This facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) calculator is used to measure and analyze facial proportions and find golden face ratio.
fWHR Calculator
| Bizygomatic Width (mm) | Upper Facial Height (mm) | fWHR |
|---|---|---|
| 130 | 65 | 2.00 |
| 140 | 80 | 1.75 |
| 135 | 70 | 1.93 |
| 125 | 75 | 1.67 |
| 145 | 72 | 2.01 |
| 150 | 78 | 1.92 |
| 120 | 65 | 1.85 |
| 155 | 82 | 1.89 |
| 138 | 76 | 1.82 |
| 160 | 85 | 1.88 |
| 128 | 70 | 1.83 |
| 142 | 74 | 1.92 |
| 135 | 68 | 1.98 |
| 147 | 80 | 1.84 |
| 125 | 73 | 1.71 |
fWHR Calculation Formula
The formula for measuring fWHR is straightforward:
fWHR = Bizygomatic Width / Upper Facial HeightWhere:
- Bizygomatic Width is the distance between the left and right cheekbones (zygomas)
- Upper Facial Height is the distance from the upper lip to the brow
A face with a bizygomatic width of 140mm and an upper facial height of 70mm:
fWHR = 140mm / 70mm = 2.0This calculation yields an fWHR of 2.0, indicating that the face is twice as wide as it is tall (in the measured region).
How to Measure fWHR?
- Obtain a front-facing photograph with a neutral expression.
- Identify key facial landmarks:
- Cheekbones (zygomas)
- Upper lip
- Brow (eyebrow height)
- Measure bizygomatic width.
- Measure upper facial height.
- Apply the fWHR formula.
- Bizygomatic width: 135 pixels
- Upper facial height: 90 pixels
fWHR = 135 pixels / 90 pixels = 1.5What is an Ideal fWHR?
- Higher fWHR (>2.0): Often linked to perceived dominance, aggression, and leadership potential.
- Lower fWHR (<1.8): Sometimes associated with perceived trustworthiness and cooperation.
A political candidate with an fWHR of 2.2 might be perceived as more dominant, potentially influencing voter impressions.
What is the Average fWHR Ratio?
Generally, research indicates:
- Male average: Approximately 1.8 – 2.0
- Female average: Slightly lower, around 1.7 – 1.9
These figures can fluctuate based on factors such as:
- Ethnicity
- Age
- Sample size
- Measurement techniques
A study of 100 young adult males might find an average fWHR of 1.92, while a similar study in a different population could yield an average of 1.85.
References
- Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 623-627. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513812000645
- Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PloS one, 10(7), e0132726. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726
- A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 10(4), e0122637. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122637
Related Tools:
