Secular Changes in Standards of BodilyAttractiveness in Women: Tests of a

Reproductive Model

Nigel Barber*

Department of Psychology, Birmingham Southern College, Birmingham, AL 35254

Accepted 10 December 1996

Abstract: Objective: Since success at work is favored by a more slender body build whilereproduction is favored by curvaceousness, standards of women’s bodily attractivenessshould be predictable from economic and reproductive variables. Method: This hypothesiswas tested in a replication and extension of a study by Silverstein, Perdue, Peterson, Vogel,and Fantini (1986) which looked at correlates of curvaceousness of Vogue models over time.Results: As economic prosperity increased, and as women’s participation in the economy,and higher education, increased, curvaceousness of the standards declined. As the proportionof single women to men, both aged 20–24 years, increased, and as the birth rate declined,curvaceousness was reduced. Discussion: Results suggest that cultural standards of attrac-tiveness are influenced by an evolved psychology of mate selection. © 1998 by John Wiley& Sons, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 23: 449–454, 1998.

Key words: eating disorders; slender ideal; reproductive strategy

INTRODUCTION

What is seen as physically attractive varies among societies and these variations arepronounced in relation to the body shape of women (Barber, 1995, in press-a; Ford &Beach, 1952). Anderson, Crawford, Nadeau, and Lindberg (1992) studied cross-culturalpredictors of the amount of body fat that is considered attractive in women and found thatthe amount of body fat considered desirable in a culture is inversely correlated with thevalue of women’s work, with their degree of political power, and their control overeconomic resources. This suggests that in those societies in which women possess littleeconomic wealth, body fat can be considered an advantage. This interpretation is consis-tent with the biological principle that body fat energy is valuable because it limits repro-duction (Barber, 1991) and sheds light on the finding that body fat is more prized insubsistence economies than it is in advanced industrial ones (Sobal & Stunkard, 1989).

Body ideals may also vary over time within a culture (Garner, Garfinkel, Schwartz, &Thompson, 1980). Silverstein, Perdue, Peterson, Vogel, and Fantini (1986) found that the

*Correspondence to: Nigel Barber, Box 549037, Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL 35254.

© 1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0276-3478/98/040449-05

Prod. #1295

bust-to-waist ratio (BWR) of models depicted in Vogue and Ladies Home Journal variedfrom 1.1 to over 2.0. They proposed that changes across time are related to prejudiceagainst women in the work place, in the sense that highly feminine women are perceivedas lacking competence (Kleinke & Staneski, 1980). They found support for the predictionsthat when women are graduating from college and entering professions at high rates, thestandard of attractiveness tends to be noncurvaceous. They also found that young womenwho felt their fathers perceived them as unintelligent were more likely to want to be slim.I accept most of their interpretations of the proximate mechanisms underlying changes instandards of bodily attractiveness, but place these mechanisms in the context of theevolutionary framework of reproductive strategies. According to this view, women mayengage in two main economic strategies through which the resources necessary for raisingchildren are acquired. The first strategy is marriage, in which a husband and wife pooltheir economic and social resources for reproductive purposes. The second strategy isindependent acquisition of economic resources, as for example, in gathering, cultivatingcrops, trading, or participating in the work force for pay.

My hypothesis is that these different strategies create conflicting pressures as to thecurvaceousness of a woman’s ideal body, marriage being facilitated by a highly femininebody build, which is generally attractive to men (Singh, 1993) and occupational successbeing favored by a more slender body type. Several falsifiable predictions were tested:

1. When the economy prospers, more women will tend to enter the labor force.Femininity will be de-emphasized with a corresponding loss of curvaceous-ness in the standard because (a) femininity may be seen as a disqualification foreconomic advancement (consistent with Silverstein’s ‘‘prejudice’’ argument)and (b) women who work can generate an economic surplus obviating theneed for bodily fat stores, a strategy favored in subsistence economies.

