Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 29–39 | Cite as

Masculine Somatotype and Hirsuteness as Determinants of Sexual Attractiveness to Women

  • Alan F. Dixson
  • Gayle Halliwell
  • Rebecca East
  • Praveen Wignarajah
  • Matthew J. Anderson

Abstract

Five questionnaire studies asked women to rate the attractiveness of outline drawings of male figures that varied in somatotype, body proportions, symmetry, and in distribution of trunk hair. In Study 1, back-posed figures of mesomorphic (muscular) somatotypes were rated as most attractive, followed by average, ectomorphic (slim), and endomorphic (heavily built) figures by both British and Sri Lankan women. In Study 2, computer morphing of somatotypes to produce an intergraded series resulted in a graded response in terms of perceived attractiveness which mirrored the findings of Study 1. In Study 3, back-posed figures were manipulated in order to change waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) and waist-to-shoulder ratios (WSR). A WHR of 0.8–0.9 and a WSR of 0.6 were rated as most attractive and these effects were more pronounced when modeling mesomorphic figures. In Study 4, symmetric figures of a mesomorphic somatotype were rated as less attractive than a normal (asymmetric) version of the same man. Study 5 showed that presence of trunk hair had a marked, positive effect upon women's ratings of attractiveness for both mesomorphic and endomorphic male figures. Women also judged figures with trunk hair as being older and they consistently rated endomorphic figures as being older than mesomorphs. These results are consistent with effects of sexual selection upon visual signals that advertise health, physical prowess, age, and underlying endocrine condition in the human male.

somatotype human male sexual attractiveness sexual selection evolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.Google Scholar
  2. Bolonchuk, W. W., Siders, W. A., Lykken, G. I., & Lukaski, H. C. (2000). Association of dominant somatotype of men with body structure, function during exercise, and nutritional assessment. American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 167–180.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, S. A. (2000). Men's voices and women's choices. Animal Behavior, 60, 773–780.Google Scholar
  5. Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. H. Barlow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby, (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 267–288). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.Google Scholar
  8. Katzmarzyk, P. T., Malina, R. M., Song, T. M. K., & Bouchard, C. (1998). Somatotype and indicators of metabolic fitness in youth. American Journal of Human Biology, 10, 341–350.Google Scholar
  9. Katzmarzyk, P. T., Malina, R. M., Song, T. M. K., Theriault, G., & Bouchard, C. (1998). Physique and echocardiographic dimension in children, adolescents and young adults. Annals of Human Biology, 25, 145–157.Google Scholar
  10. Lynch, S. M., & Zellner, D. A. (1999). Figure preferences in two generations of men: The use of figure drawings illustrating differences in muscles mass. Sex Roles, 40, 833–843.Google Scholar
  11. Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L. E., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. Lancet 353, 1500.Google Scholar
  12. Mealey, L. (1997). Bulking up: The roles of sex and sexual orientation as attempts to manipulate physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 223–228.Google Scholar
  13. Möller, A. P., & Hoglund, J. (1991). Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in avian feather adornments: Implications for models not sexual selection. Procedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 245, 1–5.Google Scholar
  14. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (2001). Evidence of unconstrained directional selection for male tallness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 302–311.Google Scholar
  15. Parsons, P. A. (1992). Fluctuating asymmetry: A biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity, 68, 361–364.Google Scholar
  16. Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 403, 156.Google Scholar
  17. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D. M., et al. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male sexual attractiveness. Procedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 268, 617–1623.Google Scholar
  18. Perret, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.Google Scholar
  19. Schultze, S., Knussmann, R., & Christiansen, K. (1991). Male sex role identification and body build. Homo, 42, 203–215.Google Scholar
  20. Sheldon, W. H., Dupertuis, C. W., & McDermott, E. (1954). Atlas of men. New York: Harpers.Google Scholar
  21. Sheldon, W. H., & Tucker, W. B. (1940). The varieties of human physique. New York: Harpers.Google Scholar
  22. Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women's attractiveness. Human Nature, 4, 297–321.Google Scholar
  23. Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgement of women's attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51–65.Google Scholar
  24. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgements of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.Google Scholar
  25. Swaddle, J. P. (1996). Reproductive success and symmetry in zebra finches. Animal Behavior, 51, 203–210.Google Scholar
  26. Swaddle, J. P., & Cuthill, I. C. (1994). Female zebra finches prefer symmetric males. Nature, 367, 165–166.Google Scholar
  27. Swaddle, J. P., & Cuthill, I. C. (1995). Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful. Procedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 261, 111–116.Google Scholar
  28. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297–302.Google Scholar
  29. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1996). Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behavior, 50, 1601–1615.Google Scholar
  30. Tovée, M. J., Maisey, D. S., Emery, J. L., & Cornellisen, P. L. (1999). Visual cues to female sexual attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 266, 211–218.Google Scholar
  31. Van Valen, L. (1962). A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution, 16, 125–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan F. Dixson
    • 1
  • Gayle Halliwell
    • 2
  • Rebecca East
    • 2
  • Praveen Wignarajah
    • 3
  • Matthew J. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Reproduction of Endangered SpeciesZoological Society of San DiegoSan Diego
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations