Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens' women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. L.CrawfordC. E.NadeauJ., & LindgbergT. (1992). Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural view of the socio-biology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociology, 13, 197–227.
2.
BurnhamT., & PhelanJ. (2000). Mean genes. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
3.
BussD. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
EtcoffN. (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Doubleday.
5.
FanJ.LiuF.WuJ., & DaiW. (2004). Visual perception of female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 347–352.
6.
FeghelmD., & KerstingM. (2005). Rubens and his women. London: Prestel Verlag.
7.
FreeseJ., & MelandS. (2002). Seven tenths incorrect: Heterogeneity and change in the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy centrefolds models and Miss America pageant winners. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 133–138.
8.
FurnhamA.MoutafiJ., & BagumaP. (2002). A cross-cultural study on the role of weight and waist-to-hip ratio on judgements of women's attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 729–745.
9.
FurnhamA.TanT., & McManusC. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 539–549.
10.
GrayR. D.HeaneyM., & FairhallS. (2003). Evolutionary Psychology and the challenge of adaptive explanation. In SterelnyK. & FitnessJ. (Eds.), From mating to mentality: Evaluating evolutionary psychology (pp. 247–268). London: Psychology Press.
11.
HeldJ. S. (1982). Rubens and his circle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12.
KissebahA. H., & KrakowerG. R. (1994). Regional adiposity and mortality. Physiological Re view, 74, 761–811.
13.
MarloweF., & WetsmanA. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481–489.
14.
NelsonL. D., & MorrisonE. L. (2005). The symptoms of resource scarcity: Judgements of food and finances influence preference for potential partners. Psychological Science, 16, 167–173.
15.
PuhlR. M., & BolandF. J. (2001). Predicting female physical attractiveness: Waist-to-hip ratio versus thinness. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 3, 27–46.
16.
RoseH., & RoseS. (Eds.). (2001). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.
17.
ShroutP. E., & FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
18.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 292–307.
19.
SinghD.DavisM., & RandallP. (2000, June). Fluctuating ovulation: Lower WHR enhanced self-perceived attractiveness, and increased sexual desire. Paper presented at Human Evolution and Behaviour Society meeting, London.
20.
SinghD., & LuisS. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgements of women's attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51–65.
21.
SugiyamaL. S. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 25, 51–62.
22.
SwamiV. (2007). The Missing Arms of Vénus de Milo: Reflections on the Science of Physical Attractiveness. Lewes: The Book Guild.
23.
SwamiV.CaprarioC.TovéeM. J., & FurnhamA. (2006). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 20, 69–81.
24.
SwamiV., & TovéeM. J. (2005). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2, 115–128.
25.
SwamiV., & TovéeM. J. (2006). Does hunger influence judgements of female physical attractiveness?British Journal of Psychology, 97, 353–363.
26.
TovéeM. J.HancockP.MahmoodiS.SingletonB. R. R., & CornelissenP. L. (2002). Human female attractiveness: Waveform analysis of body shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2205–2213.
27.
TovéeM. J.MaiseyD. S.EmeryJ. L., & CornelissenP. L. (1999). Visual cues female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 211–218.
28.
TovéeM. J.ReinhardtS.EmeryJ., & CornelissenP. (1998). Optimum body-mass index and maximum sexual attractiveness. Lancet, 352, 548.
29.
VoracekM., & FisherM. L. (2002). Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body measures: Trend analysis. British Medical Journal, 325, 1447–1448.
30.
WetsmanA., & MarloweF. (1999). How universal are preferences for female waist-to-hip ratios? Evidence from the Hadza of Tanzania. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20, 219–228.
31.
YuD. W., & ShepardG. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?Nature, 396, 321–322.
32.
ZaadstraB. M.SeidellJ. C.van NoordP. A. H.te VeldeE. R.HabbemaJ. D. F.VrieswijkB., & KarbaatJ. (1993). Fat and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. British Medical Journal, 306, 484–487.
