Eye color predicts but does not directly influence perceived dominance in men
Karel Kleisner et al. (2010)
Personality and Individual Differences
[...]
4. Discussion
In this study we found no effect of eye color on perceived dominance in women. On the contrary, we found a statistically significant association between the eye color and perceived dominance in men: brown-eyed men were perceived as more dominant. Furthermore, we show that iris color does not represent the trait that significantly influences perception of dominance in males. Hence, there must be some other facial characteristics responsible for the higher perceived dominance in brown-eyed males. It is evident, however, that the features standing for higher perceived dominance in males are correlated with presence of brown eyes; or alternatively, the features connected with higher perceived submissiveness in males with the blue eyes.
The question arises: why are brown-eyed males rated as more dominant than blue-eyed? Some facial features such as square jaws, thick eyebrows and broad cheekbones are linked with higher perceived dominance; facial submissiveness, on the other hand, is characterized by a round face with large eyes, smallish nose, and high eyebrows (Berry, 1990; Berry & Mcarthur, 1986; Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990; Mazur, Halpern, & Udry, 1994; Mueller & Mazur, 1997; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1994). The morphological differences between blue-eyed and brown-eyed males were visualized by deformation of thin-plate splines (Fig. 3). In contrast with blue-eyed males, brown-eyed males have statistically broader and rather massive chins, broader (laterally prolonged) mouths, larger noses, and eyes that are closer together with larger eyebrows. In contrast, blue-eyed males show smaller and sharper chins, mouths that are laterally narrower, noses smaller, and a greater span between the eyes. Especially the broader massive chin, bigger nose, and larger eyebrows of brown-eyed males may explain their higher perceived dominance.
Fig. 3. (a and b): Visualizations of shape regression on eye color in males by thin-plate spline deformation grids illustrating differences in facial shape between blue-eyed (a) and brown-eyed (b) males; the links connecting the landmarks are drawn for better imaging of differences in the shape of face. (c and d): Composite images of 20 photographs of each group unwarped to fixed landmark configuration predicted by shape regression of blue-eyed (c) and brown-eyed (d) male faces. The predictions are magnified three times for better readability. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
However, it is not easy to explain how iris color, which is determined mostly by one or a few genes, can correlate with physiognomic dominance/submissiveness, which is determined by a combination of several independent morphological traits. Theoretically, the allele for brown eyes should "move" from "submissive physiognomy genotype" to "dominant physiognomy genotype" and back again from generation to generation due to genetic recombination and segregation.
In principle, there are three possible explanations for the higher perceived dominance of brown-eyed males, the pleiotropy hypothesis, genetic linkage hypothesis and social feedback hypothesis. The pleiotropy hypothesis presumes that the genes for iris color (such as HERC2 or OCA2) also influence other morphological traits associated with perceived dominance due to its pleiotropy effect. One can speculate, for instance, that the gene influences the production or metabolism of common precursors of adrenaline and melanin, e.g. DOPA or tyrosine.
The genetic linkage hypothesis presumes that the genes influencing iris color are in genetic linkage with genes influencing morphological traits associated with perceived dominance, for example the gene influencing the production of testosterone. If this is so, strong linkage disequilibrium between these loci should exist in the current Czech population. Repeating this study in other populations with polymorphism in eye color can test this hypothesis.
The social feedback hypothesis is based on the presumption that blue and brown-eyed subjects are treated differently within their social surroundings, e.g. by their parents and peers. Young children usually have blue eyes, while definitive iris color develops during the first years of life (Bito, Matheny, Cruickshanks, Nondahl, & Carino, 1997). It is possible that subjects with blue eyes are treated as a small child for a longer period than brown-eyed children. Such early social experience may have been literally "inscribed" into their faces, preserved until adulthood, and finally bring on the perception of higher submissiveness. Rosenberg and Kagan (1987, 1989) investigated the association between eye color and behavioral inhibition, revealing that children with blue eyes are more inhibited. Coplan et al. (1998) found a significant interaction between eye color and social wariness within preschoolers. Blue-eyed males were rated as more socially wary, i.e. being more temperamentally inhibited, displaying more reticent behavior and having more internalizing problems, than males with brown eyes, though there were no differences between blue- and brown-eyed females (Coplan et al., 1998). To test the third hypothesis, it would be necessary to perform a longitudinal study on preschool children to search whether the differences in perceived dominance (and social wariness) develops only after the transformation of iris color from blue to brown.
Link (PDF)
30 comments
I wonder if brown-eyed men are more likely to engage in crime? Generally, it is the dominant types who break the law and the submissive types who obey it. This may help to explain why blacks and Hispanics - who tend to be brown-eyed - are more likely to commit crimes than whites.
And east asians are overwhelmingly brown eyed.
Do you actually put any thought into your posts, or do you just say things like this for shock value?
