FWHR and testosterone is not direct, but their effects may be intertwined. Another study by Hodges-Simeon et al. (2018) tells us that adult FWHR is not associated with testosterone. These findings challenge the idea that FWHR is a sexually dimorphic characteristic. From this very first finding, we can already tell that FWHR and attractiveness may be difficult to assess from one perspective alone.

Next, let’s talk about dominance. We have already established that FWHR has close links to dominance and dominant traits. Many studies have already found that dominant features can make a man look more attractive (though other studies have found the opposite). Considering that FWHR and dominance have a direct relationship, it follows that a higher FWHR will make a man more attractive through dominance. However, that is only one aspect of FWHR and attractiveness.

On the flip side, aggressiveness also has links to FWHR. Higher FWHR means that a man is more likely to act aggressively. This result is usually undisputed in many case studies, and previous studies lead to the same results. A higher FWHR ratio could be intimidating and, thus, less attractive to some women while more attractive to others. In this aspect, a higher FWHR does not necessarily increase attractiveness. By this point, the traits that point to FWHR and attractiveness don’t necessarily line up to paint a clear picture. As previously mentioned, there are conflicting ideas about FWHR and attractiveness.

If we try to examine the results of these studies, and many researchers have through meta-analyses, we’ll find that it’s not easy to distinguish a line where a high FWHR turns out to be in a man’s favor. Undeniably, it does in some situations. We see in many men that we might consider attractive high FWHR ratios, such as Brad Pitt and Ian Somerhalder, for example. To summarize, a high FWHR can have amazing benefits. For one, it asserts dominance and, through that, makes a man more attractive. But it can also make a man look more aggressive and, thus, decrease trust with the opposite sex. The best way to approach the analysis of the FWHR would be to take into account the harmony of the midface. After all, a good ratio is meaningless without the right features to back it.

There is limited information available on FWHR and attractiveness in women. This research gap makes sense because bizygomatic width and a wider face are reportedly sexually dimorphic traits, and women tend to have slimmer and daintier faces. Still, some studies talk about FWHR in women, though they may not directly lead to attractiveness.

In this study by Wen et al. (2020), the researchers concluded that FWHR has links to dominance, even in women, which may affect attractiveness. Before, many researchers have already established that women with dominant features are less attractive. Even though previous studies and meta-analyses imply FWHR is sexually dimorphic, the study by Wen resulted in little to low discrepancy in FWHR across the sexes. Still, one study is not enough to challenge previously accepted ideas.

One theory for what FWHR does for women is to make them look more youthful. High facial width is a neotenous feature. Babies have very wide faces, and as we grow our face grows downward and forward, decreasing our FWHR.

Previous studies usually do not find links between aggression and FWHR in women, which is very common in men. However, that’s not nearly as simple as we might think. Aggression may be more prevalent in men since they are more likely to lash out with aggression through direct means. Women’s aggression is more likely to be covert and passive. You would generally not want an aggressive partner, which means that we perceive aggression to be less attractive. Since there is little correlation to FWHR in women and aggression, there’s also little links to connect it to attractiveness.

Undoubtedly, yes. Even with the conflicting research results prevalent over many years of study, FWHR remains an important facet of appearance. In today’s time, we pay a lot of attention to facial ratios, harmony, and balance, so a good FWHR is more important than ever.

A good FWHR, which needs harmony with other features, is important in achieving an overall balance to the facial appearance.

Take note that a low FWHR is going to give you a long and unattractive face. Even without research to back it, you can already tell that those are not desirable characteristics to have. With a proper FWHR, you can avoid the appearance of the ‘long’ face and look youthful.

Many people do not know about FWHR, so how does it matter?

If you are the type of person who is not interested in facial ratios or facial balance, chances are you probably don’t know much about FWHR. If it’s so important in facial appearance, then how come so little people know about it? Sure, people might not know the specifics of FWHR, but we already act on our perceptions of it even without knowing what it is. When we see a masculine face brought upon by a high FWHR, we notice that they have an attractive face. It’s all done subconsciously and automatically.

As previously established, FWHR has many links to behavioral and psychological traits. Researchers have conducted studies that correlate FWHR to various kinds of traits and behaviors. Some of them have good results, some bad. We’ll take a look at a couple and then examine how they relate to attractiveness.

FWHR has links not only to aggression in behavior but physical manifestations of aggression as well. In Wen’s study, the researchers confirmed that FWHR correlated to physical assault by men in committed relationships. These findings are by no means new and only confirmed previous results by other studies. Although we can see FWHR as an attractive feature, it can be detrimental in terms of aggression.

