Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 297–304 | Cite as

Success Is All in the Measures: Androgenousness, Curvaceousness, and Starring Frequencies in Adult Media Actresses

Article

The debate of whether body-mass index (BMI) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is the primary visual cue to female physical attractiveness (FPA) has generated considerable interest. However, experiments addressing this question typically have limited ecological validity and do not capture the ultimate goal of FPA, which is to elicit male sexual arousal. Hence, using an unobtrusive measures design, we retrieved movie and magazine starring frequencies of 125 adult media actresses from a company's database, operationalized starring frequencies as FPA measures, and tested their relationship to actresses' anthropometric data. Low BMI was related to frequent movie starring, while WHR, waist-to-bust ratio (WBR), and bust size were not. Conversely, low WHR, low WBR, and larger bust size were related to frequent magazine starring, while BMI was not. Visual cues to FPA might be domain-specific, with androgenousness cues salient for attractiveness evaluation of moving bodies and curvaceousness cues salient for posing bodies.

KEY WORDS:

female attractiveness waist-to-hip ratio body-mass index pornography. 

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, J. L. (1988). Breast, hips, and buttocks revisited: Honest fatness for honest fitness. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 197–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, D. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 273–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
  5. Dietz, P. E., & Evans, B. (1982). Pornographic imagery and prevalence of paraphilia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1493–1495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–556.Google Scholar
  7. Fink, B., Neave, N., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and waist-to-chest ratio: Their relationships in heterosexual men and women. Annals of Human Biology, 30, 728–738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forestell, C. A., Humphrey, T. M., & Stewart, S. H. (2004). Involvement of body weight and shape factors in ratings of attractiveness by women: A replication and extension of Tassinary and Hansen (1998). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freese, J., & Meland, S. (2002). Seven tenths incorrect: Heterogeneity and change in the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy centerfold models and Miss America pageant winners. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 133–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Furnham, A., & Nordling, R. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in preferences for specific male and female body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness: Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirchengast, S., & Winkler, E. M. (1996). Nutritional status as indicator for reproductive success in !Kung San and Kavango females from Namibia. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 54, 267–276.Google Scholar
  14. Lawson, K. D., Tassinary, L. G., & Johnson, S. P. (1999). Psychophysiology and the “suspension of disbelief” [Abstract]. Psychophysiology, 36(Suppl. 1), S72.Google Scholar
  15. Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46, 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manning, J. T. (1995). Fluctuating asymmetry and body weight in men and women: Implications for sexual selection. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manson, J. E., Willet, W. C., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Hunter, D. J., Hankinson, S. E., et al. (1995). Body weight and mortality among women. New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 677–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pawlowski, B., & Grabarczyk, M. (2003). Center of body mass and the evolution of female body shape. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 144–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Puhl, R. M., & Boland, F. J. (2001). Predicting female physical attractiveness: Waist-to-hip ratio versus thinness. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 3, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ryley, D. A., Bayer, S. R., Eaton, J., Zimon, A., Klipstein, S., & Reindollar, R. (2004). Influence of body mass index (BMI) on the outcome of 6827 IVF cycles [abstract]. Fertility and Sterility, 82(Suppl. 2), S38–S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salmon, C., & Symons, D. (2001). Warrior lovers: Erotic fiction, evolution and female sexuality. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  24. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sugiyama, L. 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 Behavior, 25, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tassinary, L. G., & Hansen, K. A. (1998). A critical test of the waist-to-hip-ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychological Science, 9, 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tovée, M. J., Maisey, D. S., Emery, J. L., & Cornelissen, P. L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 266, 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tovée, M. J., Mason, S., Emery, J. L., McClusky, S. E., & Cohen-Tovée, E. M. (1997). Supermodels: Stick insects or hourglasses? Lancet, 350, 1474–1475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tovée, M. J., Reinhardt, S., Emery, J. L., & Cornelissen, P. L. (1998). Optimum body-mass index and maximum sexual attractiveness. Lancet, 352, 548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tovée, M. J., Tasker, K., & Benson, P. J. (2000). Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body? Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 191–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. L. (2002). Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body measures: Trend analysis. British Medical Journal, 325, 1447–1448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Unobtrusive measures (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Basic Psychological ResearchSchool of Psychology, University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySt. Mary's University HalifaxNova ScotiaCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySt. Mary's UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations