The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Human female attractiveness: waveform analysis of body shape

Human female attractiveness: waveform analysis of body shape
Human female attractiveness: waveform analysis of body shape
Two putative cues to female physical attractiveness are body mass index (BMI) and shape (particularly the waist–hip ratio or WHR). To determine the relative importance of these cues we asked 23 male and 23 female undergraduates to rate a set of 60 pictures of real women’s bodies in front-view for attractiveness. In our set of images, the relative ranges of BMI and WHR favoured WHR. We based these ranges on a sample of 457 women. We did not limit the WHR range, although we kept the BMI range to 0.5 s.d. either side of the sample means. As a result, WHR averaged 1.65 s.d. either side of its sample mean. However, even with these advantages, WHR was less important than BMI as a predictor of attractiveness ratings for bodies. BMI is far more strongly correlated with ratings of attractiveness than WHR (BMI ~ 0.5, WHR ~ 0.2). To further explore the relative importance of BMI and WHR, we deliberately chose a subset of these images that demonstrated an inverse correlation of BMI and WHR (i.e. a group in which as images get heavier they also become more curvaceous). If WHR is the most important determinant of attractiveness, then the more curvaceous (but higher BMI) images should be judged most attractive. However, if BMI is a better predictor, then the opposite should be true. We found that the more curvaceous (but higher BMI) images were judged least attractive, thereby inverting the expected rating pattern. This strongly suggests that viewers’ judgements were influenced more by BMI than WHR. Finally, it is possible that body shape is an important cue to attractiveness, but that simple ratios (such as WHR) are not adequately capturing it. Therefore, we treated the outline of the torso as a waveform and carried out a set of waveform analyses on it to allow us to quantify body shape and correlate it with attractiveness. The waveform analyses address the complexity of the whole torso shape, and reveal innate properties of the torso shape and not shape elements based on prior decisions about arbitrary physical features. Our analyses decompose the waveform into objective quantified elements whose importance in predicting attractiveness can then be tested. All of the components that were good descriptors of body shape were weakly correlated with attractiveness. Our results suggest that BMI is a stronger predictor of attractiveness than WHR.
1471-2954
2205-2213
Tovee, Martin
a0909772-de14-4a27-9e78-af650d4dccf1
Hancock, Peter
3bd2b83c-5935-468a-bf12-d67764fae1cc
Mahmoodi, Sasan
91ca8da4-95dc-4c1e-ac0e-f2c08d6ac7cf
Singleton, Ben
1ce31365-4b01-4745-bcde-b2be43767cf2
Cornelissen, Piers
cd2c5038-5f97-4fbd-bde3-b4b35e396ffe
Tovee, Martin
a0909772-de14-4a27-9e78-af650d4dccf1
Hancock, Peter
3bd2b83c-5935-468a-bf12-d67764fae1cc
Mahmoodi, Sasan
91ca8da4-95dc-4c1e-ac0e-f2c08d6ac7cf
Singleton, Ben
1ce31365-4b01-4745-bcde-b2be43767cf2
Cornelissen, Piers
cd2c5038-5f97-4fbd-bde3-b4b35e396ffe

Tovee, Martin, Hancock, Peter, Mahmoodi, Sasan, Singleton, Ben and Cornelissen, Piers (2002) Human female attractiveness: waveform analysis of body shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269 (1506), 2205-2213.

Record type: Article

Abstract

Two putative cues to female physical attractiveness are body mass index (BMI) and shape (particularly the waist–hip ratio or WHR). To determine the relative importance of these cues we asked 23 male and 23 female undergraduates to rate a set of 60 pictures of real women’s bodies in front-view for attractiveness. In our set of images, the relative ranges of BMI and WHR favoured WHR. We based these ranges on a sample of 457 women. We did not limit the WHR range, although we kept the BMI range to 0.5 s.d. either side of the sample means. As a result, WHR averaged 1.65 s.d. either side of its sample mean. However, even with these advantages, WHR was less important than BMI as a predictor of attractiveness ratings for bodies. BMI is far more strongly correlated with ratings of attractiveness than WHR (BMI ~ 0.5, WHR ~ 0.2). To further explore the relative importance of BMI and WHR, we deliberately chose a subset of these images that demonstrated an inverse correlation of BMI and WHR (i.e. a group in which as images get heavier they also become more curvaceous). If WHR is the most important determinant of attractiveness, then the more curvaceous (but higher BMI) images should be judged most attractive. However, if BMI is a better predictor, then the opposite should be true. We found that the more curvaceous (but higher BMI) images were judged least attractive, thereby inverting the expected rating pattern. This strongly suggests that viewers’ judgements were influenced more by BMI than WHR. Finally, it is possible that body shape is an important cue to attractiveness, but that simple ratios (such as WHR) are not adequately capturing it. Therefore, we treated the outline of the torso as a waveform and carried out a set of waveform analyses on it to allow us to quantify body shape and correlate it with attractiveness. The waveform analyses address the complexity of the whole torso shape, and reveal innate properties of the torso shape and not shape elements based on prior decisions about arbitrary physical features. Our analyses decompose the waveform into objective quantified elements whose importance in predicting attractiveness can then be tested. All of the components that were good descriptors of body shape were weakly correlated with attractiveness. Our results suggest that BMI is a stronger predictor of attractiveness than WHR.

Text
RoyalSociety.pdf - Version of Record
Download (404kB)

More information

Published date: 4 October 2002
Organisations: Southampton Wireless Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 265874
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/265874
ISSN: 1471-2954
PURE UUID: 5e3deda2-f5aa-47ce-b682-ebaf3b80db2e

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Jun 2008 09:30
Last modified: 23 Apr 2021 16:36

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×