• 620 likes • 840 Views
WHR and Self Body Image. Significant issues with body image Body shape role in mate choice Both sexes awareness of WHR issues Is WHR specifically involved in self body judgments?. Joiner, Schmidt & Singh (1994). Depression Limited earlier work on WHR and body dissatisfaction
E N D
WHR and Self Body Image • Significant issues with body image • Body shape role in mate choice • Both sexes awareness of WHR issues • Is WHR specifically involved in self body judgments?
Joiner, Schmidt & Singh (1994) • Depression • Limited earlier work on WHR and body dissatisfaction • Body dissatisfaction had been connected to depression, bulimia, eating disorder
Subjects • Undergraduates • Questionnaires • Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) • BMI, WHR, anthropometric indicies
Findings: Just WHR • Low WHR corresponds to higher body dissatisfaction • Agreement with Radke-Sharpe et al. (1990) • Large hips and buttocks --> higher body dissatisfaction
Findings: Interaction • WHR x BDI x Gender interaction • Body dissatisfaction more complicated
Cognitive Theories of Depression • Depressive distortion • Misrepresent own self shape • Depressive realism • Better/more accurate representation of self shape
Sexual Dimorphism Identification • Results fit better with depressive realism • Depressed people better at perceiving the reality of what their WHRs convey • Depressed males will be dissatisfied with low WHRs (more gynoid) • Depressed females will be more dissatisfied with high WHRs (more android)
WHR as Adaptation • Additional evidence for WHR playing role in mate choice for some time • Involvement with other psychological constructs
Focused Attention • Individuals can identify desired sexually selected characteristics in others and self • Predict that you would draw attention to traits if beneficial
Singh & Bronstad (1997) • Body scarification • Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) • 186 societies • Assess pathogen prevalence, polygyny, degree and location of body scarification in population • Can’t be used to determine individual specifics
Sex. Selection & Parasites • Positive correlations between amount of societal scarification and pathogen prevalence • Females more likely to scarify their stomachs and breasts at higher pathogen levels
If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It… • High pathogen levels --> overall reduction in potential mates • Much more important to select genotypically fit, healthy mates • Scarification of sexually dimorphic secondary sexual traits draws attention to them • Highlights fitness
www.ezakwantu.com/Scarifacation%20Abdoman%2002.jpg www.ezakwantu.com/Scarifacation%20Abdoman%2011.jpg www.ezakwantu.com/Scarification%20Face%2006.jpg
Navel Gazing • Female scarification of stomach fits with WHR interpretation • Navel is indicator of natural waistline • Woman who draws attention to desired WHR may gain attention of higher quality males • Other non-scarification ornamentation used to similar purpose • Corsets, belts, shawls, etc.
Henss (1995) • Replicated and expanded Singh’s studies • Methodology changes • Between subjects design • Avoid demand characteristics • Each subject only saw and evaluated one figure • Big Five personality factors • Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellect • In all, 51 criteria subjects are assessing on • 72 males, 72 females, Germany
Agreement with Singh • Effects of body weight are considerably stronger than those of body shape • Underweight and normal rated more attractive • Overweight least attractive, but most emotionally stable, family oriented, agreeable, and conscientious
Differences from Singh • WHR 0.8 most attractive (then 0.7) • Underweight more attractive than normal weight
Attractiveness • Singh: “attractive” and “sexy” • Henss: weighted composite of 51 scales • Ran collapsed analysis of 15 scales • Still U>N>O, whereas Singh had N>U>O, but closer • May also be a difference in the within- vs. between-subject design
Overall • General agreement with Singh’s findings • Some quibbling over particulars • Body weight and body shape being used in attractiveness judgments
Furnham, Tan & McManus (1997) • Singh’s ranked data strictly non-parametric; parametric data more powerful • Used ratings (7 pt. Likert scale) instead of ranking • Participants judged all figures; within-subject • British subjects
Broad Results • Attractiveness: N>U>O • Healthiness: N>O>U • Youthfulness: U>N>O • Overall, WHRs of 0.7 or 0.8 rated most favourably for all factors, regardless of weight
Compare and Contrast • Unlike Henss (1995), but like Singh, none of the underweight figures considered most attractive • Normal weight figures rated highest for everything but youthfulness • Across weights, high WHRs rated unattractive, unhealthy, and unyouthful • Like Henss, WHR of 0.8 rated most attractive
Contribution • Generally agrees with Singh • Along with Henss, identifying body weight as more significant than body shape in judgments • Still arguing for WHR as adaptive trait in mate choice • Is it first-pass filter, though?
Universiality? • By 1997 still general support for WHR • American (Caucasian, Mexican, Black), Indonesian, German, British subjects sampled • But what about non-industrialized?
