Normality vs. abnormality
8.5 What Are the Key Factors?
172 All in the Mind: Psychology for the Curious
Before and after puberty, body shape differences between men and women are negligible and only during early reproductive life is there maximal differentiation. This is brought about by the active sex hor-mones during and after puberty, which influence the anatomical distri-bution of adipose tissue. In women, estrogen stimulates fat cells to accumulate in the buttocks and thighs, and inhibits accumulation in the abdominal region.
By contrast, testosterone in men maximally stimulates accumulation of fat cells in the abdominal region and inhibits fat deposits in the thighs and buttocks. These differences produce gynoid and android fat distri-bution respectively, which in turn can be measured by the WHR (the ratio between the circumference of the waist and the circumference of the hips).
An important part of Singh’s evolutionary predictions is the finding that the WHR is related to a variety of life outcomes. Susceptibility to various major physical diseases and psychological disorders is conveyed by the size of the WHR. In addition, Singh points out that the WHR signals all conditions that affect women’s reproductive status. For example, in his summary of this research, Singh (1993) argues that the probability of successful pregnancy induction is affected by the WHR and that married women with higher WHRs have more difficulty becoming pregnant.
For Singh, the main problem facing our hunter‐gatherer ancestors in evolutionary history was the identification of mate value. Over evolution-ary time, therefore, perceptual mechanisms were selected in men to detect and use information conveyed by the WHR in determining a woman’s potential as a mate. To investigate, Singh developed a set of two‐dimensional line drawings of the female figure, which were systematically varied with respect to overall body weight and the WHR. In a series of experiments, Singh reported that low WHRs (indicative of curvaceousness) were judged as the most attractive.
For Singh, the WHR acts as a wide first‐pass filter, which serves to exclude women who are unhealthy or who have low reproductive capac-ity. It is only after this culturally invariant filter is passed that other fea-tures, such as the face, skin or weight, become utilized in mate selection.
The filter is culturally invariant or universal to all men because it was an adaptive assessment of female mate value for all males in the environment of evolutionary adaptation. Singh’s studies have been replicated in a whole host of (industrialized) countries, with the similarity of results being taken as evidence for the universal nature of WHR as a signal for mate selection.
2. Body weight
At first glance, this appears to be an excellent example of evolutionary psychology in action: Singh goes beyond lay beliefs by predicting that the WHR will be the primary attribute of physical attraction regardless of the cultural setting. Yet in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that this is not the whole story. Some researchers have argued, for example, that Singh’s findings are the result of an artifact in the experimental design. Tovée, Hancock, Mahmoodi, Singleton, and Cornelissen (2002) pointed out that Singh’s line drawings varied WHR within each weight category by altering the width of the torso. This changes not only the WHR of the stimuli but also the apparent body weight (measured as BMI, or weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). The stimuli thus confound WHR differences with changes in BMI and so the apparent preference for a WHR of 0.70 could simply be a preference for slim body shape.
Indeed, a growing body of literature has explored the relative contribu-tions of WHR and BMI to judgments of female physical attractiveness, and these generally find that WHR is a weaker predictor of ratings. Most of these studies have used technologically advanced sets of stimuli (e.g., photographic and three‐dimensional images), and typically find that the effect sizes of BMI and WHR in attractiveness ratings are vastly different:
Variation in BMI almost always accounts for more than 70% of the variance, whereas WHR accounts for less than BMI.
Yet others have questioned the universal nature of preferences for low WHRs. Several studies among hunter‐gatherer tribes have found that they generally prefer high over low WHRs, and in any case body weight is a better predictor of attractiveness ratings (Wetsman & Marlowe, 1999).
Among the Matsigenka of Peru, for example, Yu and Shepard (1999) found that an isolated group ranked line drawings first by weight (high preferred to low) and only then high WHR over low WHR, diametrically opposed to findings in industrial societies.
What, then, should we make of the WHR and attractiveness? One pos-sibility is that the WHR affects attractiveness ratings only indirectly. Recent research has highlighted the possibility that the WHR is used to make social judgments about gender. In other words, the WHR seems to be involved in differentiating men from women, or pregnant from non‐
pregnant women. Moreover, the WHR is strongly linked with perceived femininity, and to the extent that femininity is associated with female attractiveness, women with sex‐typical WHRs should be considered highly attractive.