2. When women’s curvaceousness is emphasized, they are more oriented to-wards reproduction than occupational success and the birth rate will be high.

3. When women are entering higher education at a high rate, the standard will berelatively noncurvaceous.

4. When there is a high rate of participation by women in the work force, thestandard will be relatively noncurvaceous.

5. When women are oriented towards careers, they will delay marriage or be lesslikely to marry. This means that a noncurvaceous standard will be associatedwith a relatively high proportion of single women to single men, particularlyat the age when marriage is most likely (20–24 years).

METHOD

Data on the curvaceousness of models in Vogue and Ladies Home Journal were reportedby Silverstein et al. (1986). Since the results for the two publications were highly corre-lated, the Vogue data alone were analyzed. The measure of curvaceousness used was theBWR. The models depicted in Vogue were carefully selected by Silverstein et al. (1986) toavoid confounding due to posture and the body dimensions were measured using amillimeter ruler. The magazine was sampled at 4-year intervals between 1901 and 1981 toyield 21 data points which comprised averages for all the pictures that met their selectioncriteria. Replication of seven of Silverstein et al.’s data points revealed that the methodwas highly reliable (r [5] = .99, p < .01). An additional three data points were collectedusing the same method for the years 1985, 1989, and 1993.

450 Barber

In the first four decades of the century, data on marital status by sex was available onlyin census years (1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940). These data were used as the closest availableapproximation for Vogue data for the years 1901, 1909, 1921, 1929, 1941, respectively.

Full data were available for the Standard and Poor’s Index (a measure of U.S. stockmarket valuation) and for the per capita GNP in 1982 dollars as indicators of economicgrowth (Liesner, 1991). Women’s participation in higher education was measured interms of the proportion of male to female enrollments in higher education, B.A.s con-ferred, and Ph.D.s conferred (Snyder, 1993). More recent data on education were from theU.S. Statistical Abstracts (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1901–1995). Women’s participa-tion in the economy was assessed in terms of percent of women in the labor force (forwhich annual data are available only since 1941; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993)and percentage of married women in the work force. Reproductive variables includedbirth rate (available for all years except 1901 and 1905), sex ratio of the population, sexratio of single people, and sex ratio of single people between the ages of 20 and 24 years(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1901–1995).

RESULTS

The curvaceousness of Vogue models (BWR) declined throughout the years 1901 to 1993,r(22) = −.62, p < .001. Curvaceousness was negatively related to the Standard and Poor’sIndex, r(22) = −.45, p < .05, and per capita GNP, r(22) = −.53, p < .01.

The BWR was also negatively related to the percentage of married women in the workforce, r(12) = −.84, p < .001, and to the proportion of men to women enrolled in highereducation, r(18) =.61, p < .01. Similar relationships were found for degrees awarded (B.A.s,Ph.D.s, see Table 1).

Of the reproductive variables, BWR was not significantly correlated with the proportionof women to men in the U.S. population, r(15) = −.38, p > .10. Neither was BWR correlatedwith the proportion of single women to men, r(15) = −.29, p > .10. However, there was arelationship between BWR and the proportion of single women to men, both aged 20–24years r(10) = −.61, p < .05. Curvaceousness was positively correlated with birth rate, r(20)= .50, p < .05.

Consistency of the relationships was assessed by dividing the time period into twoequal blocks (1901–1945 and 1949–1993). From Table 1, which looks at variables withsignificant effects, it can be seen that even though the magnitude of the correlations varies,the sign is the same in every case (p < .05). This indicates that the relationships betweencurvaceousness and the other variables are reasonably consistent over a long period oftime.

DISCUSSION

All of the predictions received some support. Curvaceousness of the female standarddeclined with economic growth and participation by women in education and in the laborforce. This adds generality to the finding of Silverstein et al. (1986) that curvaceousnessdeclines as the number of women working as professionals increases. Similarly, the find-ing that curvaceousness decreases as the proportion of women enrolled in higher educa-tion and receiving degrees increases adds generality to their finding that curvaceousnessof Vogue models was negatively correlated with the college graduation rate for women.

