Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies

1
Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of
human bodies

• Bernd Kersten
• Special thanks to Simon Baumgartner who prepared
  the stimuli and collected the data

2
Introduction
Langlois and Roggman (1980) proposed that
averageness of faces is attractive (cf. Galton,
1878). In contrast, humans may prefer extremes
instead of averageness at least for body shapes
(Baerends, 1982 cf. Perret et al., 1994). We
examined how averageness and exaggeration
influence the perceptual attractiveness of human
bodies.
3
Method (1)
Definition of the stimuli
4
Using two bodies
5
Defining 520 corresponding dots
6
Morphing...
7
Method (2)
Using the average of 16 female and 16 male
bodies, respectively, we compared these
prototypes with the most attractive individual
body and different composites.
8
(No Transcript)
9
Method (3)
N40 subjects judged these stimuli in individual
sessions using a rating scale as well as a
forced-choice rating. In addition, the experiment
was replicated with N39 subjects using an online
experiment (cf. http//wl12www671.webland.ch/). Al
l 4 experiments showed the same results
10
Results
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
11
The superstimulus - i.e. the composite of the 4
most attractive bodies (4) - was judged
significantly more attractive than the most
attractive individual body (and all composites).
Individual 4
Individual 4
12
There was a significant main effect of
exaggeration, with the 4 composite being judged
significantly more attractive than the 8
composite which in turn was significantly more
attractive than the prototype (average of 16).
13
There was a significant main effect of
exaggeration, with the 4- composite being judged
significantly less attractive than the prototype
(average of 16).
14
Discussion (1)
These preferences indicate that average values of
features (or the overall configuration) as well
as above-average of "good" features are both
attractive (cf. Rhodes Tremewan, 1996)
below-average of "bad" features (like
waist-to-hip ratio) are unattractive (cf. Tovée
et al. 1999).
15
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Judgement Baseline symmetry (overall
configuration) plus/minus good or bad features
16
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Superstimulus 4 Add 1 for symmetry and 1 for
good features (like waist-to-hip ratio)
Baseline 1 1
17
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Most unattractive 4- Add 1 for symmetry and 1
for bad features (like waist-to-hip ratio)
Baseline 1 - 1
18
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Individual most attractive Add zero for symmetry
and 1 for good features (like waist-to-hip
ratio) Baseline plus 1
19
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Prototype (16) Add 1 for symmetry and 1/3 for
good features Baseline 1 1/3
20
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Exaggerated 8 Add 1 for symmetry and 2/3 for
good features Baseline plus 1 plus 2/3
21
4- 1 Ø 8 4
4- 1 Ø 8 4
Superstimulus 4 Add 1 for symmetry and 1 for
good features Baseline plus 1 plus 1
22
Discussion (2)
The prediction of attractiveness for faces and
human bodies is very similar and this seems to
indicate that a prototype explanation of facial
attractiveness is also misleaded. The post-hoc
description should be tested Judgement
Baseline plus symmetry (overall configuration)
plus/minus good or bad features
23
References Baumgartner, S. (2003). Körperformen
und die Beurteilung weiblicher und männlicher
Attraktivität. Unpublished masters thesis at the
Institute of Psychology, University of Bern,
Switzerland. Barends, G.P. (1982).
Supernormality. Behaviour, 82, 358-363. Galton,
F. (1878). Composite portraits. Journal of
Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain. Langlois, J.H. Roggman, L.A. (1990).
Attractive faces are only average. Psychological
Science, 1, 115-121. Perret, D.I., May, K.A.
Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements
of female attractiveness. Nature, 368,
239-242. Rhodes, G. Tremewan, T. (1996).
Averageness, exaggeration, and facial
attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 2,
105-110. Tovée, M.J., Maisey, D.S., Emery, J.L.,
Cornellissen, P.L. (1999). Visual cues to
female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London, 266, 211-218.
24
Abstract Averageness, exaggeration, and
attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten,
Institute of Psychology, University of Bern,
Muesmattstr. 45, 3009 Bern1 Langlois and
Roggman (1980) proposed that averageness of faces
is attractive (cf. Galton, 1878). In contrast,
humans may prefer extremes instead of averageness
at least for body shapes (Baerends, 1982 cf.
Perret et al., 1994). We examined how averageness
and exaggeration influences the perceptual
attractiveness of human bodies. Using the average
of 16 female and 16 male bodies, respectively, we
compared these prototypes with the most
attractive individual body and different
composites. N40 subjects judged the stimuli in
individual sessions using a rating scale as well
as a forced-choice rating. In addition, the
experiment was replicated with N39 subjects
using an online experiment (cf.
http//wl12www671.webland.ch/). The superstimulus
- i.e. the composite of the 4 most attractive
bodies (4) - was judged significantly more
attractive than the most attractive individual
body and all composites (see fig., below). There
was a significant main effect of exaggeration,
with the 4 composite being judged significantly
more attractive than the 8 composite which in
turn were significantly more attractive than the
prototype and the composite of the 4 unattractive
bodies - which were significantly less attractive
than all other stimuli. These preferences
indicate that average values of features (or the
overall configuration) as well as above-average
of "good" features are both attractive (cf.
Rhodes Tremewan, 1996) below-average of "bad"
features (like waist-to-hip ratio) are
unattractive (cf. Tovée et al. 1999). The
prediction of attractiveness for faces and human
bodies is very similar and this seems to indicate
that a prototype explanation of facial
attractiveness is misleaded.   key words
attractiveness, prototype, beauty