evolved adaptation
DESCRIPTION
Evolved Adaptation. Universal Non-socialized Practically speaking, cross-cultural demonstration. Societal Learning. Differences between Caucasian and Black Americans Generally, Blacks less negative with respect to higher weight Variety of studies through 1980s. A Few General Findings. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Evolved Adaptation
• Universal• Non-socialized• Practically speaking, cross-cultural
demonstration
![Page 2: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Societal Learning
• Differences between Caucasian and Black Americans
• Generally, Blacks less negative with respect to higher weight
• Variety of studies through 1980s
![Page 3: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A Few General Findings• Compared to whites, black women
– More tolerant of higher weight than whites (Rucker & Cash 1992)
– Less body image dissatisfaction and less likely to believe being thin equals being attractive (Thomas 1989)
• Black female teens have higher body satisfaction and feel less pressured to achieve thin ideal than whites (Rosen & Gross (1987)
• Black men less likely than white men to refuse to date an overweight woman (Harris et al. 1991)
![Page 4: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Ethnic Difference
• No studies had specifically demonstrated that black Americans idealized obesity
• But, taken together, blacks seem more tolerant of fat in attractiveness judgments
![Page 5: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Body Weight/Body Shape
• These studies focused strictly on body weight
• Female body shape determined by both amount of fat and its distribution
![Page 6: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Kate Russell Kate Moss Marilyn Monroe Twiggy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n8bWuUpexE0/SFzc_Bf30FI/AAAAAAAABBM/a5FcfzOaPy4/s400/jane_russell15.jpghttp://www.marinadelreyphotos.com/images/people%20gallery/images/TWIGGY%201966.jpghttp://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/marilyn-monroe-swimsuit.jpghttp://punchitin.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/kate-moss.jpg
WHR ~0.7
![Page 7: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
WHR Similarities• WHR measures puts both American blacks
and whites in the same sex-specific ranges– 0.8 and lower for females, 0.85 and higher for
males• Body weights may differ, but WHR
preferences may be similar for the ethnic groups
![Page 8: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Singh (1994)
• Identify male and female American black preferences for WHR and body weight using line drawings
• Compare with earlier findings
![Page 9: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Criteria
• Rank figures for a number of characteristics:– Good health; youthful appearance; attractiveness;
sexiness– Faithfulness– Desire for children; capability for having children– Ambitiousness and career drive; intelligence;
aggressiveness– Interesting to talk to; kindness & understanding; good
companion; sense of humour
![Page 10: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Analysis
• Ordinal data, so had to use nonmetric multidimensional scaling
• 12 figures and 15 attributes scaled into the same dimensional space
• Identifies attributes’ perceived similarity and degree of attributes’ association with individual figures
![Page 11: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Attributes’ Similarity
• All attributes closely associated except youthfulness, faithfulness, and kindness & understanding
• Don’t perceive youthfulness as closely linked to attractiveness, companionship, or desirability for along-term relationship
![Page 12: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Figures and Attributes
• For males, all attributes except youthfulness, faithfulness, and kindness & understanding associated with N7 figure
• Females the same, except they include N8 and N9 in grouping
• Neither males nor females grouped overweight figures with attributes of attractiveness, sexiness, companionship, and desirability for long-term relationship
![Page 13: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
WHR and Attractiveness
• Similar to earlier studies• Positive correlation for attractiveness rankings
based upon WHR• Males normal and underweight figures using
WHRs, but not for overweight (but all ranked low)• Females ranked normal and overweight figures
using WHRs• Neither sex have higher attractiveness rankings to
android range (0.9, 1.0) figures of any body weight
![Page 14: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
WHR and Long-term Relationship
• Males: used WHR for ranking normal and overweight figures
• Strongest preference for N7• If only body weight considered males
preferred normal figures the most and underweight the least
• Males did not associate youthfulness with long-term relationship, but females did
![Page 15: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
In General
• Subjects assigned attractiveness ranking using WHR within each body weight category
• Figures with similar body weight given lower ranking if they had higher WHR
• Overweight figures not associated with: attractiveness, sexiness, companionship, or desirability for long-term relationship
• But, overweight figures were linked to being desirous and capable of having children and being kind & understanding
![Page 16: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
In Support of Universal Trait
• Results very similar to those found for American whites in earlier studies
• Do not support belief that American black males find overweight females sexy and attractive
• Like whites, black males and females use rank figures similarly; use similar criteria to identify desired body shape
![Page 17: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
However…
• This study used American black college students
• Previous studies used American white college students
• Age, socioeconomics, education…
![Page 18: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Food Scarcity and Attractiveness Preferences
• Reports that cultures with food scarcity show preference for plumpness in females
• Distinction established between developing and developed countries
• Makes a certain amount of evolutionary sense
![Page 19: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Feast and Famine
• Adaptive preference• In times of plenty, store fat reserves• Utilize these in times of famine to maintain
