WHR and Self Body Image
-
Upload
gloria-todd -
Category
Documents
-
view
49 -
download
0
description
Transcript of WHR and Self Body Image
![Page 1: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
WHR and Self Body Image
• Significant issues with body image
• Body shape role in mate choice
• Both sexes awareness of WHR issues
• Is WHR specifically involved in self body judgments?
![Page 2: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Joiner, Schmidt & Singh (1994)
• Depression
• Limited earlier work on WHR and body dissatisfaction
• Body dissatisfaction had been connected to depression, bulimia, eating disorder
![Page 3: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Subjects
• Undergraduates
• Questionnaires– Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
• BMI, WHR, anthropometric indicies
![Page 4: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Findings: Just WHR
• Low WHR corresponds to higher body dissatisfaction
• Agreement with Radke-Sharpe et al. (1990)– Large hips and buttocks --> higher body
dissatisfaction
![Page 5: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Findings: Interaction• WHR x BDI x Gender interaction
• Body dissatisfaction more complicated
![Page 6: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Cognitive Theories of Depression
• Depressive distortion– Misrepresent own self shape
• Depressive realism– Better/more accurate representation of self
shape
![Page 7: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Sexual Dimorphism Identification
• Results fit better with depressive realism
• Depressed people better at perceiving the reality of what their WHRs convey
• Depressed males will be dissatisfied with low WHRs (more gynoid)
• Depressed females will be more dissatisfied with high WHRs (more android)
![Page 8: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
WHR as Adaptation
• Additional evidence for WHR playing role in mate choice for some time
• Involvement with other psychological constructs
![Page 9: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Focused Attention
• Individuals can identify desired sexually selected characteristics in others and self
• Predict that you would draw attention to traits if beneficial
![Page 10: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Singh & Bronstad (1997)
• Body scarification
• Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS)– 186 societies– Assess pathogen prevalence, polygyny, degree
and location of body scarification in population– Can’t be used to determine individual specifics
![Page 11: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Sex. Selection & Parasites
• Positive correlations between amount of societal scarification and pathogen prevalence
• Females more likely to scarify their stomachs and breasts at higher pathogen levels
![Page 12: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It…
• High pathogen levels --> overall reduction in potential mates
• Much more important to select genotypically fit, healthy mates
• Scarification of sexually dimorphic secondary sexual traits draws attention to them
• Highlights fitness
![Page 14: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
www.ezakwantu.com/Scarifacation%20Abdoman%2002.jpgwww.ezakwantu.com/Scarifacation%20Abdoman%2011.jpgwww.ezakwantu.com/Scarification%20Face%2006.jpg
![Page 15: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Navel Gazing
• Female scarification of stomach fits with WHR interpretation
• Navel is indicator of natural waistline• Woman who draws attention to desired WHR may
gain attention of higher quality males• Other non-scarification ornamentation used to
similar purpose– Corsets, belts, shawls, etc.
![Page 16: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Henss (1995)• Replicated and expanded Singh’s studies• Methodology changes• Between subjects design
– Avoid demand characteristics– Each subject only saw and evaluated one figure
• Big Five personality factors– Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, intellect
• In all, 51 criteria subjects are assessing on• 72 males, 72 females, Germany
![Page 17: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Agreement with Singh
• Effects of body weight are considerably stronger than those of body shape
• Underweight and normal rated more attractive
• Overweight least attractive, but most emotionally stable, family oriented, agreeable, and conscientious
![Page 18: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Differences from Singh
• WHR 0.8 most attractive (then 0.7)
• Underweight more attractive than normal weight
![Page 19: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Attractiveness
• Singh: “attractive” and “sexy”
• Henss: weighted composite of 51 scales– Ran collapsed analysis of 15 scales– Still U>N>O, whereas Singh had N>U>O, but
closer
• May also be a difference in the within- vs. between-subject design
![Page 20: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Overall
• General agreement with Singh’s findings
• Some quibbling over particulars
• Body weight and body shape being used in attractiveness judgments
![Page 21: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Furnham, Tan & McManus (1997)
• Singh’s ranked data strictly non-parametric; parametric data more powerful
• Used ratings (7 pt. Likert scale) instead of ranking
• Participants judged all figures; within-subject
• British subjects
![Page 22: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Broad Results
• Attractiveness: N>U>O
• Healthiness: N>O>U
• Youthfulness: U>N>O
• Overall, WHRs of 0.7 or 0.8 rated most favourably for all factors, regardless of weight
![Page 23: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Compare and Contrast
• Unlike Henss (1995), but like Singh, none of the underweight figures considered most attractive
• Normal weight figures rated highest for everything but youthfulness
• Across weights, high WHRs rated unattractive, unhealthy, and unyouthful
• Like Henss, WHR of 0.8 rated most attractive
![Page 24: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Contribution
• Generally agrees with Singh
• Along with Henss, identifying body weight as more significant than body shape in judgments
• Still arguing for WHR as adaptive trait in mate choice
• Is it first-pass filter, though?
