Jesse Ibarra
10/21/99
Psyc. 452
Dr. Michael Mills
The Visual Process Method: A New Method
to Study Physical Attractiveness
By: Manfred Hassebrauck
Man has tried for centuries to discover the secret of beauty and to identify the features responsible for physical attractiveness. In classical times, attempts were made to define beauty with a geometric regularity called the golden section, or an equal division of the face based on the magic number seven. Earlier Aristotle had come up with “the Golden Mean” which acted as –a kind of average- as a guarantee for beauty.
For a long time, the attempts to objectively determine the basis of physical attractiveness went without success. A contemporary example of this took place in 1951. A study that examined more than 200 technological primitive societies failed to find any universal standard of beauty. Given such results, sayings such as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” seem all the more justified.
It is only in the last few years that researchers from a sociobiological or evolutionary psychological background have had success in coming closer to the material basis of physical attractiveness. According to them beautiful people are those who signal they have a high mate value. In women this primarily means youthfulness, health, and sexual maturity. The physical attractiveness of a woman’s face thus depends on features that indicate her youthfulness (for example, in proportion to her face, large, widely spaced eyes), her sexual maturity (e.g. proportionally high and narrow cheekbones) and her health (smooth, clear skin). A male’s attractiveness, on the other hand, depends on features that indicate that he is able and willing to provide for his offspring and that he is a winner in intrasexual competition. Men who signal their high status, show their dominance (for example, with a strong chin), and, at the same time, appear to be friendly are judged as more attractive than men who do not exhibit these and similar features.
For judgments of physical attractiveness of a person’s body shape, the waist to hip ratio (WHR), an indicator of the distribution of a person’s body fat, has seemed to be of primary importance in past studies. Women who come close to a WHR of 0.7 are deemed more attractive than those with a higher WHR. Male bodies with a WHR of 0.9 are preferred over those with other ratios. The importance of the WHR for physical attractiveness can also be explained by evolutionary principles. Women with a WHR of 0.7 signal higher mate value; they have a higher level of circulating estrogen and become pregnant more easily than women with a higher WHR. Male body fat distribution also is regulated by sex hormones (in this case testosterone), and men whose WHR is between 0.8 and 0.9 have better health than those with lower or higher WHRs.
Taking into consideration that evolutionarily speaking, we can expect that the face and body features that signal mate value not only influence the amount of perceived attractiveness, but also will draw more attention and will be processed more quickly than other face and body parts, Hassebrauck has designed and experiment to test this hypothesis.
The research reported in this experiment was designed to answer the following questions: (1) Which information concerning faces and bodies do people require in making physical attractiveness judgments?; (2) How are face and body parts related to physical attractiveness?; (3) Do male and female observers use different strategies in searching for the information required for physical attractiveness judgments? and (4) Do male and female targets elicit different search strategies? According to evolutionary psychology, we should expect sex differences, namely, that male and female targets elicit different search strategies. With female targets, the focus should be on facial features that indicate youthfulness and sexual maturity. These are the eyes, the mouth, the chin and the cheeks. A rather small chin (child-like feature), narrow cheeks (mature adult facial feature), and full lips (indicator of sexual maturity) all can give this kind of information. As for the body, more information should be drawn from the waist and hips than from other body parts.
Male targets should direct perceivers’ attention to features signaling power, dominance, or status. The female’s search for the proper mate should be characterized by a conflict. On the one hand, she wants a strong dominant partner with the resources to compete successfully against other males. On the other hand, she does not just want a partner as a protector and provider, but someone who will satisfy her socioemotional needs as well. “A man who looks too mature and too powerful, then may not arouse the woman’s warm caregiving feelings and may not elicit as much attraction as a man who can stimulate nurturant responses.” This means that, in addition to features indicating dominance and status, women also should look for neonate features, such as relatively large eyes and small nose, in men.
