43
Evolved Adaptation • Universal • Non-socialized • Practically speaking, cross- cultural demonstration

Evolved Adaptation

  • Upload
    ilori

  • View
    37

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Evolved Adaptation

Evolved Adaptation

• Universal• Non-socialized• Practically speaking, cross-cultural

demonstration

Page 2: Evolved Adaptation

Societal Learning

• Differences between Caucasian and Black Americans

• Generally, Blacks less negative with respect to higher weight

• Variety of studies through 1980s

Page 3: Evolved Adaptation

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)

Page 4: Evolved Adaptation

Ethnic Difference

• No studies had specifically demonstrated that black Americans idealized obesity

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

Page 5: Evolved Adaptation

Body Weight/Body Shape

• These studies focused strictly on body weight

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

Page 6: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 7: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 8: Evolved Adaptation

Singh (1994)

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

• Compare with earlier findings

Page 9: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 10: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 11: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 12: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 13: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 14: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 15: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 16: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 17: Evolved Adaptation

However…

• This study used American black college students

• Previous studies used American white college students

• Age, socioeconomics, education…

Page 18: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 19: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 20: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 21: Evolved Adaptation

Cross-Cultural WHR Variation

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

• Average WHRs

Male FemaleAmerican blacks 0.84 0.75American whites 0.82 0.73Mexican-Americans 0.94 0.84Moost (Mongolia) 0.85 0.76

Page 22: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 23: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 24: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 25: Evolved Adaptation

Analysis

• Nonmetric multidimensional scaling• WHR• Attributes• Association

Page 26: Evolved Adaptation

Males, WHR

Page 27: Evolved Adaptation

Females, WHR

Page 28: Evolved Adaptation

WHR

• Both separate based on weight• Within weight classes, rank by WHR (from

0.7-1.0)

Page 29: Evolved Adaptation

Males, Attributes

Page 30: Evolved Adaptation

Females, Attributes

Page 31: Evolved Adaptation

Together

Page 32: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 33: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 34: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 35: Evolved Adaptation

Resource Scarcity Interpretation

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

Page 36: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 37: Evolved Adaptation

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”

Page 38: Evolved Adaptation

Personality

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

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

Page 39: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 40: Evolved Adaptation

Singh (1994)

• Assessing personality traits using WHR and weight

• Used line drawing figures and manipulated pictures

Page 41: Evolved Adaptation

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

Page 42: Evolved Adaptation

Manipulated Photos

• Edited waist to alter WHR

• Fairly simplistic• No attempt to adjust

body weight or alter other body regions

Page 43: Evolved Adaptation

Attribute Ratings0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Attractiveness 43 19 7 -60Youthfulness 17 0 -7 -14Good health 17 9.5 -5 -20Good companion 10 19 5 -33Capability of having children

10 18 11 29

Faithfulness -40 7 19 10Kindness & understanding

-31 2 5 33

Intelligence -36 7 31 -7Aggressiveness 12 -2 -5 0Need to lose weight -46 -15 7 28