Body attractiveness: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Body attractiveness (edit)

Revision as of 14:39, 9 September 2023

2,886 bytes added ,  9 September 2023
→‎Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness
Line 55: Line 55:


==Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness==
==Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness==
In the [[incelosphere]] and elsewhere, there is an often furious debate that rages regarding how much bodily attractiveness contributes to overall physical attractiveness in men, especially compared to the contribution of facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness ratings.
In the [[incelosphere]] and elsewhere, there is an often furious debate regarding how much bodily attractiveness contributes to overall physical attractiveness in men, especially compared to the contribution of facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness ratings.  
Currie & Little (2009) tested this assertion by presenting photos of the bodies and faces of various individuals to separate raters in randomized order and then together. The pictures were not rated not as a full-body image, so the experimenters could mask the faces to control the potential confounding effects of hair, accessories, and so on regarding ratings of faces.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000580</ref>
The raters were instructed to evaluate the desirability of these images in the context of both long and short-term relationships. The whole body photos of the individuals were then presented to a distinct group of raters to determine if showing the faces and bodies together in such an unnatural way reduced the validity of the ratings (it was later found it didn't to any significant degree).


They found that, in men, facial attractiveness predicted more of the variance of the ratings of the full-body photographs (β=.427) compared to body ratings (β=.349). However, the effect sizes for both were quite large. Interestingly enough, this particular study indicated that the relative contributions of bodily and facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness might not be additive. None of the male subjects in this study received a mean total body rating higher than the highest rating received for either their bodily or facial attractiveness.  
Currie & Little (2009) tested this assertion by presenting photos of the bodies and faces of various individuals to separate raters in randomized order and then together. The pictures were not rated not as a full-body images, so the experimenters could mask the faces to control the potential confounding effects of hair, accessories, and so on regarding ratings of faces.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000580</ref>
The raters were instructed to evaluate the desirability of these images in the context of both long and short-term relationships. The researchers then presented the whole body photos of the individuals to a distinct group of raters to determine if showing the faces and bodies together in such an unnatural way reduced the validity of the ratings (it was later found it didn't to any significant degree).


This likely means that the interaction between facial and bodily attractiveness is highly complex, with there likely being minimal thresholds of both that need to be exceeded for a man to be considered 'attractive' by women; though it is clear that both, individually, contribute substantially to the variance to women's perceptions of male physical attractiveness.
They found that, in men, facial attractiveness predicted more of the variance of the ratings of the full-body photographs (β=.427) compared to body ratings (β=.349). However, the effect sizes for both were quite large. Interestingly enough, this study indicated that the relative contributions of bodily and facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness might not be additive. None of the male subjects in this study received a mean total body rating higher than the highest rating received for either their bodily or facial attractiveness.  
Further, on this point, many lookism theorists claim that working out in order to increase one's attractiveness to women (which is often dubbed 'gymcelling') is useless if one has a particularly unattractive face. In contrast to this claim, the study's authors found more substantial evidence for an opposite effect, i.e., in some male subjects, their gestalt physical attractiveness was dragged down in a dramatic way when their bodies were relatively unattractive compared to their faces.
Conversely, body attractiveness mattered relatively much more to men when evaluating women exclusively for short-term relationships. The mating context-related primes had less influence on women's evaluations of the relative importance of bodily and facial attractiveness, which were stable across both conditions.


Another study by Sidari et al. (2021), utilizing a speed dating paradigm, examined the relative contributions of bodily attractiveness and facial attractiveness on the rated physical attractiveness (by their dates) and rejection rates among speed daters of both sexes. They found that bodily attractiveness in men contributed significantly to female ratings of overall attractiveness in men (not just physical attractiveness but truly 'holistic attractiveness,' romantic desirability).<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340497679_Preferences_for_Sexually_Dimorphic_Body_Characteristics_Revealed_in_a_Large_Sample_of_Speed_Daters</ref> They claimed this finding was the first scientific proof of such an effect 'in the field' (not relying on 2D pictures, morphs, or video clips like prior research).
This likely means that the interaction between facial and bodily attractiveness is highly complex, with minimal thresholds that need to be exceeded for a man to be considered 'attractive' by women. However, both contribute substantially to the variance in women's perceptions of male physical attractiveness.
Further, on this point, many lookism theorists claim that working out to increase one's attractiveness to women (which is often dubbed 'gymcelling') is useless if one has a particularly unattractive face. In contrast to this claim, the study's authors found more substantial evidence for an opposite effect, i.e., in some male subjects, their gestalt physical attractiveness was dragged down dramatically when their bodies were relatively unattractive compared to their faces.
Conversely, when evaluating women exclusively for short-term relationships, body attractiveness mattered relatively much more to men. The mating context-related primes had less influence on women's evaluations of the relative importance of bodily and facial attractiveness, which were stable across both conditions.


