Advertisement

Bodies in Motion: A Window to the Soul

  • Karl Grammer
  • Viktoria Keki
  • Beate Striebel
  • Michaela Atzmüller
  • Bernhard Fink
Chapter

Abstract

Evolutionary psychologists have widely accepted that there are biological reasons for body shape and size preferences in potential sexual partners. Female physical attractiveness is considered to be largely a reflection of her potential reproductive success. Recent research suggests that male physical attractiveness is also based upon the same criterion. Reproductive success is defined as the optimum (for a given environment) number of children surviving to reach sexual maturity and to become parents themselves. Buss (1989) suggests that there are cultural universals in desired body size and shape for intersexual attraction, and that these derive from the division of labor between males and females during the course of evolution, where males specialized in hunting activities and females in food gathering and child rearing. Natural and sexual selection are believed to have operated in a way that men and women whose bodies were best suited for these tasks were most attractive to potential mates. We find that females consider their physical appearance as “efficient” when they attract mates, males consider their body as efficient when it promises success in male-male competition (Erikson 1968; Lerner et al. 1976).

Keywords

Mirror Neuron Physical Attractiveness Facial Attractiveness Developmental Instability Stimulus Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alados CL, Escos J, Emlen JM (1995) Fluctuating asymmetry and fractal geometry of the saggital suture: two tools for detecting developmental instability caused by inbreeding depression in North African gazelles. Can J Zool 73: 1967–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alley TR, Cunningham MR (1991) Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average. Psychol Sci 2 (2): 123–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber N (1995) The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 16: 395–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barclay CD, Cutting JE, Kozlowski LT (1978) Temporal and spatial factors in gait perception that influence gender recognition. Perception Psychophys 23: 145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassingthwaighte JB, Raymond GM (1994) Evaluating rescaled range analysis for time series. Ann Biomed Eng 22: 432–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassingthwaighte JB, Raymond GM (1995) Evaluation of the dispersional analysis method for fractal time series. Ann Biomed Eng 23: 491–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bente G, Krämer NC, Petersen A, de Ruiter JP (2001) Computer animated movement and person perception. Methodological advances in nonverbal behavior research. J Nonverbal Behav 25 (3): 151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry DS, Kean KJ, Misovich SJ, Baron RM (1991) Quantized displays of human movement:Google Scholar
  9. a methodological alternative to the point light display. J Nonverbal Behav 15:81–97Google Scholar
  10. Bloj MG, Kersten D, Hurlbert AC (1999) Perception of three-dimensional shape influences colour perception through mutual illumination. Nature 402: 877–879PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruce V, Burton AM, Hanna E, Healey P, Mason O, Coombes A, Fright R, Linney A (1993) Sex discrimination: how do we tell the difference between male and female faces? Perception 22: 131–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruce V, Green PR, Georgeson MA (1996) Visual perception. Physiology, psychology, and ecology, 3rd edn. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  13. Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Seitz RJ, Zilles K, Rizzolatti G, Freund H-J (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13: 400–405Google Scholar
  14. Buss DM (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12: 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cioni M, Richards CL, Malouin F, Bedard PJ, Lemieux R (1997) Characteristics of the electromyographic patterns of lower limb muscles during gait in patients with Parkinson’s disease when OFF and ON L-Dopa treatment. Ital J Neurol Sci 18: 195–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Wu CH, Barbee AP, Druen PB (1995) Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. J Personality Social Psychol 68: 261–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham MR, Druen PB, Barbee AP (1997) Angels, mentors and friends: trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance. In: Simpson JA, Kenrick DT (eds) Evolutionary social psychology. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 109–140Google Scholar
  18. Cutting JE, Kozlowski LT (1977) Recognizing friends by their walk: gait perception without familiarity cues. Bull Psychonomic Soc 9: 353–356Google Scholar
  19. Cutting JE, Proffitt DR, Kozlowski LT (1978) A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. J Exp Psychol Human Perception Performance 4: 357–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dabbs JM (2000) Heroes, rogues, and lovers. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Darwin C (1872) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London DePaulo B (1992) Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychol Bull 111 (2): 203–243Google Scholar
  22. Dion KK, Berscheid E, Walster E (1972) What is beautiful is good. J Personality Social Psychol 24: 285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dittrich WH, Troscianko T, Lea SE, Morgan D (1996) Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception 25: 727–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ekman P (1986) Telling lies. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellison PT (1999) Reproductive ecology and reproductive cancers. In: Panter-Brick C, Worthman C (eds) Hormones, health and behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 184–209Google Scholar
  26. Ellison PT (2001) On fertile ground: a natural history of human reproduction. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  27. Enquist M, Arak A (1994) Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372:169–172 Erikson E (1968) Identity: youth and crisis. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Etcoff NL (1994) Beauty and the beholder. Nature 368: 186–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farkas LA, Munro IR (1987) Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  30. Fink B, Grammer K, Thornhill R (2001) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. J Comp Psychol 115 (1): 92–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedman HS, Riggio RE, Casella DF (1988) Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, and initial attraction. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 14 (1): 203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gallese V, Goldman A (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cognitive Sci 2: 493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G (1996) Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain 119: 593–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. George PA, Graham JH (2000) The role of spatial and surface cues in the age-processing of unfamiliar faces. Visual Cognition 7: 485–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grammer K, Thornhill R (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108: 233–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grammer K, Fieder M, Filova V (1997) The communication paradox and possible solutions. In: Schmitt A, Atzwanger K, Grammer K, Schäfer K (eds) New aspects of human ethology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 91–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grammer K, Honda R, Juette A, Schmitt A (1999) Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship com- munication: unblurred by automatic movie analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 77 (3): 487–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grammer K, Fink B, Juette A, Ronzal G, Thornhill R (2002) Female faces and bodies: N-dimensional feature space and attractiveness. In: Rhodes G, Zebrowitz L (eds) Advances in visual cognition, vol 1: facial attractiveness–evolutionary, cognitive, cultural and motivational perspectives. Ablex, Westport, CT, pp 91–125Google Scholar
