Forty-three women and 45 men rated a series of images of selected paintings and sculptures for aesthetic appeal and originality. For each painting or sculpture, there were three versions: the original image and two manipulated images, one displaying a lower waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and the other displaying a higher WHR than in the original. The results showed that, in general, both male and female participants considered the original and, in some cases, the image with the higher WHR as the most aesthetically pleasing. The results also showed that participants were generally able to discern the undoctored image as being the original, although women were better at this task than men. Implications for the study of aesthetics and physical attractiveness are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongJ. (2005). The secret power of beauty. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
2.
ArnheimR. (1982). The power of the center. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
EcoU. (2005). On beauty: A history of a Western idea. London: Secker & Warburg.
4.
FechnerG. T. (1878). Vorschule der Äesthetik. Hildesheim: Georg Helms.
5.
FurnhamA., & RadleyS. (1989). Sex differences in the perception of male and female body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 653–662.
6.
FurnhamA., & RaoS. (2002). Personality and the aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian and Hirst. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 233–242.
7.
HenssR. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 501–513.
8.
KulkaT. (1989). Art and science: An outline of a Popperian aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 29, 197–212.
9.
LocherP. J. (2003). Experimental techniques for investigating the contribution of pictorial balance to the creation and perception of visual displays. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 21, 127–135.
10.
LocherP.GrayS., & NodineC. (1996). The structural framework of pictorial balance. Perception, 25, 1419–1436.
11.
LocherP.SmithL. F., & SmithJ. K. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 121–129.
12.
LocherP.SmithJ. K., & SmithL. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities of paintings. Perception, 30, 449–465.
13.
LocherP.StappersP., & OverbeekeK. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the visual rightness theory of pictorial composition. Acta Psychologica, 103, 261–280.
14.
McManusI. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 505–524.
15.
McManusI. C. (1987, July). The golden section and the aesthetics of simple figures: A cognitive model. Paper presented to the Fechner Centennial Symposium, Karl Marx University, Leipzig.
16.
McManusI. C.CheemaB., & StokerB. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11, 83–94.
17.
McManusI. C.EdmondsonD., & RodgerJ. (1985). Balance in pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 311–324.
18.
McManusI. C.JonesA. L., & CottrellJ. (1981). The aesthetics of colour. Perception, 10, 651–666.
19.
NodineC.LocherP., & KrupinskiE. (1993). The role of formal training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.
20.
NollA. M. (1966). Human or machine: A subjective comparison of Piet Mondrian's “Composition with Lines” (1917) and a computer-generated picture. Psychological Record, 16, 1–10.
21.
PerryG. (Ed.). (1999). Gender and art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 292–307.
23.
SinghD.DavisM., & RandallP. (2000). Fluctuating ovulation: Lower WHR, enhanced self-perceived attractiveness, and increased sexual desire. Paper presented at Human Evolution and Behaviour Society meeting, London, June 13–17.
24.
SwamiV. (2007). The missing arms of Vénus de Milo: Reflections on the science of physical attractiveness. Brighton: The Book Guild.
25.
SwamiV., & FurnhamA. (2006). The science of attraction. The Psychologist, 19, 362–365.
26.
SwamiV., & FurnhamA. (2007). The psychology of physical attraction. London: Routledge.
27.
SwamiV.GrayM., & FurnhamA. (2007). The female nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory evidence of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 26, 139–147.
28.
VartanianO.MartindaleC.PodsiadloJ.OverbayS., & BorkumJ. (2005). The link between composition and balance in masterwords vs. paintings of lower artistic quality. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 493–503.
29.
VartanianO.OverbayS.PodsiadloJ., & MartindaleC. (2000). An investigation of Tomas Kulka's theory of aesthetics using Photoshop. In LocherP. & SmithL. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 134–135). Upper Montclair, NJ: Montclair State University Press.