Secular Changes 451

Curvaceousness also declined as birth rate decreased and women shifted their effortsaway from reproduction towards careers. Similarly, curvaceousness declined as the pro-portion of unmarried women in the population aged 20–24 years increased, suggestingthat careers may take precedence over marriage. These findings conflict with Silversteinet al.’s (1986) conclusion that BWR was unrelated to such demographic variables. Theyalso looked at birth rate and the proportion of single females to single males but theiranalyses lacked statistical power (N = 9 for four variables, N = 15 for birth rate).

The consistency of the correlations across time, which was more impressive for edu-cation than economics or reproductive variables (Table 1), provides a useful form ofcross-validation which suggests that the relationships are not due to confounding fromlinear time trends (see Barber, in press-a). I conclude that the standard of women’s bodilyattractiveness is related to both economic and reproductive variables, as well as women’soccupational striving. While it is desirable to test the merits of the different models usingmultivariate statistics, there are several reasons why this type of analysis is inappropriate,and unfeasible, including multicollinearity and small numbers. Results suggest thatevolved psychological mechanisms may influence changes in the standard of bodilyattractiveness as depicted in the mass media which has implications for the etiology ofeating disorders (Barber, in press-a, in press-b; Stice, 1994).

I thank Trudy Callaghan, Rick McCallum, and Richard Moreland for helpful comments on an earlierdraft of this paper. My research was facilitated by the professional assistance of Danny Cusack atthe Birmingham Public Library and by Janice Poplau and Jimmie Chicarello in the Interlibrary LoanDepartment of the Birmingham-Southern College Library. I am deeply grateful for this help.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was the Duchess of Windsor right? Across-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13,197–227.

Table 1. The consistency of relationships between curvaceousness (BWR) of Vogue models andeconomic and reproductive variables over time

Predictor Variable 1901–1945 1949–1993 1901–1993

Economic growthStandard and Poor’s −.25 −.56* −.45**Per capita GNP −.19 −.67** −.53***

Women’s participation in economy, educationPercent married women

at work — −.80*** —Ratio of male/female

undergraduate enrollment .84*** .88**** .61***Ratio male/female B.A.s .67** .89**** .77****Ratio male/female Ph.D.s .67** .80*** .70****

Reproductive variablesBirth rate (%) .11 .86**** .50**Female/male singles

(20–24 years) — −.61** —

Note: BWR = bust-to-waist ratio.*p < .10.**p < .05.***p < .01.****p < .001.

452 Barber

Barber, N. (1991). Play and energy regulation in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology, 66, 129–147.Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human mor-

phology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.Barber, N. (in press-a). The slender ideal and eating disorders: An interdisciplinary ‘‘telescope’’ model. Inter-

national Journal of Eating Disorders.Barber, N. (in press-b). Changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in American women: Different masculine

and feminine ideals. The Journal of Psychology.Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1952). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper.Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectations of thinness in

women. Psychological Reports, 47, 183–191.Kleinke, C. L., & Staneski, R. A. (1980). First impressions of female bust size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110,

123–134.Liesner, T. (1991). One hundred years of economic statistics. New York: Facts on File.Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., Vogel, L., & Fantini, D. A. (1986). Possible causes of the thin standard of

bodily attractiveness for women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 907–916.Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.Snyder, T. D. (1993). 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.Sobal, J., & Stunkard, A. J. (1989). Socioeconomic status and obesity: A review of the literature. Psychological

Bulletin, 105, 260–275.Stice, R. (1994). Review of the evidence for a sociocultural model of bulimia nervosa and an exploration of the

mechanisms of action. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 633–661.U.S. Department of Commerce. (1901–1995). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. De-

partment of Commerce.U.S. Government Printing Office. (1993). Economic report to the President. Washington, DC: Author.

Secular Changes 453