The study is about Europeans and how their different eye colors correlate with different facial features. It's not the eye color itself that causes perceived dominance or submissiveness. So both of the above comments are way off base.
I was merely replying to Average Joe's asinine ideas about race and crime based upon this.
It's obviously absurd that eye color itself is causing dominance, but neurological structures that underpin dominant personality types and the like could very well exert a pleitropic relationship among humans. The claims of "social condition" reflect a naive environmentalism that really doesn't have any support nowadays.
There seems to genuinely be alot of support for eye color predicting various personality types, with one massive analogue being in animals. For example, the work of psychologist Morgan Worthy:
http://www.morganworthy.com/
http://2020ok.com/books/41/eye-color-a-key-to-human-and-animal-behavior-2941.htm
This is, once again, not to say eye color is causing this- that's completely absurd. What seems the most likely explanation is that a pleitropic relationship exists, as I said before, where hormonal and biochemical pathways of certain neurological structures manifest themselves in the degrees of melanin in the eye.
Among a population like whites, who have a huge array of eye colors, the dynamic probably manifests itself more severely due to the presence of alleles coding for light eyes. Among uniformly brown eyed populations like blacks or east asians, it manifests itself simply in dark and light brown eyes.
I don't think this is all conclusive, but there seems to be loads of research backing up the idea of eye color having rough predictive validity for personality profiles among humans, and especially animal species.
>>> I was merely replying to Average Joe's asinine ideas about race and crime based upon this.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were criticizing the study because Asians have brown eyes yet submissive features. But I see your point now.
Brown eyes are what gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees have. These "people" are no better than forest apes.
Only lighteyed people(not just blue, but also green and grey) are truly homo sapiens sapiens. It doesn't surprise me that people with three brown eyes are "dominant". I take that to mean "wild", "savage" and "uncivilised".
Response to Average Joe (and anyone else buying this crap):
This does not help explain the ridiculous notion of "black and Hispanics" being more likely to commit crimes than whites. Find another hypothesis to justify your bigoted views... How would you explain "white collar" crimes perpectually thwarted in fortune 500 companies and executive board-rooms, serial killers (most are white)? Fact; the law has a biasing/profiling affect and holds true that a "white" commiting the same or greater crime as a "black or Hispanic" generaly serves a more lienent sentence... If being incarcerated at all.
This is pathetic. Keep trying!
In regards to my previous post about eye color and personality, another line of evidence is that eye color is not a simple mendelian trait as once believed: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/eye-color-explained
Really, look at Morgan Worthy's research in regards to animal behavior. There's astoundingly clear cut correlations between eye color and things like hunting behaviors across numerous species.
It is most certainly true that all ethnic groups have within them people who are of criminal bent.
However, notice the differences in the type of crime committed. Amongst non-white groups we find things such as assault, murder, rape etc. All are traits of overly violent, intellectually backward people. Wild animals kill each other in the jungle. Baboons brawl with each other. Common rodents fornicate with a wide variety of partners.
While there are definitely criminals amongst white people, we notice a different type of crime. This in no way justifies it, but it's interesting to note what it is. White collar crime requires a high level of intelligence, as it involves taking, while simultaneously covering your tracks, falsifying books/records, cracking passwords etc. This is in stark contrast to the "smash and grab" non-white theft that requires no real thought and just brute force and aggression.
Likewise, while white people kill, it is of the aforementioned "serial killer" variety. Again, this requires planning, and the commitment involved in working to a pattern etc. Again in stark contrast to the random killings we find among non-white criminals.
Again, all criminals, be they white or non-white, are just criminals, but it is noteworthy that white crime requires more thought and planning, whereas non-white crime is simply random aggression and savagery.
Here are some links relating to black and Hispanic crime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26macdonald.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856787/Violent-inner-city-crime-the-figures-and-a-question-of-race.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7856405/Welfare-dependency-and-lack-of-discipline-are-turning-black-boys-into-criminals.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7856402/They-talk-about-respect-all-the-time-but-they-dont-have-any-respect-for-anyone.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290047/Metropolitan-Police-crime-statistics-reveal-violent-criminals-black--victims.html
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/19/juneteenth-celebrate-diversity/
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/05/pew-on-hispa-er-latino-youths-in-us.html
I'm fully aware of the fact blacks and hispanics have higher average crime rates. My post was entirely concerned with your cartoonish, exhibitionist idea that they have higher crime rates because they have brown eyes. Where's your evidence for that?
My post was entirely concerned with your cartoonish, exhibitionist idea that they have higher crime rates because they have brown eyes. Where's your evidence for that?
I was throwing it out there as a speculation. Intelligent people usually do not have a problem with speculation even if they don't agree with it.
Average Joe:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/search/label/Eye%20Color
It's the green eyed monsters!
"I was throwing it out there as a speculation. Intelligent people usually do not have a problem with speculation even if they don't agree with it."