174 All in the Mind: Psychology for the Curious
Within this paradigm, there is room for both evolutionary and socialization explanations. Underlying biology may direct a preference for WHRs that are sex‐typical, but culture and learning may influence proximate prefer-ences more strongly. Indeed, there is now a greater recognition that evo-lutionary psychological models of attraction are altogether too one‐sided.
Accepted uncritically, most evolutionary psychological theories degener-ate into absurd, misogynist claims that serve to perpetudegener-ate prejudices and discrimination (e.g., the idea that men occupy positions of power in soci-ety because it is “natural” or the idea that men have mental modules that direct them to rape under appropriate circumstances). At a more basic level, most contemporary researchers are keen to emphasize learned and experiential components of attraction alongside possible evolutionary preferences. That is, culture and biology should be seen as working together and not in isolation.
3. Temporal and situational factors
Recent studies have further highlighted temporal and situational factors that may affect interpersonal attraction. Some studies have shown that feelings of resource scarcity can affect preferences, with hungry partici-pants judging slightly heavier potential partners as more attractive than satiated participants. Importantly, this finding mirrors patterns of cultural differences in preferences for body weight.
Just as hungry participants within a particular culture prefer a slightly heavier potential partner, so relatively poorer cultures idealize heavier body weights than relatively socioeconomically developed societies. It is likely that the subjective experience of resource deprivation (such as hunger) provides implicit cues about collective resources in a society, and that people use these cues to construct their preferences.
Through participation in socioculturally specific processes and practices, individuals come to have an understanding and a feeling of what is ideal, for example with regards to idealized body weights. Individuals who share similar beliefs interact in social episodes in local worlds, and these interac-tions (along with cultural instituinterac-tions) shape the individual’s psychological experience. Thus, what is desirable in a particular socioeconomic context appears desirable in the eyes of individuals, and what is culturally meaning-ful becomes meaningmeaning-ful to these individuals. As a consequence, the cultural values are internalized and represented in individual psychological tenden-cies, and they are used by individuals to guide their actions and preferences.
It is possible to reconcile such findings with some evolutionary theories.
For instance, the finding that hunger affects judgments of attractiveness in
predictable ways suggests strongly that there exist proximate mechanisms influencing attraction at the individual level. At the same time, such mech-anisms may be shaped by evolutionary factors. One possibility is that in times of hardship or prolonged resource scarcity, we should be attracted to features that index environmental security. Because only people with resources will be able to put on body fat during times of scarcity, it makes sense to prefer slightly heavier potential partners. This is why almost all cultures have or had ideals of attraction that emphasized heavier or plump bodies.
Such a model relies on the interplay between evolutionary, sociocultural, and individual mechanisms, and has the advantage of not privileging one aspect of human nature (the biological) over another (the sociocultural).
A comprehensive understanding of any particular psychological tendency, such as judgments of body weight, requires some analysis of the collective reality of which that tendency is a constituent part. The collective reality that grounds and affords this psychological tendency includes human evolutionary history as well as socioculturally and historically rooted ideas and values, institutions, and social practices, which reflect and promote these ideas and values. Moreover, it will include a web of everyday social interactions, which represent and promote these ideas.
4. Individual differences
Just as investigations of preferences for body weight have highlighted vari-ability across cultures, it is also likely that there exist individual differences in ratings of attractiveness within cultures. This suggests that it is impor-tant to understand the social nature of attraction. Although we may decide that human evolutionary history has had profound effects in shaping human nature, behaviors such as partner selection and mating strategies must ultimately be explained proximately.
One important social factor that may moderate physical attraction is reciprocity, that is, we like those who like us, and dislike those who dislike us. In a classic study conducted in the mid‐1950s, Dittes and Kelley (1956) had participants join a small discussion group. During the discus-sion, they led participants to believe that other group members either liked or disliked them. They found that participants who believed they were liked were more attracted to the group than those who believed they were disliked.
