Facial Morphometry and Personality: A Systematic Review of Craniofacial Anthropometric Associations with Psychological Traits

Authors

  • Piyush Kumar Author
  • Sanjeev Kumar Jain Author
  • Prerna Gupta Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60110/medforum.37.10.32

Keywords:

Facial morphometry, Craniofacial anthropometry, fWHR, Personality traits, Systematic review

Abstract

Introduction: Facial morphometry, the quantitative assessment of craniofacial morphology, offers a potential means of investigating the biological and evolutionary foundations of personality and behavior.

Place and Duration of Study: This review was conducted at the Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College & Research Center, Moradabad from November 2025 to April 2026.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for studies that used quantitative two- or three-dimensional facial anthropometry to examine personality or behavioral traits in healthy populations. Twenty eligible publications involving more than 10,000 participants were included, comprising 18 primary studies, one meta-analysis, and one additional eligible report.

Results: The evidence indicated that the facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) was consistently, although modestly, associated with status-seeking behavior and social dominance. A meta-analytic effect size of r = 0.16 was reported for the association between fWHR and perceived threat. Higher fWHR was also associated with dominance in humans and “alpha” status in nonhuman primates. These relationships appeared to be context dependent: status seeking could manifest as aggression in competitive settings or as achievement-oriented behavior in regulated environments.

Conclusions: Craniofacial morphology, particularly fWHR, shows a small but relatively consistent association with status-seeking behavior and social dominance across species. However, these associations vary according to context and may be moderated by sex and ethnicity. Methodological heterogeneity and potential confounding limit the usefulness of facial measurements as biological biomarkers. Therefore, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of causal relationships.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-01

Issue

Section

Systematic Review

How to Cite

Facial Morphometry and Personality: A Systematic Review of Craniofacial Anthropometric Associations with Psychological Traits. (2026). Medical Forum Monthly, 37(10). https://doi.org/10.60110/medforum.37.10.32