Contents

• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Limitations

Introduction

• Males prefer females with a low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR)
  • An indication of health and fertility
  • A biological characteristic
  • A psychological mechanism of responding to exaggerated features

Introduction

• A cross-cultural preference for low WHR
  • In different populations: Caucasians, Hispanics, Indonesians, and Kenyans
• WHR preferences differ between cultures
  • Local ecology (e.g., the amount of food)
  • Cultural transmission

Introduction

• The role of visual input in the preference for low WHR
  • Visual learning: the feature of low WHR
  • Children’s observation
  • The influence of Western media

Introduction

• What about congenitally blind men?
  • Lack the preference for low WHR (no visual experience)
  • Have a less pronounced preference for low WHR than sighted men
  • Exhibit a preference for low WHR as strong as their sighted counterparts

Methods

• Participants and design
  • 19 congenitally blind men (27-72 years old, M_age = 46.5, SD = 14.43)
    • 2 were excluded from data analysis
  • 38 sighted men were randomly assigned
    • 19 in the sighted condition (23-69 years old, M_age = 45.4, SD = 14.90)
    • 19 in the blindfolded condition (25-68 years old, M_age = 44.5, SD = 14.75)

Methods

• Procedure and materials
  • The experiment was conducted inside a van
  • Two female mannequin dolls
    • Identical in dressing, differ in WHR (0.70 and 0.84)
    • Similar volumes
    • BMI is a irrelavant variable

Methods

• Procedure and materials
  • Why 0.70 and 0.84 for WHRs?
    • In Western populations, attractiveness ratings generally peak at around 0.70
    • Average female WHRs in Western populations range from 0.76 up to 0.84
    • Pilot study: normal range

Methods

• Procedure and materials
  • The blind participants inspected the body and rated the attractiveness
    • The grade ranges from 1 to 10, with 10 representing very attractive and 1 very unattractive
  • Participants in the sighted condition
    • Looked at the bodies and rate their attractiveness

Methods

• Procedure and materials
  • Participants in the blindfolded condition
    • The same procedure as the blind participants

Results

• ANOVA
  • The within-participants variable: the ratings for the two bodies with the different WHRs (0.70 and 0.84)
  • Between-participants variables: group (blind, sighted, and blindfolded) and order of rating (first 0.70 versus first 0.84)

Results

• ANOVA
  • A significant main effect of WHR (participants overall preferred a lower WHR)
  • No other significant effects (main effects of group, interactions of WHR with group, WHR with order, and the The three-way interaction between WHR, order, and group)

Results

• Paired t tests within each group: significant effects of WHR

  • Blind group, d = 0.68
  • Sighted group, d = 1.33
  • Blindfolded group, d = 0.54

Results

Discussion

• Visual input is not necessary for low WHR preferences
• Visual input may have strengthened this preference among sighted men
• Why do blind men develop a preference for low WHRs?
  • Verbal information
  • Generic psychological mechanisms / Prototypical stimuli
  • Intrinsic factors

Limitations

• Not feasible to examine preferences of blind and sighted men for a larger number of WHRs
• Did not systematically manipulate some variables
  • Hip size, waist size, and weight

Thank you for your listening!