# Cheekbones and the width-to-height ratio
Bizygomatic width by sex and population, what varies in the zygomatic region, and why the facial width-to-height ratio is a weak sex signal. Every figure attributed.
*Figure: A scale from -0.4 to 0.4 d. Marks: US Army, d = -0.24 at -0.24; Meta-analysis, d = 0.11 at 0.11; US Army, d = +0.16 at 0.16; Athletes, d = 0.31 at 0.31. Effect size d, male minus female; the US Army sample gives either sign depending on how height is defined.* Sex differences in facial width-to-height ratio are small and inconsistent.
## Cheekbones - the zygomatic region
*Figure: Range strips on one scale from 115 to 160 mm, each with a mean tick, a solid band at plus or minus one standard deviation and a pale band at plus or minus two. Female 133.8 ± 5.6; Male 142.6 ± 6.2.* Cheekbone width by sex (ANSUR II, n≈6,068).
Landmarks: `zy` zygion (most lateral point of the zygomatic arch) · `fmo` frontomalare orbitale
The zygomatic bones set the widest point of the face (bizygomatic width) and define the malar “apple” under the eye. They are the single most dimorphic *width* measure in the face when body size is controlled for - a much stronger signal than the width-to-height ratio it feeds into (the width-to-height section).
| Measure | Female | Male | Sex gap | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean width | 133.8 ± 5.6 mm | 142.6 ± 6.2 mm | +8.8 mm | US Army personnel (ANSUR II), mean age ≈ 30, n≈6,068[1] |
| Standardised dimorphism | d = 1.39 raw · d = 1.07 body-size-adjusted[1] | very large | strong marker | |
*Bizygomatic width (Zy-Zy), adults*
#### What actually varies
- **Overall breadth** - the main dial; male arches sit further laterally, giving the wider, flatter midface.
- **Anteroposterior (AP) projection** - how far the cheek stands off the face in profile. “Primary determinant of the malar apple.”
- **Arch orientation** - more front-facing vs more lateral sweep; the classic trait differences in how “flat” the face reads front-on.
- **Muscle over bone** - masseter and temporalis bulk thicken the visible cheek independently of the bone, and scale with body mass.
Population spread is real and large: in a 3,000-subject Chinese survey, face width was 147.6 mm in men and 140.1 mm in women, with jaw width 118.5 / 114.5 and face length 117.0 / 109.7 - several millimetres wider than the US Army figures above, which come from a young, mostly male military sample and not a population census.[3]
> **Nuance worth keeping.** The male face is *absolutely* wider and more midfacially prominent, but in the upper cheek / orbital region it is relatively *retruded* - a data-driven 3D shape study found males projecting at the brow, nose and chin while the orbital and malar regions sat back relative to the rest of the face.[2] Widening the cheekbones without flattening the malar bowl is what tips a face from “masculine” to “swollen”.
### Facial width-to-height ratio
fWHR = bizygomatic width ÷ upper-facial height. Definitions vary: the height runs from the upper lip to the brow in some studies and to the top of the eyelids in others, so values are not interchangeable across studies.
A dimensionless proxy for how “wide and square” a face reads. It is popular and heavily studied, but it is a **weak dimorphism signal** - and the reason matters for anyone using it as a masculinity dial.
| Sample | Female | Male | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17,607 passport images, across the lifespan[6] | overall mean 2.18 ± 0.18 (not re-checked) | - | male larger only in young adulthood; direction reverses after age 48 |
| Meta-analysis, n = 10,853[4] | - | slightly larger | d = 0.11, small |
| Commonwealth Games athletes, n = 3,481[5] | 1.92 | 1.98 | d = 0.31; not significant after controlling for body size |
| US Army personnel, n = 6,068[1] | - | - | mixed: d = −0.24 or +0.16, depending on how height is defined |
*fWHR reference values*
> **The important caveat.** fWHR’s dimorphism is genuinely small: a meta-analysis of 10,853 people found d = 0.11.[4] In the athlete sample the difference vanished once body size was controlled,[5] and in the 6,068-person army sample the effect flipped sign depending on how the height was measured (d = −0.24 or +0.16). Measured directly, bizygomatic width in that same sample is highly dimorphic (d = 1.39, and still 1.07 after adjusting for 92 body measurements).[1] In practice: **use cheekbone width, not fWHR, as your masculinity pointer** - fWHR will move the wrong way as often as the right one.
>
> Age matters too. In the lifespan study the male advantage appears only in young adulthood and reverses after about 48, with women recording the larger ratio.[6] A single masculinity dial on fWHR is wrong for older characters.
## Sources
1. Caton & Dixson (2022). *Bizygomatic width is highly sexually dimorphic when adjusting for allometry.* Biology Letters.
2. Using data-driven phenotyping to investigate the impact of sex on 3D human facial surface morphology.
3. Measurement and analysis of human head-face dimensions (n=3,000; face width, jaw width, face length, nose protrusion).
4. Geniole, Denson, Dixson, Carré & McCormick (2015). *Evidence from Meta-Analyses of the Facial Width-to-Height Ratio as an Evolved Cue of Threat.* PLOS ONE (sex difference d = .11, n = 10,853; fWHR related to BMI, r = .31).
5. Kramer (2015). *Facial Width-to-Height Ratio in a Large Sample of Commonwealth Games Athletes.* Evolutionary Psychology (n = 3,481; men 1.98, women 1.92, d = 0.31; difference not significant after controlling for body size).
6. *Tracking sexual dimorphism of facial width-to-height ratio across the lifespan: implications for perceived aggressiveness.* Royal Society Open Science (2022; 17,607 passport images; male larger only in young adulthood, reversed after age 48).
---
First published 2026-10-02, updated 2026-10-18. Web page: https://www.mackenziebowes.com/research/facial-character-parameters/cheekbones Part of [Facial parameters for character work: the dials that carry a face, and how far they travel](https://www.mackenziebowes.com/research/facial-character-parameters).