SGP03

44 %
56 %
Information about SGP03
Education

Published on February 28, 2008

Author: Silvestre

Source: authorstream.com

Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies :  Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten Special thanks to Simon Baumgartner who prepared the stimuli and collected the data Introduction:  Introduction Langlois and Roggman (1980) proposed that averageness of faces is attractive (cf. Galton, 1878). In contrast, humans may prefer extremes instead of averageness at least for body shapes (Baerends, 1982; cf. Perret et al., 1994). We examined how averageness and exaggeration influence the perceptual attractiveness of human bodies. Method (1):  Method (1) Definition of the stimuli Slide4:  Using two bodies Slide5:  Defining 520 corresponding dots Slide6:  Morphing... Method (2):  Method (2) Using the average of 16 female and 16 male bodies, respectively, we compared these prototypes with the most attractive individual body and different composites. Method (3):  Method (3) N=40 subjects judged these stimuli in individual sessions using a rating scale as well as a forced-choice rating. In addition, the experiment was replicated with N=39 subjects using an online experiment (cf. http://wl12www671.webland.ch/). All 4 experiments showed the same results: Slide10:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Results Slide11:  The superstimulus - i.e. the composite of the 4 most attractive bodies (4+) - was judged significantly more attractive than the most attractive individual body (and all composites). Individual 4+ Individual 4+ Slide12:  There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4+ composite being judged significantly more attractive than the 8+ composite which in turn was significantly more attractive than the prototype (average of 16). Slide13:  There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4- composite being judged significantly less attractive than the prototype (average of 16). Discussion (1):  Discussion (1) These preferences indicate that average values of features (or the overall configuration) as well as above-average of "good" features are both attractive (cf. Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996); below-average of "bad" features (like waist-to-hip ratio) are unattractive (cf. Tovée et al. 1999). Slide15:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Judgement = Baseline + symmetry (overall configuration) plus/minus „good“ or „bad“ features Slide16:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Superstimulus 4+: Add +1 for symmetry and +1 for „good“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline + 1 + 1 Slide17:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Most unattractive 4-: Add 1 for symmetry and –1 for „bad“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline + 1 - 1 Slide18:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Individual most attractive: Add zero for symmetry and +1 for „good“ features (like waist-to-hip ratio) = Baseline plus 1 Slide19:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Prototype (16+): Add +1 for symmetry and 1/3 for „good“ features: Baseline + 1 + 1/3 Slide20:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Exaggerated 8+: Add 1 for symmetry and +2/3 for „good“ features = Baseline plus 1 plus 2/3 Slide21:  4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ 4- 1 Ø 8+ 4+ Superstimulus 4+: Add 1 for symmetry and 1 for „good“ features = Baseline plus 1 plus 1 Discussion (2):  Discussion (2) The prediction of attractiveness for faces and human bodies is very similar and this seems to indicate that a prototype explanation of facial attractiveness is also misleaded. The post-hoc description should be tested: Judgement = Baseline plus symmetry (overall configuration) plus/minus „good“ or „bad“ features Slide23:  References Baumgartner, S. (2003). Körperformen und die Beurteilung weiblicher und männlicher Attraktivität. Unpublished master’s thesis at the Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Switzerland. Barends, G.P. (1982). Supernormality. Behaviour, 82, 358-363. Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits. Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain. Langlois, J.H. & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121. Perret, D.I., May, K.A. & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239-242. Rhodes, G. & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 7, 2, 105-110. Tovée, M.J., Maisey, D.S., Emery, J.L., & Cornellissen, P.L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 266, 211-218. Slide24:  Abstract: Averageness, exaggeration, and attractiveness of human bodies Bernd Kersten, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Muesmattstr. 45, 3009 Bern[1] Langlois and Roggman (1980) proposed that averageness of faces is attractive (cf. Galton, 1878). In contrast, humans may prefer extremes instead of averageness at least for body shapes (Baerends, 1982 cf. Perret et al., 1994). We examined how averageness and exaggeration influences the perceptual attractiveness of human bodies. Using the average of 16 female and 16 male bodies, respectively, we compared these prototypes with the most attractive individual body and different composites. N=40 subjects judged the stimuli in individual sessions using a rating scale as well as a forced-choice rating. In addition, the experiment was replicated with N=39 subjects using an online experiment (cf. http://wl12www671.webland.ch/). The superstimulus - i.e. the composite of the 4 most attractive bodies (4+) - was judged significantly more attractive than the most attractive individual body and all composites (see fig., below). There was a significant main effect of exaggeration, with the 4+ composite being judged significantly more attractive than the 8+ composite which in turn were significantly more attractive than the prototype and the composite of the 4 unattractive bodies - which were significantly less attractive than all other stimuli. These preferences indicate that average values of features (or the overall configuration) as well as above-average of "good" features are both attractive (cf. Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996); below-average of "bad" features (like waist-to-hip ratio) are unattractive (cf. Tovée et al. 1999). The prediction of attractiveness for faces and human bodies is very similar and this seems to indicate that a prototype explanation of facial attractiveness is misleaded.   key words attractiveness, prototype, beauty

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

SGP 2016 Berlin - Home - Geometry Summit

Symposium on Geometry Processing 2016. Find the proceedings of SGP 2016 here. The Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP) is the premier venue ...
Read more

A Geometric Database for Gene Expression Data

@inproceedings {SGP:SGP03:166-176, booktitle = {Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing}, editor = {Leif Kobbelt and Peter Schroeder and Hugues Hoppe},
Read more

Spakct SGP03 Half Finger Handschuh - amazon.de

Spakct SGP03 Half Finger Handschuh - S Amazon.de/Sport & Freizeit - Große Auswahl an Sport & Freizeit zu günstigen Preisen.
Read more

SGP03 - Geocaching

There are millions of geocaches worldwide and probably even some near you right now. Visit Geocaching.com to see just how many geocaches are nearby and to ...
Read more

SGP03-3 - Zhe Jiang Singi Electric L L C

Product Description: 4“ Octagon plastic box,2-1/8” deepth, with Bar Hanger,adjust From 14-1/2” To 22-1/2”,with 4 TKO side, Two 1/2” KO bottom ...
Read more

Brotex. SGP03

SGP03 Sorb-Tex general purpose absorbent sock. 3" x 4' Perfect around machinery or under leaking valves to prevent leaks from spreading. Tough outer skin ...
Read more

SGP03-1 - Zhe Jiang Singi Electric L L C

Product Description: 4“ Octagon plastic box,2” deepth, with Fix bracket,4 CKO side, Material is PVC,ETL certification,Color is Black.
Read more

Guang-SPAKCT SGP03 Half Finger Fahrradhandschuhe ...

Guang-SPAKCT SGP03 Half Finger Fahrradhandschuhe (Lieferung Farbe und Größe) (XL) Amazon.de/Sport & Freizeit - Große Auswahl an Handschuhe zu günstigen ...
Read more

Smooth Geometry Images - diglib.eg.org

@inproceedings {SGP:SGP03:138-145, booktitle = {Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing}, editor = {Leif Kobbelt and Peter Schroeder and Hugues Hoppe},
Read more

www.holsted-speedway

F= Fald (Fall) T= Berøring af startsnor (Tape) M=Diskvalificeret for 2min. reglen R= Udgået af heat (Retired) N= Ikke started (No Start) D R Nat. 1 2 3 4 ...
Read more