Interestingly, even though one would assume speed dates are a strong example of priming people for short-term mating, the researchers found that there was no sex difference in terms of the contributions of bodily attractiveness to the men's chance of being chosen. However, they did find evidence for sex differences in terms of partner's ratings of their date's desirability (with men valuing both facial and bodily attractiveness more than women in their judgments).
Another study by Sidari et al. (2021), utilizing a speed dating paradigm, examined the relative contributions of bodily and facial attractiveness on the rated physical attractiveness (by their dates) and rejection rates among speed daters of both sexes. They found that bodily attractiveness in men contributed significantly to female ratings of overall attractiveness in men (not just physical attractiveness but truly 'holistic attractiveness,' romantic desirability).<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340497679_Preferences_for_Sexually_Dimorphic_Body_Characteristics_Revealed_in_a_Large_Sample_of_Speed_Daters</ref> They claimed this finding was the first scientific proof of such an effect 'in the field' (not relying on 2D pictures, morphs, or video clips like prior research).
This suggests a disconnect between attractiveness ratings and actual, operationalized mate choices. The discrepancy in this study may have been determined by the sample that it was utilizing mainly college students, the fact that people calibrate their actual mate choices based on their own perceived mate value (with people perhaps being sometimes less likely to choose particularly desirable partners that they believe will reject them), and the fact that brief blind dates with strangers do not mirror the natural social contexts in which most mate choice takes place.


These findings suggest that bodily attractiveness matters quite a bit in determining gestalt physical attractiveness in both sexes, but particularly amongst men who evaluate women in the context of them being potential short-term romantic partners. The reasons for this may vary; it could be that bodily attractiveness is more associated with pubertal maturity (and thus fertility) or that it is related to perceptions of greater sexual availability on behalf of men with a primarily short-term mating orientation.
Interestingly, even though one would assume speed dates are a strong example of priming people for short-term mating, the researchers found no sex difference in terms of the contributions of bodily attractiveness to the men's chance of being chosen. However, they did find evidence for sex differences in terms of partner's ratings of their date's desirability (with men valuing both facial and bodily attractiveness more than women in their judgments).
This lack of the hypothesized sex difference in preference for short-term mating suggests a disconnect between attractiveness ratings and actual, operationalized mate choices. The sample may have determined the discrepancy in this study that it was utilizing mainly college students, the fact that people calibrate their actual mate choices based on their own perceived mate value (with people perhaps being sometimes less likely to choose particularly desirable partners that they believe will reject them), and the fact that brief blind dates with strangers do not mirror the natural social contexts in which most mate choice takes place.
 
Finally, Peters et al. (2007) had men and women rate a set of full-body photos. Separate ratings of the face and body of the subjects of these photos were taken from an earlier study by the same authors. Several statistical analyses were performed on the resulting data. A multiple regression analysis (predicting how shifts in the independent variables of face and body influenced the dependent variable of overall physical attractiveness, respectively) had facial attractiveness predicting general PA at β = 0.517. Body attractiveness contributed β = 0.235 to overall PA. In simpler terms, facial features were more dominant in influencing overall attractiveness than body shape in this study. Therefore, this study had a larger effect for face vs. body than Currie & Little (2009) in predicting overall PA among men, but the overall pattern was the same.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222672818_Contribution_of_the_face_and_body_to_overall_attractiveness</ref>
 
