Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tendencies Toward Supernormality/Subnormality in Generating Attractive and Unattractive Female and Male Avatars: Gender Differences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated the differences in the experience of attractiveness and unattractiveness of human bodies. A total of 101 participants (55 females) were asked to create the most attractive and the most unattractive female and male figures using a computer animation. They performed this task by adjusting the size of six body parts: shoulders, breasts/chest, waist, hips, buttocks, and legs. Analyses indicated that attractive body parts were distributed normally with the peak shifted to moderately supernormal sizes, while unattractive body parts had mostly U-shaped or skewed distributions with extremes in super-supernormal and/or subnormal sizes. Generally, both male and female attractive bodies had prominent “sporty” look: supernormally wide shoulders and long legs. Gender differences showed that men prefer more supernomal masculine and feminine sizes, while women show an ambivalence toward both groups of traits. Principal components analysis revealed gender differences on the multitrait level: males focus on prominent masculine and feminine traits, while women focus on traits that make both male and female bodies more elongated and slender. Gender differences were in line with specific male and female positions in the partner selection process, while a certain tendency toward masculinization of the female body required the inclusion of social factors, such as the influence of the culture of a sporty and fit look.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Anderson, J. L. (1988). Breast, hips, and buttocks revisited: Honest fatness for honest fitness. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 319–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balas, B., van Lamsweerde, A. E., Auen, A., & Saville, A. (2017). The impact of face inversion on animacy categorization. i-Perception, 8(4), 2041669517723653.

  • Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(5), 395–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, H., III., Bacon, M. K., & Child, I. L. (1957). A cross-cultural survey of some sex differences in socialization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batrinos, M. L. (2012). Testosterone and aggressive behavior in man. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(3), 563–568.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, F. A. (1976). Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals. Hormones and Behavior, 7(1), 105–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. B., Ward-Hull, C. I., & McLear, P. M. (1976). Variables related to women’s somatic preferences of the male and female body. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1200–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertamini, M., & Bennett, K. M. (2009). The effect of leg length on perceived attractiveness of simplified stimuli. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(3), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björntorp, P. (1988). Abdominal obesity and the development of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabetes/metabolism Reviews, 4(6), 615–622.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Björntorp, P. (1991). Adipose tissue distribution and function. International Journal of Obesity, 15, 67–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blows, M. W. (2007). A tale of two matrices: Multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, M. F., & Bryan, A. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 805–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. C., Shelly, J. P., Jordan, L. A., & Dixson, B. J. (2015). The multivariate evolution of female body shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, G. M., Frederick, D. A., & Friedman, M. A. (2005). Preoccupation with body fat among heterosexual and homosexual males. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 249–266). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2003). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3–4), 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64(9), 768–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cant, J. G. H. (1981). Hypothesis for the evolution of human breasts and buttocks. American Naturalist, 117, 199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, P. R., & Kram, R. (1989). Stride length in distance running: Velocity, body dimensions, and added mass effects. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 21(4), 467–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarys, J. P., Martin, A. D., & Drinkwater, D. T. (1984). Gross tissue weights in the human body by cadaver dissection. Human Biology, 56, 459–473.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., & Shamblen, S. R. (2003). Beyond nature versus culture: A multiple fitness analysis of variations in grooming. In E. Voland & K. Grammer (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 201–237). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, B., Navajas, J., & Sigman, M. (2012). Eye fixations indicate men’s preference for female breasts or buttocks. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 929–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9945-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1861). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. D. Appleton & Co.

  • DeRidder, C. D., Bruning, P. F., Zonderland, M. L., Thijssen, J. H. H., Bonfrer, J. M. G., Blankenstein, M. A., Huisvield, H. S., & Erich, W. B. M. (1990). Body fat mass, body fat distribution, and plasma hormones in early puberty in females. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 70(4), 888–893.

  • Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(5), 335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, B. J., Dixson, A. F., Li, B., & Anderson, M. J. (2007). Studies of human physique and sexual attractiveness: Sexual preferences of men and women in China. American Journal of Human Biology, 19(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Ormsby, D. K., & Dixson, A. F. (2014). Eye-tracking women’s preferences for men’s somatotypes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C., Tod, D., & Molnar, G. (2014). A systematic review of the drive for muscularity research area. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2013.847113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. B. (1972). Physical and biochemical characteristics of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 140–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., Dai, W., Liu, F., & Wu, J. (2005). Visual perception of male body attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London b: Biological Sciences, 272(1560), 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernand, R., & Fox, D. E. (1985). Evaluation of lumbar lordosis: A prospective and retrospective study. Spine, 10(9), 799–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Folsom, A. R., Kaye, S. A., Sellers, T. A., Hong, C. P., Cerhan, J. R., Potter, J. D., & Prineas, R. J. (1993). Body fat distribution and 5-year risk of death in older women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269(4), 483–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1987). Judging physical attractiveness: What body aspects do we use? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, D. A., Fessler, D. M., & Haselton, M. G. (2005). Do representations of male muscularity differ in men’s and women’s magazines? Body Image, 2(1), 81–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, D. A., Hadji-Michael, M., Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2010). The influence of leg-to-body ratio (LBR) on judgments of female physical attractiveness: Assessments of computer-generated images varying in LBR. Body Image, 7, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R. C., Houle, D., & Travis, J. (2005). Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. The American Naturalist, 166(4), 437–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Swami, V., & Shah, K. (2006). Female body correlates of attractiveness and other ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences, 275(1638), 991–1000.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78(3), 385–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greil, H. (2006). Patterns of sexual dimorphism from birth to senescence. Collegium Antropologicum, 30(3), 637–641.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnell, D., Whitley, E., Upton, M. N., McConnachie, A., Smith, G. D., & Watt, G. C. M. (2003). Associations of height, leg length, and lung functionwith cardiovascular risk factors in the Midspan Family Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.2.141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnell, D., Miller, L. L., Rogers, I., & Holly, J. M. (2005). Association of insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor–binding protein-3 with intelligence quotient among 8-to 9-year-old children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Pediatrics, 116(5), e681–e686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, S. R., & Castelnuovo, S. (1992). Elite women bodybuilders: Models of resistance or compliance? Play & Culture, 5, 401–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, K. (2003). Television viewers’ ideal body proportions: The case of the curvaceously thin woman. Sex Roles, 48, 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51(1), 40–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Havlíček, J., Třebický, V., Valentova, J. V., Kleisner, K., Akoko, R. M., Fialová, J., Jash, R., Kočnar, T., Pereira, K. J., Štěrbová, Z. C., Varella, M. A., Vokurková, J., Vunan, E., & Roberts, S. C. (2017). Men’s preferences for women’s breast size and shape in four cultures. Evolution & Human Behavior, 38, 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 501–513.

  • Horvath, T. (1979). Correlates of physical beauty in men and women. Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huss-Ashmore, R. (1980). Fat and fertility: Demographic implications of differential fat storage. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 23(S1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasieńska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(1545), 1213–1217.

