Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio

Evolution and Human Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 182-186

  Karremans, Johan C ^a   Frankenhuis, Willem E ^b   Arons, Sander ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Congenitally blind; Mate preferences; Waist to hip ratio

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951939496     PISSN: 10905138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson J.L., Crawford C.B., Nadeau J., Lindberg T. Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology 1992, 13:197-227.
2. Barrett H.C. Development as the target of evolution: A computational approach to developmental systems. The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies 2007, 186-192. Guilford, New York. S. Gangestad, J. Simpson (Eds.).
3. Donohoe M.L., von Hippel W., Brooks R.C. Beyond waist-to-hip ratio: Experimental multivariate evidence that average women's torsos are most attractive. Behavioral Ecology 2009, 20:716-721.
4. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. Ethology: The biology of behavior 1970, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York.
5. Furnham A., McClelland A., Omer L. A cross-cultural comparison of ratings of perceived fecundity and sexual attractiveness as a function of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. Psychology, Health, & Medicine 2003, 8:219-230.
6. Furnham A., Tan T., McManus C. Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences 1997, 22:540-549.
7. Gangestad S.W., Haselton M.G., Buss D.M. Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry 2006, 17:75-95.
8. Gray R.D., Heaney M., Fairhall S. Evolutionary psychology and the challenge of adaptive explanation. From mating to mentality: evaluating evolutionary psychology 2003, 247-268. Psychology Press, London. K. Sterelny, J. Fitness (Eds.).
9. Harrison K. Television viewers' ideal body proportions: The case of curvaceously thin women. Sex Roles 2003, 48:255-264.
10. Henss R. Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness. Replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences 1995, 19:479-488.
11. Henss R. Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences 2000, 28:501-513.
12. Johnson K.L., Tassinary L.G. Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 2007, 104:5246-5251.
13. Johnson K.L., Tassinary L.G. Interpersonal metaperception: The importance of compatibility in the aesthetic appreciation of bodily cues. The body beautiful: Evolutionary and socio-cultural perspectives 2007, 159-184. Macmillan, London. V. Swami, A. Furnham (Eds.).
14. Lassek W.D., Gaulin S.J.C. Waist-to-hip and cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources?. Evolution and Human Behavior 2008, 29:26-34.
15. Marlowe F., Apicella C., Reed D. Men's preferences for women's profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior 2005, 26:458-460.
16. Marlowe F., Wetsman A. Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences 2001, 30:481-489.
17. Matsumoto D., Willingham B. Spontaneous facial expressions of emotions of congenitally and noncongenitally blind individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2009, 96:1-10.
18. Molarius A., Seidell J.C., Sans S., Tuomilehto J., Kuulasmaa K. Waist and hip circumferences, and waist-to-hip ratio in 19 populations of the WHO MONICA Project. International Journal of Obesity 1999, 23:116-125.
19. Orgel M., Urla J., Swedlund A. Surveying a cultural "Waistland": Some biological poetics and politics of the female body. Complexities: Beyond nature and nurture 2005, 132-156. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. S. McKinnon, S. Silverman (Eds.).
20. Pillsworth E.G. Mate preferences among the Shuar of Equador: Trait rankings and peer evaluations. Evolution and Human Behavior 2008, 29:256-267.
21. Reber R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgements. Psychological Science 1998, 9:45-48.
22. Scott I., Bentley G.R., Tovée M.J., Ahamed F.U., Magid K. An evolutionary perspective on male preferences for female body shapes. The body beautiful: Evolutionary and socio-cultural perspectives 2007, 56-87. Macmillan, London. V. Swami, A. Furnham (Eds.).
23. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 65:292-307.
24. Singh D., Luis S. Ethnic and gender consensus for the effects of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women's attractiveness. Human Nature 1995, 6:51-65.
25. Singh D., Randall P.K. Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 43:329-340.
26. Sperber D. The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture 1994, 39-67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. L.A. Hirschfeld, S.A. Gelman (Eds.).
27. Streeter S.A., McBurney D.H. Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of "a critical test". Evolution and Human Behavior 2003, 24:88-98.
28. Sugiyama L.S. 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 Behavior 2004, 25:51-62.
29. Swami V., Einon D., Furnham A. Cultural significance of leg-to-body ratio preferences? Evidence from Britain and rural Malaysia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2007, 10:265-269.
30. Swami V., Furnham A. The psychology of physical attraction 2008, Routledge, New York.
31. Tassinary L.G., Hansen K. A critical test of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychological Science 1998, 9:150-155.
32. Tovée M.J., Cornelissen P.L. The mystery of female beauty. Nature 1999, 399:215-216.
33. Wetsman A., Marlowe F. How universal are preferences for female waist-to-hip ratios? Evidence from the Hadza of Tanzania. Evolution and Human Behavior 1999, 20:219-228.
34. Winkielman P., Halberstadt J., Fazendeiro T., Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 2006, 17:799-806.
35. Yu D., Proulx S.R., Shepard G.H. Masculinity, culture and the paradox of the lek. The body beautiful: Evolutionary and socio-cultural perspectives 2008, 88-107. Macmillan, London. V. Swami, A. Furnham (Eds.).
36. Yu D., Shepard G.H. Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder?. Nature 1998, 396:321-322.