In past studies many questions have been left unanswered such as: which body parts do men and women pay most attention to? Is information about certain body parts processed quicker than information from other parts? Do people actively prefer certain kinds of information over other kinds. In response to these questions The Visual Process Method (VPM) was designed to answer such questions. VPM is a computer program that works with digitized photographs of people and analyzes the order in which, and the response latency with which, information about faces and body parts is requested and judged by viewers. Participants are instructed to judge the physical attractiveness of a stranger with the least amount of information needed. By typing in the corresponding letter on the keyboard, the requested blackened contour is uncovered to reveal an underlying face/body part. Then the participant is asked to give an attractiveness rating based the uncovered body/face part. If he/she cannot, they are allowed to uncover another part and so on.
The program registers the order in which the face and body parts are uncovered, the physical attractiveness ratings based on the information so far available, and the time it takes to make each decision. This allows one to determine the information search strategy used, the processing speed, and the importance of the individual face and body parts for the physical attractiveness judgments.
Results
This analyzed how many parts the viewers requested in order to be able to judge the physical attractiveness of the targets. Overall, the participants required M=3.54 parts to feel they could make a subjectively satisfying judgment. Men showed that they needed more information than woman M=3.98 and M=3.26, respectively, to make a judgment on attractiveness.
Irrespective of the sex of the target, woman looked at fewer parts than men did (3.27 and 3.26 for male and female parts respectively). However significant difference was found when males were looking at women compared to women looking at men. Men needed M=4.15 parts, whereas women needed 3.27 parts to form an opinion. In accordance to evolutionary psychology, this can possibly show that men are more visually and spatially inclined compared to women. Also that men use physical features as determinants of beauty. Or perhaps it may not be related and simply put, the beauty of a woman may be more complex.
The fact that men place comparatively more importance on the appearance of potential mates also is demonstrated by the amount of time participants needed to arrive at an attractiveness judgment. According to evolutionary psychologist, males should be more likely to spontaneously process information about the physical appearance of potential mates than females. The VPM showed that Males did indeed process information of female attractiveness (M=1.57 s) more quickly than females processed information concerning male attractiveness (M=2.02s).
Altogether the results for viewing time support the idea that, over the course of evolution, adaptive mechanisms affecting our choice of partner have emerged, allowing men in particular to quickly process information on the physical attractiveness of a potential mate.
It is interesting to note that the eyes were the most frequently viewed body part, followed by the mouth. The importance of the eyes supports the argument for evolutionary psychology. They are the foremost indicators of facial symmetry, and symmetric mates are at an advantage in sexual selection. Also combination of a person’s mouth and eyes allows for a fairly good prediction of the target’s age and his or physical attractiveness.
Male perceivers viewed the cheeks (sexual maturity), legs, eyes, mouth, waist and hips of a female target more often than did females when viewing male targets. Once again overall, these results are compatible with an evolutionary view. The eyes, mouth, and waist and hips are more important in females targets than in male targets, as these features convey the youthfulness (eyes and mouth) and fertility (waist and hips) of the person being viewed. Seen in this light, the information search strategies observed in this study are both logical and functional and lead to a fast appraisal of information relevant to successful mating.
The results gained with this The Visual Process Method are consistent with evolutionary psychological views on the role for selected face and body parts for physical attractiveness judgments. Features associated with the mate value of the individual were looked at sooner and more often. For female targets, these features were those that indicated her youthfulness, sexual maturity, and fertility. The results for male targets were not quite as obvious. This may have to do with the fact male physical attractiveness is less important than female attractiveness for the choice of the mate. Also mate value of a man (status and dominance) is determined less easily from his appearance than a woman’s value is from hers. Also explainable in evolutionary framework is that men’s processing speeds regarding female targets were exceptionally fast. One can speculate that evolution favored the development of such a specific information processing system.
The results clearly show that facial attractiveness plays a much larger role than the attractiveness of the body. It should be noted that despite the fact that many studies have shown the importance of the WHR ratio, the importance of the these body parts in this study are small due to the fact that WHR is useful at a distance when details of a face are not available.
A) Identify up to three points made by the author that the panel found especially interesting or informative.