In this study by Anderl et al. (2016), the researchers analyzed how FWHR predicts males’ psychopathic traits. The results were a stable positive relationship between FWHR and psychopathy scores. An incidental result of the study was the finding that FWHR also relates to self-centered impulsivity. Unlike the other studies previously mentioned, this one talked about how testosterone affected these psychopathic traits, showing testosterone as one reason for the development of psychopathic traits.

It can be difficult to tell from a first glance how this could relate to attractiveness. Normally, psychopathic tendencies are not something that you see visually on a first impression. But these results may explain why FWHR is attractive in the short-term but not in the long-term, as previously mentioned from another study.

There are conflicting results in studies about FWHR and trustworthiness. We’ll take a look at this one study by Stirrat et al. (2010). The researchers found that males who had higher ratios were more likely to exploit the trust of others. In the same manner, players were also more likely to trust men with narrower faces than those with wider faces. These results tell us that FWHR and trustworthiness have an inverse relationship. The higher your FWHR is, the lower your trustworthiness will be.

This level of trustworthiness becomes a problem when you are trying to get someone to trust you. In the same study, the researchers said that being trustworthy is more likely to make you look more attractive. In most situations, that is true. Even if we try to analyze our daily interactions with people, we probably also have a bias towards unattractive people, and we trust them less. In this case, FWHR does not work in favor of attractiveness. The results are a little conflicting if we consider that FWHR has a positive relationship with attractiveness. Supposedly, that should make a man more trustworthy, and not the opposite. These findings only add another layer to the complexity of analyzing FWHR and attractiveness.

There is a study by Hahn et al. (2017) that analyzed the link between FWHR and success in various important people throughout the world. The findings of the study were that CEOs with higher FWHR were more likable. They were more likely to have satisfied employees and had charitable contributions to different organizations. The research does not promote the potentially discriminating nature of some studies that suggest that men with wider faces were more aggressive and less trustworthy. Even though that is the case in many studies, at least major leaders with high FWHR had a good reputation. The study results end on the positive note that higher FWHR has possible links to success.

In terms of success, FWHR seems to be nothing but a bonus. Of course, more studies are still required.

Overall, there is no agreed consensus regarding FWHR and how it can affect attractiveness in an academic sense. However, if we look at it from a reasonable perspective, most would say that the masculinity that a high FWHR brings in is an attractive trait. Studies mostly focus on the links between FWHR, aggression, and other behavioral traits mentioned above, not directly on attractiveness itself. In real-life situations, how FWHR determines attractiveness is on a case by case basis.

Facial width-to-height ratio (or short fWHR), is a facial ratio that is derived from measuring the width of the face and dividing this measurement by the length of the midface (which can vary by method of measurement, see below for further detail). fWHR was only discovered in the last few years but in that short amount of time it has been found in some studies that fWHR is correlated with such things as: dominance, aggression, psychopathy, dark triad traits in general, short term attraction, fighting ability, domestic violence perpetration, physical robustness, financial success, academic success, risk-taking behavior, trustworthiness, sex drive, status, and prenatal testosterone exposure and/or adult testosterone levels.

While some of these findings have been replicated, others have been criticized on methodological grounds, or have flatly failed to replicate, such as the purported link between fWHR and adolescent or adult serum testosterone levels.[1][2] Some studies have also found no significant association between fWHR and anti-social behavior (among business executives),[3] or socio-sexuality (promiscuous sexual behavior and unrestrained attitudes towards casual sex) in women.[4]

The purported link between greater fWHR and aggressive behavior may be hard to discern accurately in large, varied samples, as there is preliminary evidence that a man's social status may play a role in moderating the apparent positive relationship between fWHR and anti-social behavior and traits. One group of researchers in 2018 only found evidence for a positive association between fWHR and dark triad traits and physical aggression among lower-income men.[5]

Some studies based on the measurement of skulls found fWHR does not seem to be sexually dimorphic.[6] A later study conducted on a large sample of Australian adults of varying age ranges found that fWHR is indeed sexually dimorphic, with this dimorphism in fWHR reaching a peak among young men, later receding with age to the point that older women may have higher fWHR (which could be driven by sex differences in the accumulation of facial fat with age)[7].