![Page 25: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Universiality?
• By 1997 still general support for WHR
• American (Caucasian, Mexican, Black), Indonesian, German, British subjects sampled
• But what about non-industrialized?
![Page 26: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Yu & Shepard (1998)
• Yomybato: Matsigenka indigenous people in Manu Park, Peru– Slash and burn agriculture, hunting and gathering– About 300 people in population– Extremely non-Westernized
• Shipetiari: Matsigenka people living outside Manu Park– More exposed to Western culture
• Alto Madre: ethnically mixed population of Amarakaeri, Huachipaeri, and Piro– Even more Westernized
![Page 27: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Method
• Singh’s figures
• Used U7, N7, O7 and U9, N9, O9 figures
• Males asked to rank figures from most to least for beauty, health, and marriage preference
![Page 28: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Results
• Yomybato and Shipetiari– Grouped figures by weight first, then WHR– Preferred overweight figures– High WHR more healthy
• Shipetiari– Low WHR figures more attractive and desirable as
spouses– Didn’t consider healthiest to be most attractive or
desirable– “…suggesting that WHR preferences may be changing.”
(321)
![Page 29: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
• Alto Madre– Didn’t differ significantly from American
judgments– Grouped figures by WHR first, then weight– N7 generally ranked highest– Low WHR figures always ranked higher than
high WHR figures
![Page 30: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Nurturist Account• Argue that Singh’s results are due to
Western media• Least Westernized of tribal peoples showed
most difference from American population• “…many ‘cross-cultural’ tests in
evolutionary psychology may have only reflected the pervasiveness of western media.” (322)
• But, no explanation of why Western media would favour low WHRs
![Page 31: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
In Small Populations
• With small population sizes, limited mate choices– Few people, kinship, etc.
• Individuals would have detailed knowledge of health history of potential mates from long-term personal contact
• Physical features may take on secondary role in mate choice
![Page 32: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Wetsman & Marlowe (1999)
• Hadza of Tanzania• Mixed savanna, woodland environment• Small population of only 1000 individuals• 1/3 exclusively hunter/gatherer
– Only used males form this group for the study
• Hunger not uncommon, but no one can remember anyone ever starving
• No one obese
![Page 33: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Method
• U7, N7, O7 and U9, N9, O9
• Forced choice for attractiveness, health, preference for wife
• 75 men (18-68 years, mean 37)
• Also, American undergrads (24 subjects, mean age 21.2)
![Page 34: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Results
• American undergrads– Same pattern as Singh’s earlier studies
• Hadza– No significant preference based on WHRs– Used body weight– Strong preference for overweight, then normal,
than underweight for all criteria
![Page 35: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Environment Input
• Suggests WHR a second-pass filter, not first-pass
• Propose differing environmental input model
• Food scarcity determines hierarchy of selection
![Page 36: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
In Food Scarce Environments
• Best option is to use body weight• Survival first, reproduction second• If WHR used first, most attractive,
healthiest females may starve before reproducing or never achieve enough fat to be able to reproduce
• Even if higher weight conferred some health detriments, higher fat stores preferred– None of Hadza are obese
![Page 37: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
In Food Rich Environments
• Risk of starvation low
• WHR better predictor
• Here too much weight can compromise reproductive fitness
![Page 38: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Marlowe & Wetsman (2001)
• Hadza (and American) males
• Asked about: attractiveness, health, desirability for wife
• New set of figures• Did not vary in weight• Broader range of
WHRs
![Page 39: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Results
• Americans disliked WHR of 0.9 and 1.0 and also 0.4 and 0.5; general preference for WHRs around 0.7
• Hadza preferred higher WHRs (0.8, 0.9, 1.0 all ranked above 0.7)
![Page 40: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Concordances
• Measure of agreement among subjects
• Americans: greater concordances for attractiveness and desirability to marry
• Hadza: greater concordance for health
• For Hadza health determines desirability for marriage; for Americans it is attractiveness
![Page 41: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Confound
• Even with no weight variation, Hadza still preferring high WHR
• Artifact of preference for heavier women• BMI confounded with WHR in Singh’s
original figures and with current figures– Height is kept constant; as WHR increases from
0.4 to 1.0, so would weight in a real woman– Females with larger waists look heavier
![Page 42: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Theorizing
• Environmental differences
• Current fertility status
• Different female body shapes
![Page 43: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Environment
• Among foragers, thinness probably indicates poorer health (parasites)
• Women who are too thin are energetically stressed• Will interfere with reproduction• High energy demands on Hadza women• Prior to agriculture health-threatening obesity
probably very rare• Should have been preference for women with
more fat stores
![Page 44: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Developed Nations
• Propose agriculture led to more predictable and surplus food supply (at least for some)
• Risk of obesity increased
• Men developed preference for low BMIs (and WHRs)
![Page 45: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Fertility Status• Pregnant women have high WHR• Total fertility (TFR): average number of
children produced by a woman in a society• American TFR = 2.1; Hadza TFR = 6.2• High WHR (pregnant?)
