Signals of Genetic Quality and Maternal Investment Capacity: The Dynamic Effects of Fluctuating Asymmetry and Waist-to-Hip Ratio on Men’s Ratings of Women’s Attractiveness
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2010
Signals of Genetic Quality and Maternal Investment Capacity: The Dynamic Effects of Fluctuating Asymmetry and Waist-to-Hip Ratio on Men’s Ratings of Women’s Attractiveness
Fluctuating asymmetry (FA) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) are frequently studied physical attractiveness variables in social and evolutionary psychology. FA represents deviations in bilateral symmetry—differences between left and right body parts. WHR is the ratio of the smallest part of the waist to the largest part of the hips. Although FA and WHR are important mate preference criteria, research has not examined their joint influence on attraction. Thus, 140 heterosexual male undergraduates ranked—and 118 rated—the attractiveness of 10 photographs of rear-facing nude women. Women’s FA and WHR were negatively related to attractiveness separately, after controlling for each other and after controlling for body mass index (BMI). An FA × WHR interaction emerged, such that men’s preferences for lower WHRs increased as FA decreased, even after controlling for BMI. FA and WHR affected attractiveness in ways consistent with the information they carry and its likely effects on offspring quality.
AnderssonM. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Bjorntorp P. (1988). The associations between obesity, adipose tissue distribution, and disease. Acta Medica Scandinavica, 723(Suppl.), 121–134.
3.
BraunM.BryanA. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 805–819.
4.
Brown W. M. Price M. E. Kang J. Pound N. Zhao Y.Yu H. (2008). Fluctuating asymmetry and preferences for sex-typical bodily characteristics. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 12938–12943.
5.
FolsomA. R.KayeS. A.SellersT. A.HongC. P.CerhanJ. R.PotterJ. D. (1993). Body fat distribution and 5-year risk of death in older women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 483–487.
6.
FurnhamA.McClellandA.OmerL. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of ratings of perceived fecundity and sexual attractiveness as a function of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 8, 219–230.
7.
FurnhamA.MoutafiJ.BagumaP. (2002). A cross-cultural study on the role of weight and waist-to-hip ratio on female attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 729–745.
8.
FurnhamA.TanT.McManusC. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 539–549.
9.
GangestadS. W.ThornhillR. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extra-pair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.
10.
GangestadS. W.ThornhillR.YeoR. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73–85.
11.
GomiA. (1998). Americans 1.0, Los Angeles 1994 [CD-ROM]. Bunkasha, Japan: Digitalogue.
12.
GrammarK.ThornhillR. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.
13.
HamiltonW. D. (1980). Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos, 35, 282–290.
14.
HamiltonW. D.ZukM. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites. Science, 218, 384–387.
15.
HenssR. (1991). Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 933–946.
16.
KayeS. A.FolsomA. R.PrineasR. J.PotterJ. D.GapsturS. M. (1990). The association of body fat distribution with lifestyle and reproductive factors in a population study of postmenopausal women. International Journal of Obesity, 14, 583–591.
17.
KownerR. (2001). Psychological perspective on human developmental stability and fluctuating asymmetry: Sources, applications and implications. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 447–469.
18.
LangloisJ. H.RoggmanL. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
19.
LassekW. D.GaulinS. J. C. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 26–34.
20.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
21.
ManningJ. T.ScuttD.WhitehouseG. H.LeinsterS. (1997). Breast asymmetry and phenotypic quality in women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 1–13.
22.
MartinS. M.ManningJ. T.DowrickC. F. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, relative digit length, and depression in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 203–214.
23.
MilneB. J.BelskyJ.PoultonR.ThomsonW. M.CaspiA.KieserJ. (2003). Fluctuating asymmetry and physical health among young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 53–63.
24.
MøllerA. P. (1992a). Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature, 357, 238–240.
25.
MøllerA. P. (1992b). Parasites differentially increase the degree of fluctuating asymmetry in secondary sexual characteristics. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 5, 691–699.
26.
MøllerA. P. (1997). Developmental stability and fitness: A review. American Naturalist, 149, 916–932.
27.
MøllerA. P. (1999). Asymmetry as a predictor of growth, fecundity, and survival. Ecology Letters, 2, 149–156.
28.
MøllerA. P.SwaddleJ. P. (1997). Asymmetry, developmental stability, and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
MøllerA. P.ThornhillR. (1997). A meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10, 1–16.
30.
NezlekJ. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event and interval contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785.
31.
PerrettD. I.BurtD. M.Penton-VoakI. S.LeeK. J.RowlandD. A.EdwardsR. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295–307.
32.
QaziR.WilsonG. D.AbrahamsS. (2004). Developmental instability is associated with neurocognitive performance in heterosexual and homosexual men, but not in women. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 243–247.
33.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2dn ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F.CongdonR. T.Jr. (2004).
HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
35.
RhodesG. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–236.
36.
ScheibJ. E.GangestadS. W.ThornhillR. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1913–1917.
37.
ScuttD.ManningJ.WhitehouseG.LeinsterS.MasseyC. (1997). The relationship between breast asymmetry, breast size and the occurrence of breast cancer. British Journal of Radiology, 70, 1017–1021.
38.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.
39.
SinghD. (1995). Female health, attractiveness, and desirability for relationship: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 465–481.
40.
SinghD.LuisS. (1994). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of WHR on judgment of women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51–65.
41.
SinghD.RandallP. K. (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 483–507.
42.
SinghD.YoungR. (1995). Body weight, WHR, breasts and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.
43.
StreeterS. A.McBurneyD. H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of “a critical test.”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88–98.
44.
SugiyamaL. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In BussD. M. ( Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–343). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
45.
SwaddleJ. P.CuthillI. C. (1994). Preference for symmetric males by female zebra finches. Nature, 367, 165–166.
46.
SymonsD. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder. In AbramsonP. R.PinkersonS. D. (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
TassinaryL. G.HansenK. A. (1998). A critical test of the waist-to-hip-ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychological Science, 9, 150–155.
48.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4, 237–269.
49.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297–302.
50.
ThornhillR.MøllerA. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease, and medicine. Biological Reviews, 72, 497–548.
51.
TovéeM.CornelissenP. (2001). Female and male perception of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 391–402.
52.
TovéeM. J.MaiseyD. S.EmeryJ. L.CornelissenP. L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 211–218.
53.
TovéeM. J.TaskerK.BensonP. J. (2000). Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body?. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 191–200.
54.
Van DongenS. (2006). Fluctuating asymmetry and developmental instability in evolutionary biology: Past, present and future. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 1727–1743.
55.
Van ValenL. (1962). A study of fluctuating symmetry. Evolution, 16, 125–142.
56.
WebsterG. D. (2008). Playboy playmates, the Dow Jones, consumer sentiment, 9/11, and the Doomsday Clock: A critical examination of the environmental security hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 23–41.
57.
WeedenJ.SabiniJ. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.
58.
YuD. W.ShepardG. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?. Nature, 396, 321–322.
59.
YzerbytV.MullerD.JuddC. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers' approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431.
60.
ZaadstraB. M.SeidellJ. C.Van NoordP. A.te VeldeE. R.HabbemaJ. D.VrieswijkB. (1993). Fat and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. British Medical Journal, 306, 484–487.