1) I have always wondered what the face has to do with physical attractiveness in terms of evolutionary psychology. In ancient times it did not help us hunt better or overcome “hostile forces of nature”. Hassebrauck brings up a good point when he says that the face is the primary measure of a person’s attractiveness because of the eyes. The eyes show facial symmetry and your face, if symmetrical, represent overall physical and mental symmetry, which is conducive to natural selection.
2) I thought it was interesting how males put importance on youthful features, however they also look for sexual maturity in woman these seems a bit contradictory.
3) Along the same lines it seemed contradictory that woman look for strong dominant features and also neonate features. This seems contradictory and causes conflict in women.
B) Identify up to three arguments made by the author that the panel either disagreed with and/or for which you think the author made a weak case. Why?
1) I felt the author’s attempt to come up with a universal, standard measure of beauty should be seen as a generalization and not applicable to everyone. There thousands of specific variables (culture, classical conditioning, past experiences, etc.) which come into play on personal level when determining the attractiveness of person. It varies from person to person.
2) The author brings up the point that males are more visually inclined when it comes to determining a woman’s beauty. And that this ties into evolutionary psychology because we woman features represent fertility. Although this may true the fact that male perceivers needed more information (body parts) may be due to the fact that women’s bodies are more complex than men’s bodies.
3) The author seems to contradict himself when he says that men look for qualities in women that represent youth and the same time sexual maturity. Also in contradiction is when he says that women look for strong, dominant features and the same time neonate features in men.
C) Identify up two three concepts that, even after reading the material, the panel still had questions about, or that would have liked to have explained further.
1) If evolutionary psychology states that we have been hunters for 99% of human history, why is there not more emphasis placed on the body than on the face. A fit, athletic body would dictate hunting prowess.
2) What do homosexuals look for in a mate. Is there conflict between evolutionary influence and social gender roles?
3) Is a difference in perceived attraction related to age of perceiver. Example: Do younger girls prefer neonate features than strong, dominant features. Do older women place more importance on strong dominant features since they are more likely to look for a good provider?
Outline
A. Background/Past Studies
1. Man has tried for centuries to discover the secret of beauty.
a. Classical times- geometric regularity called the golden section.
b. Equal division of face based on the magic number 7.
c. Aristotle- the “Golden Mean” which acted as –a kind of average/gaurantee for beauty.
2. Contemporary example- 1951 study-attempted to objectively determine universal beauty standar by studying 200 technologically, primitive societies. It failed.
3. Recent research from sociobiological and evolutionary psychologist.
a. beautiful people are those who signal they have a high mate value.
1. women-youthfulness,health, and sexual maturity.
2. Men-ability to provide resources, intrasexual dominance, status
b. WHR popular modern standard for beauty
1. Women- 0.7-healthy, circulating estrogen
2. Men – 0.9 –healthy, testosterone determined
B. Hassebrauck and the Visual Process Method
1. Past studies to vague, did test for the importance of specific body part and the speed at which information is processed.
2. The VPM
3. Hypothesis
a. face and body features that signal mate value will be given more importance and processed quicker.
1. females-youthfulness and sexual maturity
2. males- power, dominance and status.
4. conflict in females
C. Results
1. Search Depth
a. Males and females M=3.54
b. Males on females M=4.15
c. Females on Males M=3.27
d. Males visually/spatially inclined? Females more physically compplex?
2. Viewing Time
a. Males M=1.57s
b. Females M=2.02s
c. Eggs expensive, sperm cheap
3. Importance of Specific Face and Body Part
a. eyes most frequently viewed, then mouth
b. indicators of facial symmetry
c. eyes and mouth combination as predictors of age and physical attractiveness.
d. Males placed more importance on cheeks (sexual maturity), legs, eyes, mouth, waist and hips of a female- in accordance with evolutionary strategies for successful mating.
D. Summary and conclusion
A. the VPM consistent with evolutionary psychological views.
B. Features associated with mate value were looked at sooner and more often
C. Men’s processing speeds regarding female targets were exceptionally fast.
D. Facial attractiveness plays a much larger role than body