The authors also conducted a principle components analysis (PCA) on the relative contributions of face and body to overall attractiveness for men. This analysis revealed that facial and body attractiveness were distinct components for both men and women, indicating that they mainly contribute uniquely to overall attractiveness. The multiple regression also found no significant interaction between facial and body attractiveness in men, and the Pearson correlation coefficient for facial and body attractiveness in men was insignificant (while there was a significant correlation between facial and body attractiveness among female subjects).
Therefore, to summarize, facial and body attractiveness were uncorrelated in this sample; both contributed to overall attractiveness, and they mostly contributed uniquely to overall attractiveness.
This finding is different than the later analyses by Currie & Little (2009), mentioned above, as they did find facial attractiveness and body attractiveness interacted in men, albeit more in the unexpected direction of facial attractiveness being limited by low body attractiveness.
One explanation for this would be that, even though independent face and body ratings do not interact, people rate individuals more holistically when they see their entire bodies in a way that can't be simply explained by interaction effects or additive variance. This argument is supported by the fact that Peters et al. found that the correlation between facial and body photos was moderate in their sample, explaining less than half of the variance in overall attractiveness (Peters et al., 2007, p. 940). Alternately, there could be a lot of measurement error when one measures the respective contribution of face and body to overall attractiveness, which could explain the limited additive prediction.
 
These findings suggest that bodily attractiveness matters quite a bit in determining gestalt physical attractiveness in both sexes, particularly amongst men who evaluate women in the context of them being potential short-term romantic partners. The reasons for this may vary; it could be that bodily attractiveness is more associated with pubertal maturity (and thus fertility) or related to perceptions of greater sexual availability on behalf of men with a primarily short-term mating orientation.
In support of the former point, research has indicated that while men generally rate girls who are in the early stages of puberty's facial attractiveness as being higher than adult women's,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_rate_the_faces_of_adolescent_girls_as_more_attractive_and_feminine_than_adult_women</ref> there is a male tendency towards preferring more pubertally developed girls/adult women when it comes to evaluations of full-body physical attractiveness.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274257830_Heterosexual_Men's_Ratings_of_Sexual_Attractiveness_of_Adolescent_Girls_A_Cross-Cultural_Analysis</ref>
In support of the former point, research has indicated that while men generally rate girls who are in the early stages of puberty's facial attractiveness as being higher than adult women's,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_rate_the_faces_of_adolescent_girls_as_more_attractive_and_feminine_than_adult_women</ref> there is a male tendency towards preferring more pubertally developed girls/adult women when it comes to evaluations of full-body physical attractiveness.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274257830_Heterosexual_Men's_Ratings_of_Sexual_Attractiveness_of_Adolescent_Girls_A_Cross-Cultural_Analysis</ref>


This suggests that the development of secondary sexual characteristics is used as a strong cue by men in determining fertility, which could explain the discrepancy in the relative contributions of female bodily and facial attractiveness by mating context. An alternate (and not mutually exclusive) explanation could be that men are more drawn to bodily cues of attractiveness, such as pronounced sexual secondary characteristics (enlarged breasts and buttocks) in short-term mating contexts because these traits are honest signals of immediate sexual availability. That is, the women with these traits may indeed be more sexually promiscuous.
The general male preference for signs of sexual maturity regarding body attractiveness suggests that the development of secondary sexual characteristics is used as a strong cue by men in determining fertility. This preference for signs of fertility could further explain the discrepancy in the relative contributions of female bodily and facial attractiveness by mating context. An alternate (and not mutually exclusive) explanation could be that men are more drawn to bodily attractiveness cues, such as pronounced sexual secondary characteristics (enlarged breasts and buttocks), in short-term mating contexts because these traits are honest signals of immediate sexual availability. That is, the women with these traits may indeed be more sexually promiscuous.
Evidence for this assertion, however, is weak and inconsistent.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Physiognomy#Life_history_theory_and_physiognomy</ref>
Evidence for this assertion, however, is weak and inconsistent.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Physiognomy#Life_history_theory_and_physiognomy</ref>
==Contextual factors that affect perceptions of body attractiveness==
==Contextual factors that affect perceptions of body attractiveness==
===Life history speed===
===Life history speed===
Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/72618"

Navigation menu