  39. Halberstadt J, Rhodes G (2000) The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychol Sci 11:285–289 Hall ET ( 1966 ) The hidden dimension. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Hampson E, Kimura D (1988) Reciprocal effects of hormonal fluctuations on human motor and perceptual-spatial skills. Behav Neurosci 102: 456–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henss R (1992) “Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand…” Geschlecht, Alter und physische Attraktivität (“Mirror, mirror on the wall…” Sex, age, and physical attractiveness). Psychologie Verlags Union, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  42. Hurst HE (1951) Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 116: 770–799Google Scholar
  43. Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Brass M, Bekkering H, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (1999) Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science 286: 2526–2528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jöchle W (1973) Coitus induced ovulation. Contraception 7: 523–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model of its analysis. Perception Psychophys 14: 201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnston FE (1998) Morphology. In: Ulijaszek SJ, Johnston FE, Preece MA (eds) The Cambridge encyclopedia of human growth and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–195Google Scholar
  47. Johnstone RA (1994) Female preferences for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372: 172–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones DA, Round JM (1998) Human skeletal muscle across lifespan. In: Ulijaszek SJ, Johnston FE, Preece MA (eds) The Cambridge encyclopedia of human growth and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 202–205Google Scholar
  49. Lander K, Christie F, Bruce V (1999) The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces. Mem Cognition 27: 974–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Larrance DT, Zuckerman N (1981) Facial attractiveness and vocal likeability as determinants of nonverbal sending skills. J Pers 49 (4): 349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lerner RM, Orlos JB, Knapp JR (1976) Physical attractiveness, physical effectiveness, and self-concept in late adolescents. Adolescence 11 (43): 313–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Manning JT, Pickup LJ (1998) Symmetry and performance in middle distance runners. Int J Sports Med 19 (3): 205–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Manning JT, Taylor RP (2001) Second to fourth digit ratio and male ability in sport: implications for sexual selection in humans. Evol Human Behav 22 (1): 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moller AP (1998) Developmental instability as a general measure of stress. Adv Stud Behav 27: 181–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32: 167–176Google Scholar
  56. Moller AP, Sanotra GS, Vestergaard KS (1999) Developmental instability and light regime in chickens (Gallus gallus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 62: 57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Montepare JM, Zebrowitz M, McArthur L (1988) Impressions of people created by age-related qualities of their gaits. J Pers Soc Psychol 55: 547–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morris D (1967) The naked ape: a zoologist’s study of the human animal. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Toole A, Edelman S, Buelthoff HH (1998) Stimulus specific effects in face recognition over changes in viewpoint. Vision Res 38: 2351–2363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Toole A, Vetter T, Blanz V (1999) Three-dimensional shape and two-dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: an application of three-dimensional morphing. Vision Res 39: 3145–3155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perrett DI, May KA, Yoshikawa S (1994) Facial shape and judgement of female attractiveness. Nature 386: 239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Riggio RE, Friedman HS (1986) Impression formation: the role of expressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 50 (2): 421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Gallese V, Fogassi L (1996) Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Res 3: 131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sabatelli RM, Rubin M (1986) Nonverbal expressiveness and physical attractiveness as mediators of interpersonal perceptions. J Nonverbal Behav 10: 120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (1999) Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 266: 1913–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmitt A, Atzwanger K (1995) Walking fast: ranking high: a sociobiological perspective on pace. Ethol Sociobiol 16: 451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stenn PG, Klinge V (1972) Relationship between the menstrual cycle and bodily activity in humans. Hormones Behav 3: 297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stevenage SV, Nixon MS, Vince K (1999) Visual analysis of gait as a cue to identity. Appl Cognitive Psychol 13: 513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Symons D (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  70. Symons D (1995) Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In: Abramson PR, Pinker SD (eds) Sexual nature/sexual culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 80–118Google Scholar
  71. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1993) Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nat 4: 237–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends Cognitive Sci 3: 452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thornhill R, Grammer K (1999) The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Human Behav 20: 105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thornhill R, Moller AP (1997) Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev 72: 497–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Troost JM (1998) Empirical studies in color constancy. In: Walsh V, Kulikowski J (eds) Perceptual constancy. Why things look as they do. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 262–282Google Scholar
  76. Waibel A, Hanazawa T, Hinton G, Shikano K, Lang K (1989) “Phoneme recognition using time-delay neural networks;’ IEEE Trans Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing 37 (3): 328–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walbott HG (1982) Bewegungsstil and Bewegungsqualität: Untersuchungen zum Ausdruck and Eindruck gestischen Verhaltens. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  78. Williams JHG, Whiten A, Suddendorf T, Perrett DI (2001) Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25: 287–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Witte H, Preuschoft H, Recknagel S (1991) Human body proportions explained on the basis of biomechanical principles. Z Morphol Anthropol 78 (3): 407–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection–a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53: 205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Grammer
  • Viktoria Keki
  • Beate Striebel
  • Michaela Atzmüller
  • Bernhard Fink

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations