lifestyle

Women can tell which men cheat just by looking at them: study

34 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

“More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful.”

So what's the problem here? Have you looked at the "men" in this country lately? The only thing these women should be worrying about is hiding their makeup so they don't get into it.

7 ( +18 / -11 )

Fiddlesticks and flapdoodle !

How can people be so quick to judge a person's photo at face value .

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Not surprising. Plenty of other studies show that women are, in general, MUCH better at reading body language and facial expressions than men. Nothing new here.

One funny example is women were shown pictures of a baby's face, and asked to describe its emotional state. They would come up with a whole range of emotions, while men would only say things like, "happy," or, "sad."

An interesting book on the subject is "Why Men Don't Listen And Women Can't Read Maps" or something like that.

There actually are plenty of good biological and evolutionary based reasons for this. Fascinating stuff.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

So why do women get surprised when they find out that their bf is cheating?

They should have "sensed" or "predicted" that in the first place.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Just proves the obvious. More masculine looking guys are probably going to get more chances to be unfaithful than less masculine looking ones, so the odds they'll fall into that trap are increased. Doesn't say masculine looking men are inherently less faithful, just that they get more opportunities. A baseball player who gets 100 at bats and hits .300 will get 30 hits, where a guy who gets only 50 at bats, but also hits .300, will get only 15. Mathmatics, plain and simple.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Herefornow- pretty obvious isn't it? An attractive man has more opportunities for sex. Hope there wasn't a lot if money spent on this earth-shattering news

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Women can tell with some accuracy whether an unfamiliar male is faithful simply by looking at his face...

SOME being the key word here and we didn't need a study to know this.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Actually there's a huge gaping flaw in this study, namely that women are a lot more likely than men to lie about their sexual histories, even on confidential surveys. Thus the men may be guessing correctly, but the women lying about their "self-reported" sexual history means that the results would come up as nonsense.

Oh, and ladies, before you start accusing men of unfaithfulness:

showed small-moderate, significant correlations

Small-moderate in statistical terms means a significant correlation somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3. That means that we're reasonably sure that 10% to 30% of the variation (i.e. guessing correctly) can be attributed to being a woman. ... hardly newsworthy. They also don't mention the strength of the correlation, which would give us some idea how often they got it wrong.

Plus the sample size (68 people) is tiny, especially when you're generalising the results to ALL men and women everywhere... while this research is interesting it is not meaningful.

Honestly, reporters seriously need to take a class in statistics before reporting on research.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

“Women’s ratings of unfaithfulness showed small-moderate, significant correlations with measures of actual infidelity,” wrote the team, led by Gillian Rhodes at the ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders at the University of Western Australia in Perth.

Small moderate? Headline is misleading. Thank goodness.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"idiots, idiots everywhere" -- current PhD student (BioInformatics) commenting on the behaviour of the public acceptance of 'science' without critical evaluation

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Your brain does an enormous amount of computation on the unconscious, intuitive level. With some proper training, apparently your intuition can predict many things fairly accurately about a person just by looking at them or studying them for even less than a minute. The psychologist John Gottman, for example, can predict with 90% accuracy whether a married couple will stay or break up by studying them for less than 30 seconds. But your intuition can still be wrong. The trick is to use your intuition for good and learn how to use it more effectively.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I mean, seriously? with a sample size of 68 individuals tested with 189 images, there is no way that a correlation could be seen as reliable by any professional scientific researcher. If you had a 6 month global study testing, under as controlled as possible conditions, and your # individuals totalled around 5000+ and each individual had to sit through a series of 500 images of the opposite sex, AND the results were repeated world wide, then maybe

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

but these numbers are laughable and pathetic. This sort of skewed testing is what caused Andrew Wakefield to "prove" the MMR vaccine was linked to autism and subsequently be struck off from the medical profession. A disgrace to scientific research, this review, that Journal Biology Letters should be ashamed of themselves, lowering the standard and thus opinion of Australian research

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@never

So why do women get surprised when they find out that their bf is cheating?