pregnancy or nursing• Frisch (1990) showed critical threshold of
body fat required for onset and maintenance of ovulation
![Page 20: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Shape not Weight
• But difference between storage and reproductive fat
• Both storage and utilization of fats regulated by sex hormones
• Moderate degrees of obesity, scarcity of food, and climactic conditions do not significantly affect gynoid or android shape
![Page 21: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Cross-Cultural WHR Variation
• Generally, within similar range and show non-overlapping sexual dimorphism
• Average WHRs
Male FemaleAmerican blacks 0.84 0.75American whites 0.82 0.73Mexican-Americans 0.94 0.84Moost (Mongolia) 0.85 0.76
![Page 22: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Evolved Preference
• In regions with food scarcity• Adaptive preference for fatter than slimmer
women• Not a preference for women with android
body shape• Gynoid fat distribution maintained• In regions without food scarcity, gynoid
shape itself may be of greater significance
![Page 23: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Singh & Luis (1995)
• Used young Indonesian men and women as subjects– Indonesia interpreted as being more of a
“developing” country than America• Rank standard set of figures (different
weights, WHRs) with a series of personal attributes
• Want to get non-American data set
![Page 24: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Subjects• Trying to minimize cultural “contamination”• 17-25 years• Attending University of Texas• Had been in America 4-59 months (mean 21 months)
before study• Limited exposure to western culture (some movies,
TV mini-series)• Almost no exposure to nude or semi-nude magazine
or movie images of women due to Indonesian censorship
![Page 25: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Analysis
• Nonmetric multidimensional scaling• WHR• Attributes• Association
![Page 26: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Males, WHR
![Page 27: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Females, WHR
![Page 28: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
WHR
• Both separate based on weight• Within weight classes, rank by WHR (from
0.7-1.0)
![Page 29: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Males, Attributes
![Page 30: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Females, Attributes
![Page 31: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Together
![Page 32: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Taken Together• N7: health, attractiveness, youthfulness, intelligence,
interesting to talk to• Honesty, kindness & understanding, liking children,
faithfulness not associated with attractiveness; closer to overweight figures (not attractive, but have positive characteristics)
• Females associate no attributes with underweight;• Males put U7 and U8 closer to attractiveness and
desirability to marry, although these figures are not grouped with being capable of having children
• Males link attractiveness to desire to marry her
![Page 33: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Cross-Cultural Similarities• Using data from Singh’s earlier studies• N7 ranked most attractive by all• Within each weight category, gynoid figures (0.7, 0.8) ranked
higher than android figures (0.9, 1.0)• Overweight ranked less attractive than normal or underweight
![Page 34: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Overall Outcome
• Neither ethnicity nor gender significantly affects perception of attractiveness in women
• Normal weight females with low WHR rated as more attractive and healthy
• Overweight possess positive personality traits, but not rated as attractive
• Underweight with low WHR rated as attractive, but not judged very capable of having children
![Page 35: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Resource Scarcity Interpretation
• Contrary to prediction from theory, Indonesians did not have preference for overweight figures
![Page 36: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Resources and Dominance
• Social primates organize via dominance• Humans have complex social hierarchy• Fatness, or ability to achieve fatness, may
be associated with dominance, power, resources
![Page 37: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Anthropological Literature
• Numerous examples citing preference for fatness
• May not be actual obesity, per se, but potential to achieve this, representing status
• Issues with cross-cultural definition of “obesity”
![Page 38: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Personality
• Seen certain personality characteristics associated with different body weights and shapes
• To what extent do people extrapolate personality characteristics from WHR?
![Page 39: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
What Is Beautiful Is Good
• Personality, behaviour• Most research demonstrating this has
utilized facial appearance or body weight as method of judgment
• Western ideal perceived to be to associate thinness with positive attributes
![Page 40: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Singh (1994)
• Assessing personality traits using WHR and weight
• Used line drawing figures and manipulated pictures
![Page 41: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Line Drawings
• Generally replicated findings of other studies– WHR and body weight utilized to make
attractiveness and personality judgments– Neither underweight nor overweight figures
were most attractive despite lower WHRs– U7 and U8 ranked highest for youthfulness– Normal body weight and gynoid shape required
for attractiveness and positive attributes
![Page 42: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Manipulated Photos
• Edited waist to alter WHR
• Fairly simplistic• No attempt to adjust
body weight or alter other body regions
![Page 43: Evolved Adaptation](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815d73550346895dcb7de9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Attribute Ratings0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Attractiveness 43 19 7 -60Youthfulness 17 0 -7 -14Good health 17 9.5 -5 -20Good companion 10 19 5 -33Capability of having children
10 18 11 29
Faithfulness -40 7 19 10Kindness & understanding
-31 2 5 33
Intelligence -36 7 31 -7Aggressiveness 12 -2 -5 0Need to lose weight -46 -15 7 28