Evolved Adaptation

• Universal

• Non-socialized

• Practically speaking, cross-cultural demonstration

Societal Learning

• Differences between Caucasian and Black Americans

• Generally, Blacks less negative with respect to higher weight

• Variety of studies through 1980s

A Few General Findings• Compared to whites, black women

– More tolerant of higher weight than whites (Rucker & Cash 1992)

– Less body image dissatisfaction and less likely to believe being thin equals being attractive (Thomas 1989)

• Black female teens have higher body satisfaction and feel less pressured to achieve thin ideal than whites (Rosen & Gross (1987)

• Black men less likely than white men to refuse to date an overweight woman (Harris et al. 1991)

Ethnic Difference

• No studies had specifically demonstrated that black Americans idealized obesity

• But, taken together, blacks seem more tolerant of fat in attractiveness judgments

Body Weight/Body Shape

• These studies focused strictly on body weight

• Female body shape determined by both amount of fat and its distribution

Kate Russell Kate Moss Marilyn Monroe Twiggy

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n8bWuUpexE0/SFzc_Bf30FI/AAAAAAAABBM/a5FcfzOaPy4/s400/jane_russell15.jpghttp://www.marinadelreyphotos.com/images/people%20gallery/images/TWIGGY%201966.jpghttp://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/marilyn-monroe-swimsuit.jpghttp://punchitin.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/kate-moss.jpg

WHR ~0.7

WHR Similarities

• WHR measures puts both American blacks and whites in the same sex-specific ranges– 0.8 and lower for females, 0.85 and higher for

males

• Body weights may differ, but WHR preferences may be similar for the ethnic groups

Singh (1994)

• Identify male and female American black preferences for WHR and body weight using line drawings

• Compare with earlier findings

Criteria

• Rank figures for a number of characteristics:– Good health; youthful appearance; attractiveness;

sexiness

– Faithfulness

– Desire for children; capability for having children

– Ambitiousness and career drive; intelligence; aggressiveness

– Interesting to talk to; kindness & understanding; good companion; sense of humour

Analysis

• Ordinal data, so had to use nonmetric multidimensional scaling

• 12 figures and 15 attributes scaled into the same dimensional space

• Identifies attributes’ perceived similarity and degree of attributes’ association with individual figures

Attributes’ Similarity

• All attributes closely associated except youthfulness, faithfulness, and kindness & understanding

• Don’t perceive youthfulness as closely linked to attractiveness, companionship, or desirability for along-term relationship

Figures and Attributes

• For males, all attributes except youthfulness, faithfulness, and kindness & understanding associated with N7 figure

• Females the same, except they include N8 and N9 in grouping

• Neither males nor females grouped overweight figures with attributes of attractiveness, sexiness, companionship, and desirability for long-term relationship

WHR and Attractiveness

• Similar to earlier studies• Positive correlation for attractiveness rankings

based upon WHR• Males normal and underweight figures using

WHRs, but not for overweight (but all ranked low)• Females ranked normal and overweight figures

using WHRs• Neither sex have higher attractiveness rankings to

android range (0.9, 1.0) figures of any body weight

WHR and Long-term Relationship

• Males: used WHR for ranking normal and overweight figures

• Strongest preference for N7• If only body weight considered males

preferred normal figures the most and underweight the least

• Males did not associate youthfulness with long-term relationship, but females did

In General

• Subjects assigned attractiveness ranking using WHR within each body weight category

• Figures with similar body weight given lower ranking if they had higher WHR

• Overweight figures not associated with: attractiveness, sexiness, companionship, or desirability for long-term relationship

• But, overweight figures were linked to being desirous and capable of having children and being kind & understanding

In Support of Universal Trait

• Results very similar to those found for American whites in earlier studies

• Do not support belief that American black males find overweight females sexy and attractive

• Like whites, black males and females use rank figures similarly; use similar criteria to identify desired body shape

However…

• This study used American black college students

• Previous studies used American white college students

• Age, socioeconomics, education…

Food Scarcity and Attractiveness Preferences

• Reports that cultures with food scarcity show preference for plumpness in females

• Distinction established between developing and developed countries

• Makes a certain amount of evolutionary sense

Feast and Famine

• Adaptive preference

• In times of plenty, store fat reserves

• Utilize these in times of famine to maintain pregnancy or nursing

• Frisch (1990) showed critical threshold of body fat required for onset and maintenance of ovulation