However, various factors may mediate the relationship between reciprocity and liking, including individual attachment styles or the self‐
esteem of the observers. For example, Dittes (1959) carried out another group experiment in which participants were classified as having high
176 All in the Mind: Psychology for the Curious
or low self‐esteem. Participants were then placed either in a satisfying condition (the group’s behavior toward them was positive) or a frustrating condition (negative group behavior). For participants who were low in self‐esteem, attraction to the group depended on how the group behaved.
By contrast, for those high in self‐esteem, the difference in attraction was not significant, suggesting that for people with high self‐esteem, liking is not affected by acceptance or rejection.
The effects of reciprocity can also interact with the nature of the situ-ation. In some situations, we may highly value praise from another per-son; in other situations, we realize that he or she has an ulterior motive in praising us, and so praise does not elicit liking. We also attach greater value to praise from strangers than from our friends and family, from whom we expect praise. The pattern in which the praise is received is also influential. An interesting example is the gain–loss hypothesis: We tend to like most those who initially dislike us but then warm to us, and we dislike most those people who like us initially but then turn cold. An explanation for this effect is that it involves anxiety reduction. When we experience rejection, our anxiety rises, but when rejection changes to acceptance, the anxiety is reduced so that we experience the pleasure of being liked.
5. Proximity and similarity
Most theories of attraction focus on physical characteristics of the observed, such as their body weight. But non‐physical attributes can also play an important mediating role in determining who is, and who is not, consid-ered physically attractive. One possibility is that the personality of the observed individual determines our attraction: We perceive as more physi-cally attractive people who we know have a cheerful or warm personality.
This highlights yet another aspect of interpersonal attraction, namely the social interactions that take place between individuals which lead to relationships.
Two key factors that are known to affect attractiveness ratings of people we know are proximity (or propinquity) and similarity. Though it may seem obvious, the physical proximity of one person to another is a potent facilitator of attractiveness. In a famous study of a housing complex, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) found participants had more friends who were living on the same floor as them, rather than on other floors or in other buildings. Even within the same floor, participants were more likely to be friends with their next‐door neighbor than they were with someone at the end of the corridor.
Moreover, proximity allows other factors to come into play in determining interpersonal attraction, such as familiarity. Proximity generally leads to repeated exposure and greater familiarity, and therefore more liking.
Familiarity enhances liking as a part of a more general effect in which repetitive presentation of stimuli increases liking for them. The familiarity effect also extends to the faces of strangers, which are judged as more liked and more attractive when they are seen more often. In contrast, when something familiar seems different, people feel uncomfortable. For example, people do not usually like mirror reversals of photos of their own or others’ faces.
Another social factor that moderates attractiveness is similarity of atti-tudes or values. It is often said that opposites attract, but within the psychological literature there is very little evidence for this complemen-tarity view. Rather, the evidence suggests that people who are evenly matched in their physical appearance, social background, and personality are more likely to be attracted to one another. Studies of long‐term rela-tionships have confirmed that at the time of initial testing, partners are similar in a number of aspects such as age and education. Over time, partners become even more similar on measures of mental abilities and attitudes.
But similarity in attitudes can also work in different ways. In another classic study, Newcomb (1961) gave students rent‐free accommoda-tion in return for filling in quesaccommoda-tionnaires about their attitudes and values. The first questionnaires were filled in before students arrived at the university. Over the course of the semester, attraction between students and attitude changes were measured, and the results showed that in the first few weeks, attraction was related to proximity. However, as the semester progressed, attraction related most closely to similarity of pre‐
acquaintance attitudes.
Such studies led to the formulation of a law of attraction, which argued that attraction toward a person bears a linear relationship to the propor-tion of attitudes associated with that person. But the law is intended to be more generally applicable than just to attitudes in common between two people. Anything that other people do that agrees with your perception of things is reinforcing. The more other people agree, the more reinforcing they are and the more you are attracted to them. Conversely, differences in attitudes and interests can lead to dislike and avoidance. One possible explanation for this is that the recognition that we like something that someone else does not is a cognitively imbalanced state that makes us feel uncomfortable. One way to resolve this is by deciding that we do not like that person, thus re‐establishing cognitive consistency.
178 All in the Mind: Psychology for the Curious