There is a negative association between fWHR and risk of dying from contact-violence is[8] and perceptions of individuals with higher fWHRs as more socially dominant are also sexually dimorphic,[9] suggesting that fWHR does play a role in intrasexual competition among men in contemporary contexts, and thus a higher fWHR may be associated with traits that have been under sexual or natural selective pressures in human evolutionary history. [10]

Among the users of the PSL forums fWHR research was seized upon by certain users who sought to use this research as evidence that dominant, masculine-looking men generally have greater sexual and reproductive success than more effeminate prettyboys. This line of argumentation was later weakened by the evidence that found null effects for fWHR and male reproductive and sexual outcomes, making fWHR research another noteable victim of the replicability crisis in science in general.[11][12][13]

fWHR was originally proposed by Weston et al. (2007) as a potential marker of aggression in dominance in men as it was assumed to measure the width of a man's face, controlling for overall allometry (i.e., body and face size). It was also initially believed that fWHR was strongly sexually dimorphic. As such, fWHR was viewed as an easily measureable metric of facial masculinity, which was thought to give it potential predictive validity in terms of inferring social perceptions of dominance and aggression and actual tendencies towards this sort of behavior among men with higher fWHRs. After this, a plethora of studies were published, seemingly corroborating these predictions, though many of them later failed to replicate, as mentioned before.[14]

Later research also challenged this initial assumption of a link between fWHR and masculine dimorphism by disentangling the vertical and horizontal components of fWHR, with the finding that facial height rather than width was more associated with judgments of aggression and dominance in male faces.[15] The researchers in question hypothesized that this result was due to the fact that facial width was a poorer measure of masculine sexual dimorphism compared to skull height because facial width is affected by factors such as facial fat and soft tissue variation.

fWHR is also potentially confounded by body size, which is a strong potential confound as body size and muscularity also predict and are associated with aggression, particularly in men. This assertion was contested by research showing an association between fWHR and fighting success, even independent of body size[16] Further research using more granular measures of "fighting success" among professional fighters (individual fighter aggression and grappling ability) discovered that fWHR only weakly predicted these aggressive traits and fight success when body size was controlled for.[17] This study also used manual measurement of fWHR and measured it using the two widely accepted methods, i.e., from the brow to the upper lip and from the upper eyelid to the upper lip. They also noticed that measuring fWHR automatically with computer software compared to measuring it manually created a level of measurement error that could've spoiled earlier results.

In addition, a sophisticated analysis of facial sexual dimorphism conducted by Caton & Dixson (2022) found that facial width itself was highly sexually dimorphic (adjusted d = 1.07, favoring men) when controlling for allometric confounds (multiple facial height and craniofacial measurements). They asserted that fWHR was not a robust or reliable measure and, along with most body ratio metrics, is not an appropriate method of allometric scaling. They argued that the use of such metrics frequently results in spurious correlations and non-robust effect size measurements, two things that indeed have been frequently associated with fWHR research in general. They concluded that facial width was positively associated with general markers of robustness such as shoulder breadth, bicep circumference, forearm circumference, chest circumference, neck circumference, and body size. These associations may drive the effects that have been discovered for the facial width to height ratio per se and mating success and perceived dominance, which align with research that points toward a stronger role for physical dominance in driving men's short-term mating success and reproductive success.[18]

To briefly summarize, it seems fWHR was seized upon as a measure of facial dominance mainly because it was easy to measure automatically via photos and because it was initially thought to be an appropriate allometric control for facial width. Recent research has challenged this assumption, which likely explains why fWHR findings often lack robustness despite the associations between fWHR and the traits it was originally thought to measure (dominance, fighting success, short-term mating drive, and success) generally being weakly positive. Another key issue with the facial width to height ratio is that it conflates a masculine sexually dimorphic trait (a wide face) with a trait that is less consistently sexually dimorphic, namely midface height. Evidence suggests that, overall, a compact midface is actually a neotenous trait, which explains why "babyfaced" men have higher fWHRs and are seen as more childlike, despite the general link between fWHR and aggression, and also explains why a compact midface is generally seen as a desirable aesthetic trait among women. Two facial metrics that contribute to a short midface in the fWHR, that is, a shorter philtrum and maxilla, are neotenous, feminine traits,[19] with a long maxilla being gerontomorphic and atavistic. Indeed, fWHR decreases with age in men largely because the midface continues growing.[20]

Thus, having a compact midface would be expected to be, if anything, negatively associated with the traits fWHR purports to measure, while facial width would be positively associated with such traits, and the conflation of a neotenous and a masculine dimorphic trait would be expected to be inferior to simple facial width (when allometrically transformed and controlled for adiposity) as a measure of such tendencies.

