Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men’s faces.

By Seriously Science | August 5, 2013 12:00 pm

Photo: flickr/Boss Tweed

Do certain men just look like cheaters? According to this study, women can correctly identify men with a history of unfaithfulness by just looking at their faces. Apparently, looking “masculine” can act as a proxy for testosterone levels, which is correlated with infidelity, and women are pretty good at picking out the most masculine-looking men from a lineup. Unfortunately, men aren’t quite as good at recognizing potential cheaters from a group of women. Now if only someone could turn this into an app…

Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men’s faces.

“We routinely form impressions of people from their faces, and these impressions sometimes contain a kernel of truth. Impressions of trustworthiness are central to interpersonal relationships, but their accuracy remains contentious. Here, we investigated whether sexual trustworthiness (faithfulness) can be accurately judged from opposite-sex strangers’ faces. Women’s ratings of men’s unfaithfulness showed small-moderate correlations with men’s past unfaithfulness (cheating, poaching). Women used masculinity as a valid cue to unfaithfulness. Men’s unfaithfulness ratings showed small, non-significant correlations with unfaithfulness, although formal tests for sex differences yielded equivocal results. Women were less likely than men to erroneously classify unfaithful individuals as faithful. We conclude that impressions of sexual faithfulness from faces have a kernel of truth, at least for women, and that they may help people assess the quality of potential mates about whom they have minimal behavioural information.”

Related content:
NCBI ROFL: The logic of Ménage à Trois.
NCBI ROFL: Proven tips for making your partner jealous.
NCBI ROFL: Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated from their faces.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: reinforcing stereotypes
  • Majora Luna

    SCIENCE, BITCHES! There is also another study about how gay males could be identified solely by their faces too.

    • Belle Benjet

      I guess that how Gadar works.

  • jaybird2005

    Our tax dollars paid for this?? What a waste. How is it possible to tell if or if not someone will cheat in the future? Pretty useless study.

    • libertore

      im not sure tax dollars paid for this

    • Mark Stuber

      This article answered your question, stupid.

      • jaybird2005

        How can anyone, except the man in question know that those who were “judged” as faithful were actually faithful? These men have been followed by camera crews since childhood? Perhaps the cheating was just never discovered.

        How did they know who the “cheaters” were, were they all past boyfriends of the researchers? This is absolutely laughable.

        • Mark Stuber

          If you want to go so far as to question the methodiligy, don’t ask it on here. Go to the original published article in the academic journal. It’s standard for all those tedious details to be published there. That way their peers can test the findings: hence the term, “peer review.”

          • jaybird2005

            As I said, this is all guesswork. There is no method available to verify that men who claimed to be faithful actually were. The article seems to imply future faithfulness, which is even unguessable until that later time.
            A better title for the study would have been: “Women are good at identifying men who are stupid enough to admit to strangers that they have cheated in the past.”
            Completely meaningless “study”. Yes, this is psychology and I should expect no more than guesswork.

          • Mark Stuber

            As I said? I said EVERY THING is based on presumpositions or as you callit “guess work”

        • Mark Stuber

          Without bothering to read the original study, let’s put that question to a half of second of thought. Oh I know . . . They could have asked the men. This social science research so we are going to have to make slightly looser assumptions than in the “hard ssciences”. They do even make assumptions in the hard sciences. So, no science is pure in that regard. They assumption I think we all can agree on is, that most men that admit to haven been unfaithful in the past, probably were. Sure more a few men claimed to have been faithful who were not, but I am sure, most of these men probably were. Maybe I highter precentage of the “faithful” group lied and the unfaithful. But I am sure at least 60 per cent or so were honest. A am also sure well over 95% of the “unfaithful” group were honest. If they had a control group: where they did not ask about past faithulness, that would be another group they could compare the “unfaithful group to.” So. let me summerize. Based upon my reasonable assumptions, I am sure both the “self admitted faithful group” and the the Control group had a signififgantly higher rate of faithfulness then “self admitted unfaithful group.”

          In simpler words: who the hell would admit to being a cheater that wasn’t a cheater?

    • allbuss84

      Don’t worry, it looks like only Australian tax dollars were wasted in the study


Seriously, Science?

Seriously, Science?, formerly known as NCBI ROFL, is the brainchild of two prone-to-distraction biologists. We highlight the funniest, oddest, and just plain craziest research from the PubMed research database and beyond. Because nobody said serious science couldn't be silly!
Follow us on Twitter: @srslyscience.
Send us paper suggestions: srslyscience[at]gmail.com.

See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar

Login to your Account

E-mail address:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »