6,480
edits
Body attractiveness: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
Therefore, to summarize, male facial and body attractiveness were uncorrelated in this sample; both contributed to overall attractiveness, and they mostly contributed uniquely to overall attractiveness. | Therefore, to summarize, male 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. | 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. | 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 and combined 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. | 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. | ||