1. Darwin (1871) Didn’t specify morphological features that females used to select males Females used aesthetic preference Independent of male health or fitness Wallace suggested vigor and health

2. Singh (1995) WHR in females’ judgments Fat deposits on males are health- relevant Predict women will find male WHRs in typical male range more attractive

3. Study 1 87 women, age 18-22 Ranked 12 images (most to least attractive) Top and bottom three for: –good health, youthfulness, attractiveness, sexy, desire for children, faithfulness, caring father, ambitious, intelligent, aggressiveness, leadership, strong and powerful, kind and understanding, sense of humour

6. I: WHR II: Body weight Multidimensional Scaling: Female Judgment of Male Attractiveness WHR more related to attractiveness, health, intelligence, and leadership qualities Body weight more related to kindness and understanding, and being a caring father

7. Multidimensional Unfolding: Female Judgment of Male Attractiveness

8. Perception of male attractiveness influenced by WHR size depending on overall body weight Only normal weight with male-typical WHRs perceived as healthy and attractive Healthiness appears to be necessary condition for attractiveness Being strong and powerful not related to attractiveness or healthiness –Fits with highly muscular men not being rated most attractive (e.g., Biasiotto & Ferrando, 1991) Lack of positive relationship between kindness and understanding and attractiveness –“Dark side of beauty” (Dermer & Thiel, 1975)

9. Study 2 158 women; wide rang of ages, SES, and education Showed N7, N9, N10 images Three income levels (low, middle, upper class) matching three occupations (bank teller, video store manager, businessman) Willingness for relationship: –have coffee/casual conversation, go on a date, nonromantic friendship, short-term romantic, long- term serious romantic, marriage

10. 3 (WHR) X 3 (income level) factorial design

11. Complex interactions Overall, figures with higher WHRs and financial status were rated more desirable for all relationships Financial status can compensate for lower attractiveness, but men need both high WHR and finances to be maximally desired

12. Female characteristics enter in 18-25 years more inclined to dating; 26-35 more inclined to long-term and marriage; 36- 69 sought long-term relationships (companionship over reproductive) Females with lower education more willing to go for coffee and have nonromantic friendship than females with high education, but only if target figure’s income was high Females with lower income showed higher preference than those with high income for target figures with higher WHR and finances for coffee and conversation

13. Broadly Speaking Women show preference for WHR in 0.9 range (0.85-0.95) 0.7 is in gynoid range Over 1.0 into obesity

14. Tapering Manipulation of male WHR Torso tapering Shoulders appear broader Franzoni & Herzog (1987), Horvath (1979) SHR –Average 1.2 (male), 1.04 (female)

15. Dijkstra & Buunk (2001) Jealousy Male and Female undergrads Singh images Male figures –WHR 0.7 and 0.9 –SHR 1.20 and 1.40 (based on male fashion models)

16. Measures Jealousy –If figure was sexually interested in subject’s partner Dominance –Self-confident, ambitious, competent, assertive, influential, dominant Attractiveness –How attractive, how attractive to member of opposite sex

17. Results High SHR produced greater jealousy in male subjects Both female and male subjects rated low WHR and high SHR figures as more attractive and dominant Females put greater emphasis on WHR, whereas males attended more to SHR

18. Buunk & Dijkstra (2005) Generally, a follow-up study Women attend more to rival women’s waist, hips, and hair; men attend more to rival men’s shoulders Low WHR low SHR rivals (i.e., slender body build) evoked most male jealousy; these figures rated most attractive and socially dominant, but not most physically dominant Males in study were older (M = 48 years); SHR less significant than for younger males

19. Hughes & Gallup (2003) SHR and WHR Age of first sexual intercourse Number sexual partners Number of EPCs Number of cases of being an EPC partner

20. Stature Undergraduate students Males –SHR 1.03-1.40 (M=1.18) –WHR 0.73-1.03 (M=0.86) Females –SHR 0.9-1.22 (M=1.03) –WHR 0.69-0.87 (M=0.77)

21. Results In males, higher SHR significantly correlates with: –Younger age for first sex –More sexual partners –More EPC partners –More instances of being an EPC partner Male WHR –Earlier first sex for 0.9, delayed for 0.9 In females, SHR has no significant correlations –Lower WHRs in females follows male SHR pattern

22. Hughes, Dispenza & Gallup (2004) Opposite sex voice attractiveness Positively correlated with SHR in males Negatively correlated with WHR in females Voice attractiveness positively correlates with age of first sex, number of sexual partners, number EPCs, etc.