1 / 22
Télécharger la présentation

Darwin (1871)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Multidimensional Unfolding: Female Judgment of Male Attractiveness

  6. 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)

  7. 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

  8. 3 (WHR) X 3 (income level) factorial design

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Tapering • Manipulation of male WHR • Torso tapering • Shoulders appear broader • Franzoni & Herzog (1987), Horvath (1979) • SHR • Average 1.2 (male), 1.04 (female)

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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)

  19. 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

  20. 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.

More Related