SGP03

Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies: 

Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten Special thanks to Simon Baumgartner who prepared the stimuli and collected the data

Introduction: 

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.

Method (1): 

Method (1) Definition of the stimuli

Slide4: 

Using two bodies

Slide5: 

Defining 520 corresponding dots

Slide6: 

Morphing...

Method (2): 

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.

Method (3): 

Method (3) N=40 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 N=39 subjects using an online experiment (cf. http://wl12www671.webland.ch/). All 4 experiments showed the same results:

Slide10: 

4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Results

Slide11: 

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+

Slide12: 

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).

Slide13: 

There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4- composite being judged significantly less attractive than the prototype (average of 16).

Discussion (1): 

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).

Slide15: 

4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Judgement = Baseline + symmetry (overall configuration) plus/minus „good“ or „bad“ features

Slide16: 

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

Slide17: 

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

Slide18: 

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

Slide19: 

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

Slide20: 

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

Slide21: 

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

Discussion (2): 

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

Slide23: 

References Baumgartner, S. (2003). Körperformen und die Beurteilung weiblicher und männlicher Attraktivität. Unpublished master’s 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.

Slide24: 

Abstract: Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Muesmattstr. 45, 3009 Bern[1] 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. N=40 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 N=39 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