While hundreds of studies have investigated the indices that make up attractive body shapes, these studies were based on preferences measured in the laboratory using pictorial stimuli. Whether these preferences translate into real-time, face-to-face evaluations of potential partners is unclear. Here, 539 (275 female) participants in 75 laboratory-based sessions had their body dimensions measured before engaging in round-robin speed dates. After each date, they rated each other’s body, face, personality, and overall attractiveness and noted whether they would go on a date with the partner. Women with smaller waists and lower waist-to-hip ratios were found most attractive, and men with broader shoulders and higher shoulder-to-waist (or hips) ratios were found most attractive. Taller individuals were preferred by both sexes. Our results show that body dimensions associated with greater health, reproductive value (in women), and formidability (in men) influence face-to-face evaluations of attractiveness, consistent with a role of intersexual selection in shaping human bodies.
ArcherJ.ThanzamiV. (2009). The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 315–321. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.003
2.
AsendorpfJ. B.PenkeL.BackM. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16–30.
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.
5.
BercovitchF. B. (1989). Body size, sperm competition, and determinants of reproductive success in male savanna baboons. Evolution, 43, 1507–1521.
6.
BrooksR. C.ScottI. M.MaklakovA. A.KasumovicM. M.ClarkA. P.Penton-VoakI. S. (2010). National income inequality predicts women’s preferences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0964.
7.
BrooksR. C.ShellyJ. P.JordanL. A.DixsonB. J. (2015). The multivariate evolution of female body shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 351–358. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.001
8.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex-differences in human mate preferences—Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
9.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
10.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204.
11.
ChineduS. N.OgunlanaO. O.AzuhD. E.IwealaE. E. J.AfolabiI. S.UhuegbuC. C.…OsamorV. C. (2013). Correlation between body mass index and waist circumference in Nigerian adults: Implication as indicators of health status. Journal of Public Health Research, 2, e16–e16. doi:10.4081/jphr.2013.e16
12.
CourtiolA.RaymondM.GodelleB.FerdyJ. B. (2010). Mate choice and human stature: Homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences. Evolution, 64, 2189–2203. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00985.x
13.
DijkstraP.BuunkB. P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 335–341. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00070-8
14.
DixsonB. J.DixsonA. F.BishopP. J.ParishA. (2010). Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: A New Zealand–US comparative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 798–806.
15.
DixsonB. J.GrimshawG. M.LinklaterW. L.DixsonA. F. (2011). Eye-tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 43–50.
16.
DixsonB. J.GrimshawG. M.OrmsbyD. K.DixsonA. F. (2014). Eye-tracking women’s preferences for men’s somatotypes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 73–79.
17.
DouglasW. Y.ShepardG. H.Jr. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?Nature, 396, 321.
18.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245.
19.
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.MatthewsJ. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.
20.
FrederickD. A.HaseltonM. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.
21.
GenioleS. N.DensonT. F.DixsonB. J.CarréJ. M.McCormickC. M. (2015). Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS One, 10, e0132726.
22.
GiuglianoF.EspositoK.Di PaloC.CiotolaM.GiuglianoG.MarfellaR.…GiuglianoD. (2004). Erectile dysfunction associates with endothelial dysfunction and raised proinflammatory cytokine levels in obese men. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 27, 665–669. doi:10.1007/BF03347500
23.
HeidlerS.TemmlC.BroessnerC.MockK.RauchenwaldM.MadersbacherS.PonholzerA. (2007). Is the metabolic syndrome an independent risk factor for erectile dysfunction?The Journal of Urology, 177, 651–654. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.043
24.
HuangS. A.LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W. (2019). How do ideal friend preferences and interaction context affect friendship formation? Evidence for a domain- general relationship initiation process. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550619845925
25.
KościńskiK. (2013). Perception of facial attractiveness from static and dynamic stimuli. Perception, 42, 163–175.
26.
KoscinskiK. (2014). Assessment of waist-to-hip ratio attractiveness in women: An anthropometric analysis of digital silhouettes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 989–997. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0166-1
27.
KronmalR. A. (1993). Spurious correlation and the fallacy of the ratio standard revisited. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 156, 379–392.
28.
KurzbanR.WeedenJ. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012
29.
