Shaved heads and masculinity: what the study actually measures
Published Updated
“More masculine” is an odd piece of haircut advice.
Does it mean a more imposing look, greater appeal or an impression of confidence? Those are different effects. Albert E. Mannes’s research on shaved heads deserves better than a promise that bundles them together. It shows how a detail of appearance can affect a judgement, without making that judgement the truth about a person.
Three experiments, impressions to rate
Shorn Scalps and Perceptions of Male Dominance, first published online in July 2012, reports three US studies. In the first, 59 students rated 25 portraits, including 10 men with shaved heads. A separate group of 60 people estimated age and rated attractiveness. These were different faces: their hair was not the only difference between them.
The second experiment isolated that detail more closely. Four men were pictured with their hair, then given shaved heads through digital editing. Each of the 344 responses retained after exclusions concerned just one of those eight images. Nobody compared the two versions side by side. The third experiment, with 552 responses retained, used a written description in which only the hair changed: shaved, thinning or thick.
That progression matters. An impression prompted by a photograph, then by a few words, tells us about the associations people make. It does not tell us how those men behave at work or with the people close to them.
Masculinity was measured. How was it defined?
The paper does measure perceived masculinity, using contrasts that include weak/strong and frail/tough. This definition ties masculinity to physical power. That choice deserves scrutiny: it gives the score a specific meaning while leaving other meanings of “masculine” unexplored.
In the second experiment, the shaved versions received higher ratings for dominance and masculinity. They also appeared taller and stronger, but older and less attractive. Ratings of leadership potential showed no statistically significant change. Table 2 of the full paper lets you read those findings together.
Keeping only the favourable column makes for convenient advice: shave and gain authority. Reading the rest raises a better question: which judgement are you trying to invite, from whom, and why? In the interview published by Wharton, Mannes advises against automatically shaving to improve one’s image as a leader.
For each man: an original and an edited, hairless version.
Responses retained. One image rated per person.
The shaved versions
↑ Perceived dominance, masculinity, height, strength and age
↓ Rated attractiveness
Leadership: no statistically significant difference.
Not measured
Real strength, lived confidence or the ability to lead a team.
Context: four white male faces; participants recruited in the US. Protocol diagram, not the study’s actual portraits.
The word that matters: “perceived”
“He looks confident” describes an interpretation. “He is confident” claims to know the person. That small change crosses a boundary the experiment does not cross. No participant watched these men lead a team; the research measures neither their actual strength nor the confidence they feel.
Keep the setting in view, too: participants recruited in the United States, just four white male faces in the second experiment, and no real interaction. A perception study cannot establish a rule for dating in France simply by having its title translated.
To assess a claim like this, put the missing parts back into the sentence: who made the judgement, based on what, and using which criterion? “Respondents rated these portraits as more dominant” keeps the experiment in view. “Men with shaved heads are more masculine” replaces it with a label.
A shaved head can be your visual signature. Asking it to supply a whole personality puts an unnecessary burden on a haircut. If your concern is the first comments from people around you, read about getting ready for your first day with a shaved head.