– American: bad mate choice (probably only one more child with her)
– Hadza: not so bad (up to another 5.2 children)
• The lower the TFR the more men favoured for attending to signs of non-pregnancy
![Page 46: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Different Female Body Shapes
• Different populations of humans
• Geographical isolation; different phenotypic expressions; fat stores
• Health risks of 2D WHR presumed to correlate with “real WHR” measure in 3D
• But, two women can have same frontal WHRs, but different actual WHRs
![Page 47: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Marlowe, Apicella & Reed (2005)
• Actual WHR = measurement with tape measure
• Frontal WHR = 2D front view
• Profile WHR = 2D profile (side) view
• Frontal WHR doesn’t reflect buttock size and profile WHR doesn’t reflect hips
• Actual WHR reflects both hips and buttocks
![Page 48: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
An Assumption
• If relative contributions of hips and buttocks to actual WHR didn’t vary in women cross-culturally, then frontal WHR would suffice
• Does it?• Er… probably not• Need a new stimulus set to test• Use Hadza and Americans again; attractive,
healthy, wife
![Page 49: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Theoretical Preference
• For actual WHR
• Based on study preferences
• Weighted the profile WHR 0.7 times that of frontal WHR
• Theoretically preferred actual WHR = [(preferred frontal x1.0) + (preferred profile x 0.7)] / 1.7
![Page 51: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Results
• Statistically analyzed men’s first choice preference of five figures for three criteria
• Hadza profile WHR selection significantly lower than Americans for all three criteria
• Prefer more protruding buttocks than Americans
![Page 52: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
![Page 53: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Outcomes
• Americans: preferred frontal WHR = 0.7 and profile WHR = 0.65
• Hadza: preferred frontal WHR = 0.9 and profile WHR = 0.6
• Use equation for theoretically preferred actual WHRs
• Americans: 0.68• Hadza: 0.78
![Page 54: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Actual Hadza WHR Measurements
• Mean actual WHR– Aged 17-82 = 0.83– Aged 17-24 = 0.79
• Bit higher than other populations, but not the highest
• Non-agriculturalists typically have higher female WHRs
![Page 55: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
New Figures, Fuller Analysis
• Hadza and American men’s preferences for women’s actual WHRs not as different as previous two studies suggest
• Problem with just using frontal WHR
![Page 56: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Comparison
• Hazda women do have higher WHRs than American women
• Hadza, 17-24 years, WHR = 0.79
• American, 18-23, WHR = 0.73
• Why the difference? Some possibilities.
![Page 57: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Parity
• WHR does rise with parity (number children born)
• Hazda TFR=6.2, average age of first child = 19
• American TFR=2.1, average of first child = 25
![Page 58: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Diet
• Bulky, fibrous tubers significant in Hadza diet
• Require larger gut
• Humans aren’t ungulates…
![Page 59: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Physical Activity
• Foragers more energetically active
• May favour higher androgen levels, depositing more fat in abdomen
• Raises WHR
![Page 60: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Environmental Selection• High level foragers must be more efficient at
locomotion• Pelvis suited for locomotion not optimized for
childbirth• Evolutionary trade-off depending on environment• Less for women to forage in colder climates
– Further from the equator, the less women need to be optimized for locomotion
– Nearer equator, women contribute more resources to diet
• Possible male preferences map on to variation in females’ shape
![Page 61: WHR and Self Body Image](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56813407550346895d9afa12/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Age-Based Selection• WHR reaches trough shortly after menarche• Male preference for WHR may be age-based
preference for nubility• Maximization of RV• Actual WHR could vary across populations with
variation in population mean postmenarcheal WHR• Hadza males’ preference of 0.78 very close to young
females’ WHR of 0.79• American males’ preference of 0.68 close to WHR of
young university aged women’s WHR (0.72-0.73)