KurzbanR.WeedenJ. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters?Personal Relationships, 14, 623–632. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00175.x
30.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
31.
LanderK. (2008). Relating visual and vocal attractiveness for moving and static faces. Animal Behaviour, 75, 817–822. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.001
32.
LassekW. D.GaulinS. J. C. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle mass in men: Relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 322–328. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.002
33.
LassekW. D.GaulinS. J. C. (2016). What makes Jessica rabbit sexy? Contrasting roles of waist and hip size. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 16. doi:10.1177/1474704916643459
34.
LassekW. D.GaulinS. J. C. (2018). Do the low WHRs and BMIs judged most attractive indicate higher fertility?Evolutionary Psychology, 16. doi:10.1177/1474704918800063
35.
LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W.SmithL. K. (2018). Toward an integrative framework for studying human evaluation: Attitudes toward objects and attributes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 378–398.
36.
LeeA. J.DubbsS. L.Von HippelW.BrooksR. C.ZietschB. P. (2014). A multivariate approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 193–203. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.003
37.
LentonA. P.FasoloB.ToddP. M. (2009). The relationship between number of potential mates and mating skew in humans. Animal Behaviour, 77, 55–60.
38.
LentonA. P.FrancesconiM. (2011). Too much of a good thing?Variety is confusing in mate choice. Biology Letters, 7, 528–531.
39.
LoewensteinG. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24, S49–S56. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.s49
40.
LuoS.ZhangG. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933–964. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x
41.
MarloweF.WetsmanA. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481–489.
42.
MautzB. S.WongB. B.PetersR. A.JennionsM. D. (2013). Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 6925–6930.
43.
Penton-VoakI. S.ChangH. Y. (2008). Attractiveness judgements of individuals vary across emotional expression and movement conditions. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 89–100.
44.
PerkinsJ. M.SubramanianS.Davey SmithG.ÖzaltinE. (2016). Adult height, nutrition, and population health. Nutrition Reviews, 74, 149–165.
45.
PlatekS. M.SinghD. (2010). Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5, e9042.
46.
PutsD. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.
47.
RillingJ. K.KaufmanT. L.SmithE. O.PatelR.WorthmanC. M. (2009). Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 21–31. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.08.007
48.
RubensteinA. J. (2005). Variation in perceived attractiveness: Differences between dynamic and static faces. Psychological Science, 16, 759–762.
49.
Serrano-MenesesM.Córdoba-AguilarA.MéndezV.LayenS.SzékelyT. (2007). Sexual size dimorphism in the American rubyspot: Male body size predicts male competition and mating success. Animal Behaviour, 73, 987–997.
50.
ShineR.OlssonM.MooreI.LeMasterM.GreeneM.MasonR. (2000). Body size enhances mating success in male garter snakes. Animal Behaviour, 59, F4–F11.
51.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293
52.
SinghD. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1089
53.
SinghD.DixsonB. J.JessopT. S.MorganB.DixsonA. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 176–181.
54.
StulpG.BarrettL. (2016). Evolutionary perspectives on human height variation. Biological Reviews, 91, 206–234. doi:10.1111/brv.12165
55.
StulpG.BuunkA. P.KurzbanR.VerhulstS. (2013). The height of choosiness: Mutual mate choice for stature results in suboptimal pair formation for both sexes. Animal Behaviour, 86, 37–46. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.038
56.
StulpG.BuunkA. P.VerhulstS.PolletT. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PLoS One, 10, 18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117860
57.
ThornhillR.GrammerK. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality?Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105–120. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(98)00044-0
58.
ToddP. M.PenkeL.FasoloB.LentonA. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011.
59.
ToveeM. J.MaiseyD. S.EmeryJ. L.CornelissenP. L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 266(1415), 211–218.
60.
ValentineK. A.LiN. P.PenkeL.PerrettD. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychological Science, 25, 806–811.
61.
ZambonJ. P.MendonçaR. R. D.WroclawskiM. L.Karam JuniorA.SantosR. D.CarvalhoJ. A. M. D.WroclawskiE. R. (2010). Cardiovascular and metabolic syndrome risk among men with and without erectile dysfunction: Case–control study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 128, 137–140.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