Except your speculation isn't good speculation- it's so spurious and inane that it's almost self-refuting, like in the case of east asians.
I can't help but wonder even moreso you almost threw that out for shock value when you seem to genuinely think I'm unaware blacks and hispanics commit crimes out or proportion to their numbers.
Then again, alot of your writings consist of little more than shock value. You seem to scour the internet for anything negative involve a non-white population (even east asians) and repost it on your blog without your own commentary in the least- basically alone the lines of "LOL i don't need to say anything...... look how dumb and violent these mud people are!!!!!!"
Thanks for the link to that post about the apparent connection between green eyes and crime.
Except your speculation isn't good speculation- it's so spurious and inane that it's almost self-refuting, like in the case of east asians.
If my speculation is "so spurious and inane" why have you wasted so much time on it? The fact that East Asians have lower crime rates than other ethnic groups may be because they have lower levels of eumelanin in their skin than blacks and Hispanics - assuming that there is a link between both skin and eye color and criminal behavior.
Then again, alot of your writings consist of little more than shock value. You seem to scour the internet for anything negative involve a non-white population (even east asians) and repost it on your blog without your own commentary in the least- basically alone the lines of "LOL i don't need to say anything...... look how dumb and violent these mud people are!!!!!!"
Actually the purpose of my blog is to show that diversity and multiculturalism are doomed to failure.
"If my speculation is "so spurious and inane" why have you wasted so much time on it?"
I haven't. I first threw a jab your way at how stupid your claim was. Then I thought it was a good avenue to elaborate on how eye color and personality do indeed seem to be linked- albeit not in the way you suggest. Then you spam a bunch of links on hispanic and black crime, as if I'm completely oblivious to their higher crime rates. Then, we go from there.
"The fact that East Asians have lower crime rates than other ethnic groups may be because they have lower levels of eumelanin in their skin than blacks and Hispanics - assuming that there is a link between both skin and eye color and criminal behavior."
....Aaaaaaaand they're darker than whites. And many south asians in the US are darker than whites, yet they also have very low crime rates. There's no link between skin color and personality and intelligence whatsoever, unless you want to count the fact men are very slightly darker than women due to hormonal differences. There might be a non-sex related correlate between hormones and personality, and thus skin color, but it if exists, it's probably extraordinarily tiny. The only people who are really arguing for skin color and any behavioral type as being linked are black supremacists.
This is why I call your "speculation" spurious and inane.
"Actually the purpose of my blog is to show that diversity and multiculturalism are doomed to failure."
Your blog has barely any explanatory background other than a gallery of news stories on non-whites- even east asians- doing bad things. You also seem to conflate claims ideologies of cultural relativism with the general act of different races living together.
And many south asians in the US are darker than whites, yet they also have very low crime rates
Not true. Just look at their involvement in terrorist activity.
There's no link between skin color and personality and intelligence whatsoever
Wrong again. The average South Asian has an IQ of only 85.
Aaaaaaaand they're darker than whites.
In my experience, most Chinese and Koreans are almost as light-skinned as the average European-American.
East Asians are darker than Europeans:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html
East Asians are darker than Europeans
Do you have any data for Koreans and northern Chinese? Most of your data seems to be for southeast Asians who tend to be darker than northeast Asians.
There's data for Japanese, who are Northeast Asians, and they're still considerably darker than Europeans.
Give it up. Your whole premise is ridiculous, not to mention off-topic.
The Japanese are also darker than other northeast Asians. Also, just because you don't like my premise does not make it ridiculous. In addition, I never said that dark melanin was the only biological factor involved in black and Hispanic crime rates. I am sure that sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen also play a part.
Your premise is ridiculous because there's no evidence whatsoever to support it, and it's contradicted by reality at every turn. You've been told this repeatedly, yet you keep insisting. Post your crazy theories on your own blog. Don't spam mine with baseless, off-topic nonsense.
How am I contradicted by reality? The reality is that blacks and Hispanics tend to be more violent than whites. Also, South Asians tend to be more violent than Northeast Asians. Again, just because you don't like my speculation does not make it nonsense.
Uh, you're contradicted by the reality that Northeast Asians have browner eyes, blacker hair and darker skin than whites, but lower crime rates. Have you been paying any attention to this discussion?
Any more comments from you on the subject of your unsupported, off-topic, nonsensical "speculation" will be deleted.
Yes, but Northeast Asians also probably have different levels of testosterone, estrogen and other sex hormones. I did not say that it was only eumelanin that played a role in violence. I said that it likely played a part. Please try to calm down and not be such a hothead just because someone puts forward an idea that you disagree with.
You haven't "put forward" any "ideas". You've done nothing but spam ludicrous claims for which there's no evidence and that are unrelated to the subject of this blog post. I'm not the only one here who's tired of your nonsense. Take the hint.
Comments closed…thanks to you.
New comments are not allowed.