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.