Not very surprising, but an interesting methodology that examined video of actual women rather than static photos or unrealistic line drawings. Abdominal depth and waist circumference are, of course, correlated with the more widely used waist-hip ratio and body-mass index which have been used in previous attractiveness research, but they appear to be even stronger predictors of attractiveness.
Evolution and Human Behavior doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.08.007
Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness
James K. Rilling et al.
Abstract
Previous research based largely on two-dimensional (2D) line drawings and picture stimuli has established that both body mass index (BMI) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) influence the perceived attractiveness of human female bodies. Here, we extend these studies by (1) creating a more ecologically valid stimulus set consisting of 3D videos and 2D still shots from real female “models” rotating in space, and (2) measuring and examining the influence of several additional anthropometric variables that previously have not been considered. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the depth of the lower torso at the umbilicus, or abdominal depth, and waist circumference were the strongest predictors of attractiveness, stronger than either BMI or WHR. Women with shallow abdominal depth and small waist circumference are more likely to be healthy and nonpregnant, suggesting that this may be an adaptive male preference that has been shaped by natural selection. Leg length was a consistent positive predictor of attractiveness, perhaps because it has been correlated with biomechanical efficacy or healthy prepubertal growth that is unhindered by nutritional or energetic deficiency. Our results show that conclusions regarding anthropometric predictors of attractiveness are influenced by the visual perspective of the perceiver, as well as the anthropometric variables considered for analysis.
Link
3 comments:
I agree with that study. Top model Gisele Bündchen fits that description (flat tummy, narrow waist, long legs) and I find her very attractive.
I agree with that study too! As much as we like to say "Big is beautiful" ..come one now..it's not really true! However, im not justifying size 0 girls! When the majority of the population is at both extremes - thats how you know somethings wrong with the world (along with mass poverty, downfall of economy, capitalism...etc)
:)
From a fellow anthropologist
The problem with Bundschen is that she has narrow man-hips, and no ass - so combined with her wider shoulders, her frame is that of a man.
Post a Comment