Shape not Weight

• But difference between storage and reproductive fat

• Both storage and utilization of fats regulated by sex hormones

• Moderate degrees of obesity, scarcity of food, and climactic conditions do not significantly affect gynoid or android shape

Cross-Cultural WHR Variation

• Generally, within similar range and show non-overlapping sexual dimorphism

• Average WHRs

Male Female

American blacks 0.84 0.75

American whites 0.82 0.73

Mexican-Americans 0.94 0.84

Moost (Mongolia) 0.85 0.76

Evolved Preference

• In regions with food scarcity• Adaptive preference for fatter than slimmer

women• Not a preference for women with android

body shape• Gynoid fat distribution maintained• In regions without food scarcity, gynoid

shape itself may be of greater significance

Singh & Luis (1995)

• Used young Indonesian men and women as subjects– Indonesia interpreted as being more of a

“developing” country than America

• Rank standard set of figures (different weights, WHRs) with a series of personal attributes

• Want to get non-American data set

Subjects

• Trying to minimize cultural “contamination”• 17-25 years• Attending University of Texas• Had been in America 4-59 months (mean 21

months) before study• Limited exposure to western culture (some movies,

TV mini-series)• Almost no exposure to nude or semi-nude magazine

or movie images of women due to Indonesian censorship

Analysis

• Nonmetric multidimensional scaling

• WHR

• Attributes

• Association

Males, WHR

Females, WHR

WHR

• Both separate based on weight

• Within weight classes, rank by WHR (from 0.7-1.0)

Males, Attributes

Females, Attributes

Together

Taken Together

• N7: health, attractiveness, youthfulness, intelligence, interesting to talk to

• Honesty, kindness & understanding, liking children, faithfulness not associated with attractiveness; closer to overweight figures (not attractive, but have positive characteristics)

• Females associate no attributes with underweight;• Males put U7 and U8 closer to attractiveness and

desirability to marry, although these figures are not grouped with being capable of having children

• Males link attractiveness to desire to marry her

Cross-Cultural Similarities

• Using data from Singh’s earlier studies• N7 ranked most attractive by all• Within each weight category, gynoid figures (0.7, 0.8) ranked

higher than android figures (0.9, 1.0)• Overweight ranked less attractive than normal or underweight

Overall Outcome

• Neither ethnicity nor gender significantly affects perception of attractiveness in women

• Normal weight females with low WHR rated as more attractive and healthy

• Overweight possess positive personality traits, but not rated as attractive

• Underweight with low WHR rated as attractive, but not judged very capable of having children

Resource Scarcity Interpretation

• Contrary to prediction from theory, Indonesians did not have preference for overweight figures

Resources and Dominance

• Social primates organize via dominance

• Humans have complex social hierarchy

• Fatness, or ability to achieve fatness, may be associated with dominance, power, resources

Anthropological Literature

• Numerous examples citing preference for fatness

• May not be actual obesity, per se, but potential to achieve this, representing status

• Issues with cross-cultural definition of “obesity”

Personality

• Seen certain personality characteristics associated with different body weights and shapes

• To what extent do people extrapolate personality characteristics from WHR?

What Is Beautiful Is Good

• Personality, behaviour

• Most research demonstrating this has utilized facial appearance or body weight as method of judgment

• Western ideal perceived to be to associate thinness with positive attributes

Singh (1994)

• Assessing personality traits using WHR and weight

• Used line drawing figures and manipulated pictures

Line Drawings

• Generally replicated findings of other studies– WHR and body weight utilized to make

attractiveness and personality judgments– Neither underweight nor overweight figures

were most attractive despite lower WHRs– U7 and U8 ranked highest for youthfulness– Normal body weight and gynoid shape required

for attractiveness and positive attributes

Manipulated Photos

• Edited waist to alter WHR

• Fairly simplistic• No attempt to adjust

body weight or alter other body regions

Attribute Ratings0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Attractiveness 43 19 7 -60

Youthfulness 17 0 -7 -14

Good health 17 9.5 -5 -20

Good companion 10 19 5 -33

Capability of having children

10 18 11 29

Faithfulness -40 7 19 10

Kindness & understanding

-31 2 5 33

Intelligence -36 7 31 -7

Aggressiveness 12 -2 -5 0

Need to lose weight -46 -15 7 28