Despite the considerable hype surrounding fWHR in circles concerned with aesthetics, there is a lack of evidence directly linking this trait to perceptions of greater male physical attractiveness. A speed dating study conducted in 2014 found a link between higher fWHR in the male participants and greater short-term relationship desirability, but this was found to be mediated by perceptions of dominance, as there was no significant correlation between fWHR and women's ratings of the men's physical attractiveness.[21] Some studies have even found a weak negative correlation between men's fWHR and their physical attractiveness (r̄ = -.26).[22] This may be partially due to the link between greater fWHR and greater levels of facial adiposity.[23]

It also seems unclear as to whether or to what extent a higher fWHR is associated with facial masculinity. Researchers in 2015 has found no positive link between fWHR and rater's evaluations of men's facial masculinity.[24] Another set of researchers also discovered fWHR was negatively correlated with 'global facial masculinity' in their dataset (N = 188, r = -0.32).[25] This may have been confounded somewhat by the positive association between fWHR and greater levels of facial fat, which is a feminine sexually dimorphic trait, derived from the influence women's higher estrogen levels have on their levels of subcutaneous fat and the distribution of said fat. The researchers controlled for BMI but not for facial adiposity in particular.

Very likely the extremes are regarded as unattractive as it is the case with nearly all aesthetic features, i.e. very wide, e.g. adipose, faces in the one extreme, and a very flat face, sometimes called "horseface", in the other extreme. There is evidence that faces have become elongated, i.e. more flat in modern societies, which may have increased the occurrence of horsefaces.[26]

There is a seemingly conflicting body of research that links greater fWHR to both greater social status[27] and other positive social outcomes (such as greater teacher evaluated performance on school exams, independent of actual academic ability),[28] as well as negative perceptions that may lead to poorer social outcomes, such as perceptions of higher fWHR men as being untrustworthy and volatile.[29][30]

This suggests that a man's fWHR can either aid or hinder a man's ability to achieve his interpersonal goals depending on the social context he is competing in, as some studies have found no link between fWHR and greater status attainment in certain corporate hierarchies.[31] Perhaps the link between fWHR and social status attainment is dependent on whether the context in which such status is attained rewards pro-social traits, such as likability and perceived trustworthiness or more anti-social/competitive traits such as mere physical dominance and threat potential. Indeed, it has been shown that people display a preference for men with greater fWHR in contexts of physical competition, and intergroup competition (such as contact sports).[32] This may be due to people being more comfortable with aggression toward the out-group as opposed to within the in-group (as fWHR is moderately positively correlated with perceptions of aggressiveness), [33] or it may simply be down to the fact that men with higher fWHRs are more likely to triumph in intergroup conflicts. A study conducted in 2018 provides support for this hypothesis, as it was found that groups of Chinese business executives with a higher mean fWHR outcompeted other groups in business negotiations.[34]

These negative perceptions can have serious consequences in affecting the decisions people make based on their instinctive appraisals of these men, as people appear to generally treat men with higher fWHR in accord with their superficial negative perceptions of them. This has been found in experimental economic games that involve co-operation and bargaining, such as the one-shot ultimate game, and economic games that involve the choice to either co-operate with or attempt to exploit one's opponent.[35][36]

Some have argued that this is due to a feedback loop forming where men with traits that appear to others to denote anti-social and aggressive tendencies (such as a higher fWHR) are more likely to be excluded by peers from co-operative, mutually beneficial exchanges. It is argued that this exclusion may consequently lead these men to be conditioned into behaving in a more exploitative and aggressive manner towards others, in a self-fulfilling prophecy.[37]

The disparate social outcomes of men with greater fWHR indicated by this research may also be simply down to a greater fWHR being associated with traits that may be generally beneficial in attaining social status, but that may also pose a greater trade-off in terms of the potential interpersonal costs of pursuing such behaviors: such as psychopathic fearless dominance,[38] greater levels of psychopathy in general,[39] actual aggressive behavior (as opposed to just perceptions of aggressive potential),[40] and a greater achievement drive and ruthless ambition (fWHR was moderately positively associated with achievement drive but weakly negatively associated with 'praise and polish' in a sample of historical US presidents).[41]

There are two different ways to measure fWHR.

Some articles measured fWHR as bizygomatic width divided by the distance from the upper eyelids to the upper lip.[42] [43] [44]

Other articles measured fWHR as byzygomatic width divided by the distance from the nasion to the prosthion.[45] [46] [47] [48]