They should have "sensed" or "predicted" that in the first place.

Usually, I never agree on most things you say, but on this one, 100%!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Naturally if that many women are going to want the guy more than the others he's got more chances to cheat.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What a load of hogwash! The women that reckon they can tell are probably the cold hearted paranoid types that are always checking their partner's cell phone. It doesn't matter where a man gets his appetite as long as he eats at home, but if the restaurant is closed then of course he is gonna eat out!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Doesn't say masculine looking men are inherently less faithful, just that they get more opportunities.

masculine isn't always good. there are plenty of hypermasculine, gross guys with excess testosterone who are disgusting to most women. but these men and their imbalanced hormones are dogs so they go after (multiple) women.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Thomas AndersonDec. 06, 2012 - 10:18AM JST The psychologist John Gottman, for example, can predict with 90% accuracy whether a married couple will stay or break up by studying them for less than 30 seconds.

Bullshit.

Gottman’s follow-up study published in 2000 with newlywed couples used the Oral History Interview to predict marital stability and divorce. Gottman had 87.4% accuracy in predicting marriage or divorce within the couples’ first 5 years of marriage. He used couples’ perceptions about their marriage and each other to predict marital stability or divorce.

Oral interviews do not take 30 seconds.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Haha this is all pretty funny, silly, national enquirer type research for pete sake.

And I bet the pretty faced ladies were LESS than truthful so the guys poor rates were off because of that, pretty obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would seem that the women have an unfair advatantage over the men in this experiment. Whereas it is often possible to discriminate masculinity from attractiveness in men from a photo of the face alone, it is much more difficult to discriminate feminity from attractiveness in women on the basis of a photo of the face alone, so the men are basically lumping the two together and getting a lower score.

What this study shows if anything is that both men and women apply fairly simplistic criteria when faced with oddball experimental tasks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

it's true. we do.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I dont think it's that hard to tell who is going to be faithful and who isn't just by looking at them. You can pick guys that cheat from a mile away. The ladies can be a bit more difficult, but still, there is always tell tail signs.

In saying that, you can't judge a book by it's cover. I haven't ever cheated on any of my former girlfriends in the past, but have had some girls argue from first appearances that I would sleep around. Which to be honest, having someone tell you that to your faces based soley on how you look makes you feel like crap lol.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The article appears to be saying that if the men are hot, they are surely cheating, whereas if they are drooling dufusses, they are being faithful. Now there would be some correlation, since it's fairly easy to figure out which men would not be presented with many choices, but I'm not sure that really gives us any useful information.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's a lot of bollocks! They haven't been able to tell about me yet, hahaha!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

In the study, 34 men and 34 women were shown color photographs of 189 Caucasian adult faces and asked to rate them for faithfulness.

Never thought I would say this but I've got the complexion for protection

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So "masculine" men are prone to be cheaters, but "handsomness" was not a factor? - And they're only allowed to see the face? I can't picture a guy whose face would be considered "masculine" but butt-ugly. I think their assertation that, "Attractiveness was not a factor in the women making the link" is a load of hooey.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is the type of article you can correctly decide to skip reading simply by the title.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Women make Man Cheat!! I saw this one day on a Snaple cap!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All women are psychic....they know if you are going to go home with them or not

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

34 men & women in the study & they actually publish it as credible? statistically that number of participants is too insignificant to have any merit...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yeah, the un-masculine guys were deemed true because they were less attractive as mates. The "study" essentially proved the obvious fact that women want to make babies with studly men. Wasted money on research. The same result can be gotten at any nightclub. Duh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Garbage!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Evreybody cheats! In one form or another, Now if your talking about actual penetration....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with mikemiro - 34 women do not make a statistical pimple in the face of evidence. Actually I can't believe this makes news. This means I could get a bunch of my friends together, run a "test" and come out with the data, and hit the headlines. Hmmm....that's going to be added to the SEO arsenal....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites