SGP03

Information about SGP03

Published on February 28, 2008

Author: Silvestre

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies :  Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten Special thanks to Simon Baumgartner who prepared the stimuli and collected the data Introduction:  Introduction Langlois and Roggman (1980) proposed that averageness of faces is attractive (cf. Galton, 1878). In contrast, humans may prefer extremes instead of averageness at least for body shapes (Baerends, 1982; cf. Perret et al., 1994). We examined how averageness and exaggeration influence the perceptual attractiveness of human bodies. Method (1):  Method (1) Definition of the stimuli Slide4:  Using two bodies Slide5:  Defining 520 corresponding dots Slide6:  Morphing... Method (2):  Method (2) Using the average of 16 female and 16 male bodies, respectively, we compared these prototypes with the most attractive individual body and different composites. Method (3):  Method (3) N=40 subjects judged these stimuli in individual sessions using a rating scale as well as a forced-choice rating. In addition, the experiment was replicated with N=39 subjects using an online experiment (cf. http://wl12www671.webland.ch/). All 4 experiments showed the same results: Slide10:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Results Slide11:  The superstimulus - i.e. the composite of the 4 most attractive bodies (4+) - was judged significantly more attractive than the most attractive individual body (and all composites). Individual 4+ Individual 4+ Slide12:  There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4+ composite being judged significantly more attractive than the 8+ composite which in turn was significantly more attractive than the prototype (average of 16). Slide13:  There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4- composite being judged significantly less attractive than the prototype (average of 16). Discussion (1):  Discussion (1) These preferences indicate that average values of features (or the overall configuration) as well as above-average of "good" features are both attractive (cf. Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996); below-average of "bad" features (like waist-to-hip ratio) are unattractive (cf. Tovée et al. 1999). Slide15:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Judgement = Baseline + symmetry (overall configuration) plus/minus „good“ or „bad“ features Slide16:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Superstimulus 4+: Add +1 for symmetry and +1 for „good“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline + 1 + 1 Slide17:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Most unattractive 4-: Add 1 for symmetry and –1 for „bad“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline + 1 - 1 Slide18:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Individual most attractive: Add zero for symmetry and +1 for „good“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline plus 1 Slide19:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Prototype (16+): Add +1 for symmetry and 1/3 for „good“ features: Baseline + 1 + 1/3 Slide20:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Exaggerated 8+: Add 1 for symmetry and +2/3 for „good“ features = Baseline plus 1 plus 2/3 Slide21:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Superstimulus 4+: Add 1 for symmetry and 1 for „good“ features = Baseline plus 1 plus 1 Discussion (2):  Discussion (2) The prediction of attractiveness for faces and human bodies is very similar and this seems to indicate that a prototype explanation of facial attractiveness is also misleaded. The post-hoc description should be tested: Judgement = Baseline plus symmetry (overall configuration) plus/minus „good“ or „bad“ features Slide23:  References Baumgartner, S. (2003). Körperformen und die Beurteilung weiblicher und männlicher Attraktivität. Unpublished master’s thesis at the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Switzerland. Barends, G.P. (1982). Supernormality. Behaviour, 82, 358-363. Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits. Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain. Langlois, J.H. & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121. Perret, D.I., May, K.A. & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239-242. Rhodes, G. & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 2, 105-110. Tovée, M.J., Maisey, D.S., Emery, J.L., & Cornellissen, P.L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 266, 211-218. Slide24:  Abstract: Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Muesmattstr. 45, 3009 Bern[1] Langlois and Roggman (1980) proposed that averageness of faces is attractive (cf. Galton, 1878). In contrast, humans may prefer extremes instead of averageness at least for body shapes (Baerends, 1982 cf. Perret et al., 1994). We examined how averageness and exaggeration influences the perceptual attractiveness of human bodies. Using the average of 16 female and 16 male bodies, respectively, we compared these prototypes with the most attractive individual body and different composites. N=40 subjects judged the stimuli in individual sessions using a rating scale as well as a forced-choice rating. In addition, the experiment was replicated with N=39 subjects using an online experiment (cf. http://wl12www671.webland.ch/). The superstimulus - i.e. the composite of the 4 most attractive bodies (4+) - was judged significantly more attractive than the most attractive individual body and all composites (see fig., below). There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4+ composite being judged significantly more attractive than the 8+ composite which in turn were significantly more attractive than the prototype and the composite of the 4 unattractive bodies - which were significantly less attractive than all other stimuli. These preferences indicate that average values of features (or the overall configuration) as well as above-average of "good" features are both attractive (cf. Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996); below-average of "bad" features (like waist-to-hip ratio) are unattractive (cf. Tovée et al. 1999). The prediction of attractiveness for faces and human bodies is very similar and this seems to indicate that a prototype explanation of facial attractiveness is misleaded.   key words attractiveness, prototype, beauty

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Silvestre

Music and TOK
15. 01. 2008
0 views

Music and TOK

CAP08Lesson7
08. 05. 2008
0 views

CAP08Lesson7

VALENTINI WANKA 1165498491
07. 05. 2008
0 views

VALENTINI WANKA 1165498491

LSE Olympics slides
02. 05. 2008
0 views

LSE Olympics slides

2007525222912917
30. 04. 2008
0 views

2007525222912917

2005511164441155
24. 04. 2008
0 views

2005511164441155

2005317110534 9
22. 04. 2008
0 views

2005317110534 9

cooperation latvia
17. 04. 2008
0 views

cooperation latvia

B4 Qian 0215
15. 04. 2008
0 views

B4 Qian 0215

ZigBee Master
08. 04. 2008
0 views

ZigBee Master

Health Care Waste
18. 01. 2008
0 views

Health Care Waste

numbergendercase
11. 01. 2008
0 views

numbergendercase

cis bhs fhs foodborne 36957 7
12. 01. 2008
0 views

cis bhs fhs foodborne 36957 7

opinion
13. 01. 2008
0 views

opinion

ConsBeh Pt 2of3 PsyInfl
13. 01. 2008
0 views

ConsBeh Pt 2of3 PsyInfl

Child Protection
17. 01. 2008
0 views

Child Protection

biosummer04 yang keynote
17. 01. 2008
0 views

biosummer04 yang keynote

Satellite Testing
17. 01. 2008
0 views

Satellite Testing

COEL ExtRev
16. 01. 2008
0 views

COEL ExtRev

rabenhorstDRCS
19. 01. 2008
0 views

rabenhorstDRCS

Vermont Challenge poster Ding
21. 01. 2008
0 views

Vermont Challenge poster Ding

Cocoaine Chapter 6
22. 01. 2008
0 views

Cocoaine Chapter 6

AFEI NCO presentation
23. 01. 2008
0 views

AFEI NCO presentation

dubaitwo
24. 01. 2008
0 views

dubaitwo

Decision Making 10 06 p
05. 02. 2008
0 views

Decision Making 10 06 p

SCHLEGEL Thomas
12. 02. 2008
0 views

SCHLEGEL Thomas

crager xmastree1
22. 01. 2008
0 views

crager xmastree1

EDEA 630 Chapter 12 PowerPoint
28. 01. 2008
0 views

EDEA 630 Chapter 12 PowerPoint

Chapter 14
29. 01. 2008
0 views

Chapter 14

Activating Your Heart
29. 01. 2008
0 views

Activating Your Heart

Rome UPU PostCode StefanLindholm
17. 01. 2008
0 views

Rome UPU PostCode StefanLindholm

OS0607 YWANG what is good soil
22. 01. 2008
0 views

OS0607 YWANG what is good soil

CellPhones
30. 01. 2008
0 views

CellPhones

Keeoing Fit and Healthy
07. 02. 2008
0 views

Keeoing Fit and Healthy

Metamorphism
10. 01. 2008
0 views

Metamorphism

AW1
21. 01. 2008
0 views

AW1

MLA Documentation
14. 02. 2008
0 views

MLA Documentation

pps 308
14. 02. 2008
0 views

pps 308

Generic
22. 02. 2008
0 views

Generic

220 L13 Constantine
25. 02. 2008
0 views

220 L13 Constantine

48 The Hearts of the Children
08. 03. 2008
0 views

48 The Hearts of the Children

TZ Course and trip
14. 03. 2008
0 views

TZ Course and trip

injury guidelines
15. 03. 2008
0 views

injury guidelines

College Prep for HS Students
19. 03. 2008
0 views

College Prep for HS Students

bh us 02 smith biometric
24. 03. 2008
0 views

bh us 02 smith biometric

ATTC 1981 2007
16. 03. 2008
0 views

ATTC 1981 2007

lenovo
14. 04. 2008
0 views

lenovo

Peds Indonesia
14. 01. 2008
0 views

Peds Indonesia

Trish Skillman Presentation
16. 01. 2008
0 views

Trish Skillman Presentation

KKurani 2 14 07
08. 02. 2008
0 views

KKurani 2 14 07

condon
09. 01. 2008
0 views

condon

anthony russell
10. 01. 2008
0 views

anthony russell

Marketingweek2
04. 02. 2008
0 views

Marketingweek2

HKPresentationJmSeig neur
10. 04. 2008
0 views

HKPresentationJmSeig neur

s3 Calzadilla Sarmiento
22. 01. 2008
0 views

s3 Calzadilla Sarmiento

Budzet Mon 2007 ang
07. 03. 2008
0 views

Budzet Mon 2007 ang

Villeneuve Can Rpt
24. 01. 2008
0 views

Villeneuve Can Rpt

GlobalIT Class4
31. 03. 2008
0 views

GlobalIT Class4

icongo a z funds raise
15. 02. 2008
0 views

icongo a z funds raise

bredden först
07. 02. 2008
0 views

bredden först

habitat cluj
23. 01. 2008
0 views

habitat cluj

caringsocietypostKuu rne nov01
20. 02. 2008
0 views

caringsocietypostKuu rne nov01

MELL ASU 0708CCPOverview
10. 01. 2008
0 views

MELL ASU 0708CCPOverview

SETA 2 ETHICAL ATTITUDEs
17. 01. 2008
0 views

SETA 2 ETHICAL ATTITUDEs

Flex Benefit Coordinator
09. 01. 2008
0 views

Flex Benefit Coordinator

filmteaching
05. 02. 2008
0 views

filmteaching