Darwin (1871)
• Didn’t specify morphological features
that females used to select males
• Females used aesthetic preference
• Independent of male health or fitness
• Wallace suggested vigor and health
Singh (1995)
• WHR in females’ judgments
• Fat deposits on males are healthrelevant
• Predict women will find male WHRs in
typical male range more attractive
Study 1
• 87 women, age 18-22
• Ranked 12 images (most to least
attractive)
• Top and bottom three for:
– good health, youthfulness, attractiveness,
sexy, desire for children, faithfulness,
caring father, ambitious, intelligent,
aggressiveness, leadership, strong and
powerful, kind and understanding, sense of
humour
Multidimensional Scaling: Female Judgment of Male Attractiveness
I: WHR
II: Body weight
• WHR more related to attractiveness, health,
intelligence, and leadership qualities
• Body weight more related to kindness and
understanding, and being a caring father
Multidimensional Unfolding: Female
Judgment of Male Attractiveness
• Perception of male attractiveness influenced
by WHR size depending on overall body
weight
• Only normal weight with male-typical WHRs
perceived as healthy and attractive
• Healthiness appears to be necessary
condition for attractiveness
• Being strong and powerful not related to
attractiveness or healthiness
– Fits with highly muscular men not being rated
most attractive (e.g., Biasiotto & Ferrando, 1991)
• Lack of positive relationship between
kindness and understanding and
attractiveness
– “Dark side of beauty” (Dermer & Thiel, 1975)
Study 2
• 158 women; wide rang of ages, SES, and
education
• Showed N7, N9, N10 images
• Three income levels (low, middle, upper
class) matching three occupations (bank
teller, video store manager, businessman)
• Willingness for relationship:
– have coffee/casual conversation, go on a date,
nonromantic friendship, short-term romantic, longterm serious romantic, marriage
• 3 (WHR) X 3 (income level) factorial
design
• Complex interactions
• Overall, figures with higher WHRs and
financial status were rated more
desirable for all relationships
• Financial status can compensate for
lower attractiveness, but men need both
high WHR and finances to be maximally
desired
• Female characteristics enter in
• 18-25 years more inclined to dating; 26-35
more inclined to long-term and marriage; 3669 sought long-term relationships
(companionship over reproductive)
• Females with lower education more willing to
go for coffee and have nonromantic friendship
than females with high education, but only if
target figure’s income was high
• Females with lower income showed higher
preference than those with high income for
target figures with higher WHR and finances
for coffee and conversation
Broadly Speaking
• Women show preference for WHR in
0.9 range (0.85-0.95)
• 0.7 is in gynoid range
• Over 1.0 into obesity
Tapering
•
•
•
•
Manipulation of male WHR
Torso tapering
Shoulders appear broader
Franzoni & Herzog (1987), Horvath
(1979)
• SHR
– Average 1.2 (male), 1.04 (female)
Dijkstra & Buunk (2001)
•
•
•
•
Jealousy
Male and Female undergrads
Singh images
Male figures
– WHR 0.7 and 0.9
– SHR 1.20 and 1.40 (based on male fashion
models)
Measures
• Jealousy
– If figure was sexually interested in subject’s
partner
• Dominance
– Self-confident, ambitious, competent, assertive,
influential, dominant
• Attractiveness
– How attractive, how attractive to member of
opposite sex
Results
• High SHR produced greater jealousy in
male subjects
• Both female and male subjects rated
low WHR and high SHR figures as more
attractive and dominant
• Females put greater emphasis on WHR,
whereas males attended more to SHR
Buunk & Dijkstra (2005)
• Generally, a follow-up study
• Women attend more to rival women’s waist,
hips, and hair; men attend more to rival men’s
shoulders
• Low WHR low SHR rivals (i.e., slender body
build) evoked most male jealousy; these
figures rated most attractive and socially
dominant, but not most physically dominant
• Males in study were older (M = 48 years);
SHR less significant than for younger males
Hughes & Gallup (2003)
•
•
•
•
•
SHR and WHR
Age of first sexual intercourse
Number sexual partners
Number of EPCs
Number of cases of being an EPC
partner
Stature
• Undergraduate students
• Males
– SHR 1.03-1.40 (M=1.18)
– WHR 0.73-1.03 (M=0.86)
• Females
– SHR 0.9-1.22 (M=1.03)
– WHR 0.69-0.87 (M=0.77)
Results
• In males, higher SHR significantly correlates
with:
–
–
–
–
Younger age for first sex
More sexual partners
More EPC partners
More instances of being an EPC partner
• Male WHR
– Earlier first sex for 0.9, delayed for <0.9 and >0.9
• In females, SHR has no significant
correlations
– Lower WHRs in females follows male SHR pattern
Hughes, Dispenza & Gallup
(2004)
• Opposite sex voice attractiveness
• Positively correlated with SHR in males
• Negatively correlated with WHR in
females
• Voice attractiveness positively
correlates with age of first sex, number
of sexual partners, number EPCs, etc.
Download
Related flashcards

Fertility deities

16 cards

Sexual health

23 cards

Human sexuality

25 cards

Intersex

12 cards

Create Flashcards