Men’s Muscularity Image—The Role among Polish Young Population

Method

The study was conducted in 2015 using an online survey. The survey was published in student Facebook groups of universities from all over Poland, involved in all possible areas of higher education. It contained five questions, four of which differed according to gender (Online Supplemental Table 1).

The third question was with our own scale of muscularity (Online Supplemental Figure 1). We decided to use our own visual scale because of the lack of a gold standard in the measurement of musculature level (Cafri and Thompson 2004). One of the most popular scales, The Muscle Silhouette Measure, was assessed as hard to use by participants because of subtle differences between musculature levels and quite an old standard of men’s figure based on Sheldon’s The Atlas of Men (1954; Buchanan, Frederick, and Friedman 2005). The scale proposed in the study presented images of four levels of muscularity, stressing more differences than the scale cited before.

The last question included an evaluation of the relevance of twelve individual muscle groups in the context of male physical attractiveness on a five-point Likert-type scale.

The register included a question about sex, age (over fifty was an exclusion criterium), area of studies (humanities, social, medical, agricultural, natural sciences, technical, and artistic), place of residence prior to the beginning of studies (village, city up to 10,000 inhabitants, city 10,000–100,000 inhabitants, city 100,000–500,000 inhabitants, and city over 500,000 inhabitants), as well as weight and height.

The results were initially developed using Excel, followed by Statistica 12.5. Data on weight and height have been transformed into a dimensionless body mass index (BMI). The year of birth allowed us to divide the respondents into two estimated groups—students (up to twenty-five years old in medical and twenty-four in other fields) and graduates. Based on the assessment of individual muscles on the five-point scale, their mean and median values were calculated. Statistical tests such as χ², Kruskall–Willis, Mann–Whitney U, Dunn, and Bonferroni’s correction were used. Statistical significance in this study was set at p < .04.

Results

The analysis begins with the answers to the four initial questions (Online Supplemental Table 2). Significant differences between sexes were observed in the answers to questions 1–3. Men overestimated the impact of muscles on the assessment of their attractiveness (question 1, 96.9–87.7 percent positive answers among men and women, respectively, p < .04, χ² test) and women’s willingness to establish a relationship because of musculature (question 2, 84.5–42.5 percent positive answers among men and women, respectively, p < .04, χ² test). The ideal type of muscularity preferred by men differed from that preferred by women (question 3, 50.9 percent preferring type 2 among men to 78.4 percent among women, p < .04 Mann–Whitney U test; Online Supplemental Figure 4). The same proportion of men and women considered some muscle groups to be more important than others (question 4, 83.8–82.2 percent for men and women, respectively, p > .04, χ² test).

Depending on the BMI, the results showed that women with BMI over thirty rate men’s musculature as less important than other subgroups (question 1, p < .04, χ² test with Bonferroni’s correction). Men from humanity fields were significantly less likely to answer positively to question 1 (p < .04, χ² test with Bonferroni’s correction). Also, women in the field of medicine have shown a significantly higher percentage of positive responses compared to their counterparts in humanities, social, and natural sciences (question 1, p < .04, χ² test with Bonferroni’s correction).

The analysis of the score of individual muscle groups showed that all of them were rated higher by men (p < .04, Mann–Whitney U test) with an exception of buttocks, in which a statistically significant difference could not be demonstrated (p > .04, Mann–Whitney U test; Online Supplemental Figure 6).

Among female graduates, the back, forearm, thigh, and calf scores were lower than among students, while the abdomen score was higher (p < .04, Mann–Whitney U test).

Discussion

Male muscularity remains a factor in establishing relationships between men and women. The main goal of our study was to find out how women perceive the musculature of men, how it affects formation of relationships, and also to assess whether men know how they are perceived by women.

In the second question (Online Supplemental Figure 1; question 2), only 42 percent of women answered that a man’s musculature could lead to establishing a relationship with him. This stands in sharp contrast with the 85 percent of men who think that their musculature would encourage women to establish relationships with them. Also, significantly more men than women believe that muscularity increases a man’s attractiveness (Online Supplemental Figure 1, question 1). Thus, men’s perception of the importance of their muscularity is not coherent with the way females perceive it. Men expect that a more muscular body would bring them measurable benefits, that is, easier contacts with females. This is in accordance with a previous study that revealed males’ tendency toward overestimating women’s sexual interest (Murray et al. 2017). It is probably due to the influence of pop culture, where over the years, an increasingly muscular male model is promoted, for example, by toys (Barlett et al. 2004). Moreover, the ideal male body marketed to men is more muscular than the ideal male body marketed to women in popular magazines (Frederick, Fessler, and Haselton 2005). This could potentially lead to unfavorable effects, such as a lower self-esteem and body image dissatisfaction.

The results of the rating of individual muscle groups (Online Supplemental Figure 3) also show that men overestimate the importance of each single muscle group as well as muscularity in general (Figure 1, question 3). This is in accordance with the results of Cafri, Strauss, and Thompson (2002) who demonstrated that men have a desire to increase all their dimensions. Additionally, both sexes rated the muscles of the upper body as most important. Such a result could be probably caused by an evolutionary adaptation. According to a recent study, this part of the body is connected with men’s ability to fight and is used to visually estimate their physical strength by women (Sell, Lukazsweski, and Townsley 2017).

Women related to medicine and health sciences have higher expectations from the male body than their peers in other areas of education. This seems to be consistent with the report of Wincenciak et al. (2015), which showed that the choice of partner was made by women based on their perception of their own attractiveness. This explanation seems likely due to a relatively high socioeconomic status and social respect for medical workers (Cybulska 2013), which increases the potential attractiveness of these women. Wincenciak’s findings could also explain the BMI stratification, where women with higher BMI had lower expectations from men. We found that obese women pay less attention to muscularity than others. It is probably because people search emotional support and acceptance in a partner and avoid people considered to be more attractive, who could reject and stigmatize them (Link et al. 1989).

When divided by age, female students rated most muscle groups as more important than graduates did. An exception are the abdominal muscles which were rated as more important by graduates. Such a trend is consistent with Tiggemann’s (2004) research, which demonstrates that older women are less interested in men’s body, weight, and looks and instead pay attention to other aspects.

There are many traits that influence the potential attractiveness of a man as judged by women. According to Prokosch et al. (2008), intelligence is the best predictor of partner choice due to its effect on the offspring. Herz and Inzlicht (2002) demonstrated that for women, the scent of a man is more important than his appearance. Rhodes, Simmons, and Peters (2004) proved that an attractive body was associated with a significant increase in the number of men’s short-term relationships and with a lower age of their sexual initiation. They also showed that men with more feminine facial features had more long-term relationships than their peers. This observation is in line with the research of Little et al. (2008), demonstrating that facial features were more important for building long-term relationships. Based on the current literature and the results of our article, where women often declared that a man’s muscularity could lead them to begin a relationship with him, muscularity may be a relevant factor in meeting a potential partner and it may impact the development of a relationship. Research shows that muscularity and attractiveness may be the factors predicting the number of female partners and duration of relationships (Puts, Jones, and DeBruine 2012). In long-term relationships, attractiveness loses its importance while intelligence and facial features become more important.

Among the advantages of our study is the large sample of over 5,000 respondents in a rarely studied eastern European population. The study was the first to compare the impact of various muscle groups on the male image as well as their impact on forming male–female relationships. A limitation was the lack of good quality standardized surveys designed for our subject matter. Based on our data, we also calculated the p values for statistical differences, but we did not calculate the size of the effects.

Supplemental Material