Yu & Shepard (1998) • Yomybato: Matsigenka indigenous people in Manu Park, Peru • Slash and burn agriculture, hunting and gathering • About 300 people in population • Extremely non-Westernized • Shipetiari: Matsigenka people living outside Manu Park • More exposed to Western culture • Alto Madre: ethnically mixed population of Amarakaeri, Huachipaeri, and Piro • Even more Westernized
Method • Singh’s figures • Used U7, N7, O7 and U9, N9, O9 figures • Males asked to rank figures from most to least for beauty, health, and marriage preference
Results • Yomybato and Shipetiari • Grouped figures by weight first, then WHR • Preferred overweight figures • High WHR more healthy • Shipetiari • Low WHR figures more attractive and desirable as spouses • Didn’t consider healthiest to be most attractive or desirable • “…suggesting that WHR preferences may be changing.” (321)
Alto Madre • Didn’t differ significantly from American judgments • Grouped figures by WHR first, then weight • N7 generally ranked highest • Low WHR figures always ranked higher than high WHR figures
Nurturist Account • Argue that Singh’s results are due to Western media • Least Westernized of tribal peoples showed most difference from American population • “…many ‘cross-cultural’ tests in evolutionary psychology may have only reflected the pervasiveness of western media.” (322) • But, no explanation of why Western media would favour low WHRs
In Small Populations • With small population sizes, limited mate choices • Few people, kinship, etc. • Individuals would have detailed knowledge of health history of potential mates from long-term personal contact • Physical features may take on secondary role in mate choice
Wetsman & Marlowe (1999) • Hadza of Tanzania • Mixed savanna, woodland environment • Small population of only 1000 individuals • 1/3 exclusively hunter/gatherer • Only used males form this group for the study • Hunger not uncommon, but no one can remember anyone ever starving • No one obese
Method • U7, N7, O7 and U9, N9, O9 • Forced choice for attractiveness, health, preference for wife • 75 men (18-68 years, mean 37) • Also, American undergrads (24 subjects, mean age 21.2)
Results • American undergrads • Same pattern as Singh’s earlier studies • Hadza • No significant preference based on WHRs • Used body weight • Strong preference for overweight, then normal, than underweight for all criteria
Environment Input • Suggests WHR a second-pass filter, not first-pass • Propose differing environmental input model • Food scarcity determines hierarchy of selection
In Food Scarce Environments • Best option is to use body weight • Survival first, reproduction second • If WHR used first, most attractive, healthiest females may starve before reproducing or never achieve enough fat to be able to reproduce • Even if higher weight conferred some health detriments, higher fat stores preferred • None of Hadza are obese
In Food Rich Environments • Risk of starvation low • WHR better predictor • Here too much weight can compromise reproductive fitness
Marlowe & Wetsman (2001) • Hadza (and American) males • Asked about: attractiveness, health, desirability for wife • New set of figures • Did not vary in weight • Broader range of WHRs
Results • Americans disliked WHR of 0.9 and 1.0 and also 0.4 and 0.5; general preference for WHRs around 0.7 • Hadza preferred higher WHRs (0.8, 0.9, 1.0 all ranked above 0.7)
Concordances • Measure of agreement among subjects • Americans: greater concordances for attractiveness and desirability to marry • Hadza: greater concordance for health • For Hadza health determines desirability for marriage; for Americans it is attractiveness
Confound • Even with no weight variation, Hadza still preferring high WHR • Artifact of preference for heavier women • BMI confounded with WHR in Singh’s original figures and with current figures • Height is kept constant; as WHR increases from 0.4 to 1.0, so would weight in a real woman • Females with larger waists look heavier
Theorizing • Environmental differences • Current fertility status • Different female body shapes
Environment • Among foragers, thinness probably indicates poorer health (parasites) • Women who are too thin are energetically stressed • Will interfere with reproduction • High energy demands on Hadza women • Prior to agriculture health-threatening obesity probably very rare • Should have been preference for women with more fat stores
Developed Nations • Propose agriculture led to more predictable and surplus food supply (at least for some) • Risk of obesity increased • Men developed preference for low BMIs (and WHRs)
Fertility Status • Pregnant women have high WHR • Total fertility (TFR): average number of children produced by a woman in a society • American TFR = 2.1; Hadza TFR = 6.2 • High WHR (pregnant?) • American: bad mate choice (probably only one more child with her) • Hadza: not so bad (up to another 5.2 children) • The lower the TFR the more men favoured for attending to signs of non-pregnancy
Different Female Body Shapes • Different populations of humans • Geographical isolation; different phenotypic expressions; fat stores • Health risks of 2D WHR presumed to correlate with “real WHR” measure in 3D • But, two women can have same frontal WHRs, but different actual WHRs
Marlowe, Apicella & Reed (2005) • Actual WHR = measurement with tape measure • Frontal WHR = 2D front view • Profile WHR = 2D profile (side) view • Frontal WHR doesn’t reflect buttock size and profile WHR doesn’t reflect hips • Actual WHR reflects both hips and buttocks
An Assumption • If relative contributions of hips and buttocks to actual WHR didn’t vary in women cross-culturally, then frontal WHR would suffice • Does it? • Er… probably not • Need a new stimulus set to test • Use Hadza and Americans again; attractive, healthy, wife
Theoretical Preference • For actual WHR • Based on study preferences • Weighted the profile WHR 0.7 times that of frontal WHR • Theoretically preferred actual WHR = [(preferred frontal x1.0) + (preferred profile x 0.7)] / 1.7