Darwin (1871)
description
Transcript of Darwin (1871)
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 health-relevant
• 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
I: WHRII: Body weight
Multidimensional Scaling: Female Judgment of Male Attractiveness
• 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, long-term 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; 36-69 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.