  • Jones, D. (1996). Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection: Results from five populations. Museum of Anthropology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. C., Holzleitner, I. J., & Shiramizu, V. (2021). Does facial attractiveness really signal immunocompetence? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(12), 1018–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperk, C., Helmboldt, A., Borcsok, I., Heuthe, S., Cloos, O., Niethard, F., & Ziegler, R. (1997). Skeletal site-dependent expression of the androgen receptor in human osteoblastic cell populations. Calcified Tissue, 61, 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiire, S. (2016). Effect of leg-to-body ratio on body shape attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(4), 901–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, J., Bailard, J., & Scher, J. (1997). Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(2), 264–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K. N. (1994). Sexual selection with a culturally transmitted mating preference. Theoretical Population Biology, 45(1), 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution, 34, 292–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37, 1210–1226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2006). Changes in body fat distribution in relation to parity in American women: A covert form of maternal depletion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 131, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, R. R., & Blomquist, G. E. (2010). Multivariate selection theory in primatology: An introduction to the concepts and literature. The Open Anthropology Journal, 3(1), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874912701003010206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M. G., Russell, E. M., Al-Shawaf, L., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Lumbar curvature: A previously undiscovered standard of attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. (1983). Sex typing and the perception of the body. Journal of Personality, 51, 667–682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. The Lancet, 353(9163), 1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolopoulos, K. N., Karpe, F., & Frayn, K. N. (2010). Gluteofemoral body fat as a determinant of metabolic health. International Journal of Obesity, 34(6), 949–959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marković, S., & Bulut, T. (2014). Size of different body characteristics and female physical attractiveness: Gender differences. In P. Bernardis, C. Fantoni, & W. Gerbino (Eds.), Proceedings of the Trieste symposium on perception and cognition (pp. 41–49). Edizioni Università di Trieste.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marković, S., & Bulut, T. (2017a). Attractiveness of the female body: Preference for the average or the supernormal? Psihologija, 50(3), 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marković, S., & Bulut, T. (2017b). Attractiveness of female and male body: Comparison of subjective and objective measures. Journal of Vision, 17(10). https://doi.org/10.1167/17.10.1250

  • Marković, S., & Bulut, T. (2019). Gender categorization and attractiveness of the human body: The effects of gender ambiguity. Perception, 48, 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marković, S., Bulut, Т., Rančić, К., Nikitović, Т., Paunović, D., & Janičić, S. (2016). Attractiveness of male and female body: Preference for average or preference for supernormal? In 12th Alps-Adria Psychology Conference, Rijeka, Croatia.

  • Marlowe, F. (1998). The nubility hypothesis. Human Nature, 9(3), 263–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F., & Wetsman, A. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(3), 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F., Apicella, C., & Reed, D. (2005). Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(6), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. T., & Nguyen, D. H. (2004). Anthropometric analysis of homosexuals and heterosexuals: Implications for early hormone exposure. Hormones and Behavior, 45(1), 31–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., Tybur, J. M., & Jordan, B. D. (2007). Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: Economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 375–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, A., & Vikram, N. K. (2003). Clinical and pathophysiological consequences of abdominal adiposity and abdominal adipose tissue depots. Nutrition, 19(5), 457–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. C. (2004). Effects of testosterone on mood, aggression, and sexual behavior in young men: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 89(6), 2837–2845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pazhoohi, F., Doyle, J. F., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2018). Arching the back (lumbar curvature) as a female sexual proceptivity signal: An eye-tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 158–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 388, 741–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettijohn, T. F., & Jungeberg, B. J. (2004). Playboy playmate curves: Changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and economic conditions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1186–1197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. C., & Arnold, S. J. (1989). Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution, 43(6), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02569.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pond, C. M. (1998). The fats of life. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Borowiecki, J. J., III., & Cohane, G. H. (2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A longitudinal survey of advertising in women’s magazines. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 70, 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1159/000056252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, V. C., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1294–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rilling, J. K., Kaufman, T. L., Smith, E. O., Patel, R., & Worthman, C. M. (2009). Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1), 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D. A., & Fairbairn, D. J. (2007). The evolution of trade-offs: Where are we? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 433–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ropret, R., Kukolj, M., Ugarkovic, D., Matavulj, D., & Jaric, S. (1998). Effects of arm and leg loading on sprint performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 77(6), 547–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2014). Evaluating evidence of mate preference adaptations: How do we really know what Homo sapiens sapiens really want? In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 3–39). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (2002). Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl 4), 81–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 483–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. W. (1986). Psychology and evolution of breasts [Letter to the editor]. Human Evolution, 1(3), 285–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. D., Greenwood, R., Gunnell, D., Sweetnam, P., Yarnell, J., & Elwood, P. (2001). Leg length, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk: The Caerphilly Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.55.12.867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. L., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (2007). Color 3D bodies and judgements of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorokowski, P., & Pawlowski, B. (2008). Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorokowski, P., Szmajke, A., Sorokowska, A., Borg Cunen, M., Fabrykant, M., Zarafshani, K., Amiri, M., Bazzazian, S., Blazevska-stoilkovska, B., Casellas, V., Cetinkaya, H., Lopez Coutino, B., Chavez, M., Cheng, C., Cristea, I., David, D., Dural, S., Dzięcioł, A., Fauzee, S., … Tzu, F. (2011). Attractiveness of leg length: Report from 27 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staddon, J. E. R. (1975). A note on the evolutionary significance of “supernormal” stimuli. American Naturalist, 109(969), 541–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2006). The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion. Body Image, 3(4), 317–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, V. & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. H., Sargent, R. G., & Kemper, K. A. (1996). Black and white adolescent males’ perceptions of ideal body size. Sex Roles, 34(5–6), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornborrow, T., Onwuegbusi, T., Mohamed, S., Boothroyd, L. G., & Tovée, M. J. (2020). Muscles and the media: A natural experiment across cultures in men’s body image. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N., & Perdeck, A. C. (1950). On the stimulus situation releasing the begging response in the newly hatched herring gull chick (Larus argentatus argentatus Pont.). Behaviour, 3, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valentova, J., Rieger, G., Havlicek, J., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity–femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1145–1152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valentova, J. V., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Varella, M. A. C. (2017). Influence of sexual orientation, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect on preferences and choices for female buttock size, breast size and shape, and WHR. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Versluys, T. M. M., & Skylark, W. J.(2017). The effect of leg-to-body ratio on male attractiveness depends on the ecological validity of the figures. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170399. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170399

  • Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. L. (2002). Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body measures: Trend analysis. British Medical Journal, 325(7378), 1447–1448.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, B., & Blows, M. W. (2009). Abundant genetic variation + strong selection = multivariate genetic constraints: A geometric view of adaptation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Heo, M., Lee, R. C., Kotler, D. P., Withers, R. T., & Heymsfield, S. B. (2001). Muscularity in adult humans: Proportion of adipose tissue-free body mass as skeletal muscle. American Journal of Human Biology, 13(5), 612–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. C. K. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of body composition. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 21(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2007.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(3), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S., Wiggins, N., & Conger, J. C. (1968). Correlates of heterosexual somatic preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(1), 82–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease put a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaadstra, B., Seidell, J., van Noord, P., te Velde, E., Hambemma, J., Vrieswijk, B., & Karbaat, J. (1993). Prospective study of the effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. British Medical Journal, 306, 484–487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zelazniewicz, A. M., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female breast size: Attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (Restricted vs. unrestricted). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9850-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by The Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia, Grant Number 179033.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, Laboratory for Experimental Psychology and Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade, Čika Ljubina 18-20, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Slobodan Marković & Tara Bulut

Authors
  1. Slobodan Marković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tara Bulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: SM, TB; Methodology: SM, TB; Formal analysis and investigation: SM, TB; Writing—original draft preparation: SM; Writing—review and editing: TB; Funding acquisition: SM; Resources: SM; Supervision: SM. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slobodan Marković.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade (protocol number: 2019-042). The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

The table shows the results of a multiple regression analysis in which linear and quadratic functions were tested as predictors of the frequency distributions of the sizes of unattractive body parts. The standardized beta coefficient (β), t value, and significance (p) are shown for all body parts of female and male avatars generated by women and men.

 

Female avatar

Male avatar

Women

Men

Women

  

Men

  

β

t

p

β

t

p

β

t

p

β

t

p

Shoulders

            

 Linear

−0.923

−2.023

0.055

−1.367

−3.072

0.008

0.259

1.340

0.192

−0.141

−0.510

0.619

 Quadratic

1.003

2.198

0.038

1.398

3.142

0.007

0.546

2.824

0.009

0.290

1.046

0.315

Breasts/Chests

            

 Linear

−0.713

−2.069

0.049

−0.897

−2.253

0.051

−0.033

−0.182

0.857

−0.335

−1.681

0.115

 Quadratic

0.804

2.331

0.028

0.847

2.128

0.062

0.587

3.256

0.004

0.639

3.203

0.006

Waist

            

 Linear

0.341

1.684

0.109

0.146

0.657

0.522

0.200

0.954

0.353

0.427

1.492

0.196

 Quadratic

0.395

1.950

0.067

0.529

2.374

0.032

0.422

2.010

0.060

0.767

2.680

0.044

Hips

            

 Linear

0.497

1.735

0.095

1.005

2.619

0.018

0.100

0.427

0.674

−0.194

−0.721

0.485

 Quadratic

0.683

2.385

0.025

1.134

2.957

0.009

0.355

1.512

0.149

0.505

1.875

0.085

Buttocks

            

 Linear

−0.389

−1.719

0.098

−0.428

−1.866

0.078

0.188

1.095

0.284

0.214

1.011

0.334

 Quadratic

0.657

2.900

0.008

0.498

2.171

0.043

0.467

2.713

0.012

0.671

3.164

0.009

Legs

            

 Linear

−0.189

−1.146

0.261

−0.410

−2.453

0.025

−0.086

−0.347

0.734

0.034

0.139

0.892

 Quadratic

0.456

2.765

0.010

0.632

3.781

0.001

0.465

1.883

0.082

0.522

2.127

0.053

Appendix B

The table shows the results of the chi-squared test (df = 1) which was used to test the significance of the differences in the number of participants who generated extreme sizes of unattractive body parts. Extreme sizes were specified as 25% of the smallest sizes (Min 25%) and 25% of the largest sizes (Max 25%). The results are distributed by participants’ gender (women and men) and the gender of the avatars (female and male avatar).

Female avatar

Male avatar

Women

Men

Women

Men

Shoulders

N

χ2

Shoulders

N

χ2

Shoulders

N

χ2

Shoulders

N

χ2

Min 25%

25

.00

Min 25%

19

.027

Min 25%

37

18.69

Min 25%

30

27.13

Max 25%

25

ns

Max 25%

18

n. s

Max 25%

8

0.01

Max 25%

1

0.01

Breasts

N

χ2

Breasts

N

χ2

Chests

N

χ2

Chests

N

χ2

Min 25%

20

2.00

Min 25%

29

5.23

Min 25%

23

.02

Min 25%

26

3.60

Max 25%

30

ns

Max 25%

14

0.05

Max 25%

22

ns

Max 25%

14

0.06

Waist

N

χ2

Waist

N

χ2

Waist

N

χ2

Waist

N

χ2

Min 25%

13

10.80

Min 25%

7

14.30

Min 25%

13

9.38

Min 25%

6

21.43

Max 25%

36

0.01

Max 25%

30

0.01

Max 25%

34

0.01

Max 25%

36

0.01

Hips

N

χ2

Hips

N

χ2

Hips

N

χ2

Hips

N

χ2

Min 25%

20

.10

Min 25%

16

.95

Min 25%

10

19.69

Min 25%

9

13.71

Max 25%

18

ns

Max 25%

22

ns

Max 25%

42

0.01

Max 25%

33

0.01

Buttocks

N

χ2

Buttocks

N

χ2

Buttocks

N

χ2

Buttocks

N

χ2

Min 25%

25

.19

Min 25%

26

3.60

Min 25%

7

18.67

Min 25%

9

10.53

Max 25%

22

ns

Max 25%

14

0.06

Max 25%

35

0.01

Max 25%

29

0.01

Legs

N

χ2

Legs

N

χ2

Legs

N

χ2

Legs

N

χ2

Min 25%

31

12.10

Min 25%

24

8.00

Min 25%

48

37.23

Min 25%

31

15.14

Max 25%

9

0.01

Max 25%

8

0.01

Max 25%

4

0.01

Max 25%

7

0.01

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marković, S., Bulut, T. Tendencies Toward Supernormality/Subnormality in Generating Attractive and Unattractive Female and Male Avatars: Gender Differences. Arch Sex Behav 52, 2317–2336 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02575-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02575-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation