See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310494357

Waist-to-Hip Ratio

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3-1

CITATIONS READS

0 451

1 author:

Barnaby J Dixson
The University of Queensland
94 PUBLICATIONS   1,465 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Causes and consequences of multilevel society formation in primates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Barnaby J Dixson on 26 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

W
Waist-to-Hip Ratio
Barnaby J. W. Dixson
School of Psychology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Synonyms
Body shape; Gluteal–femoral region; Hour glass
Definition
The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is an anthropomet-
ric measure of body shape. It is calculated by
taking the distance around the waist at its
narrowest point and by dividing the distance
around the hips and buttocks at their widest
points. In evolutionary theory of human mate
preferences, WHR was suggested to have evolved
via sexual selection as a cue of gender, health, and
fertility in women.
Introduction
Almost 25 years ago, Devendra Singh (1993)
proposed that the distribution of body fat in
women evolved via sexual selection as an honest
cue of youth, health, and fertility. This chapter
revisits Singh’s iconic hypothesis in light of con-
temporary empirical findings and asks how sexual
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
T.K. Shackelford, V.A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3-1
selection has shaped the evolution of body fat
distribution in women and men.
Sexual Dimorphism in Human Body
Composition
In comparison to nonhuman primates, differences
between men and women in overall body size are
not striking. While there is considerable overlap in
body composition between the sexes within
populations and pronounced cross-cultural differ-
ences in body composition, muscularity and body
fat are sexually dimorphic (Wells 2007). Men tend
toward a more android physique, characterized by
greater stores of upper body musculature (Wells
2007). Women tend toward a more gynoid phy-
sique, wherein fat is deposited around the hips,
buttocks, and thighs, collectively referred to as the
gluteal–femoral region (Wells 2007). A simple
way to measure gluteal–femoral fat distribution
is via the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), which is
calculated by taking the distance around the
waist and dividing it by the distance around the
hips and buttocks.
Among premenopausal young adults from
Western populations, women’s WHRs range
from 0.67 to 0.80, while men’s range from 0.85
to 0.95 (Cashdan 2008). These sex differences in
body composition first emerge during adoles-
cence under the actions of sex steroids (Wells
2007), principally androgens, which drive the
deposition of muscle in the upper body, and
2 Waist-to-Hip Ratio

estrogens, which inhibit muscle accumulation
while promoting a gynoid fat distribution (Wells
2007).
As young women approach sexual maturity, a
lower WHR predicts the onset of menarche
(Lassek and Gaulin 2008) and is associated with
maintaining regular menstrual and ovulatory
cycles in young adulthood (Singh and Singh
2011). In adulthood, levels of the hormone estra-
diol relative to progesterone, which predicts nat-
ural rates of fertility, has been reported to be
highest among women with the lowest WHRs
and largest breasts (Jasienska et al. 2004). Low
WHRs are also associated with higher rates of
successful in vitro fertilizations and artificial
inseminations (Singh and Singh 2011). During
pregnancy, gluteal–femoral fat reserves are mobi-
lized to provide energy during gestation, particu-
larly during the third trimester for fetal neural
development and postpartum for lactation
(Lassek and Gaulin 2008). A low WHR also
allows for a stable center of balance for bipedal
locomotion during pregnancy, and increases in
maternal central adiposity are associated with
healthier infant birth weight (Singh and Singh
2011). WHR also changes across the lifespan, so
that as women approach menopause, WHRs enter
the masculine range and are less hourglass in
appearance (Singh and Singh 2011).
Sexual Selection on Female WHR
and Singh’s “First Pass Filter”
Hypothesis
Sex differences in morphology can emerge via a
form of natural selection called sexual selection,
where competition among individuals to fertilize
the gametes of the opposite sex drives the evolu-
tion of behavioral displays, ornaments, and arma-
ments. Sexual selection can act on traits employed
during same-sex competition, such as weaponry
or visually conspicuous markers of social rank, or
ornamentation that enhances sexual appeal. Men’s
preferences may have been shaped during the
early phases of human evolution to recognize
those aspects of physique that would enhance
their reproductive success (Singh and Singh
2011). Singh (1993) was the first to propose that
a low WHR and an hourglass physique in women
were sexually selected by male mate choice. He
hypothesized that a low WHR represented a “first
pass filter,” guiding men’s initial assessment of
women’s mate value in ancestral environments
as an unambiguous cue of gender, health, youth-
fulness, and fertility (Singh 1993).
Cross-cultural variation
in the attractiveness of low WHRs
in women
The fact that WHR conveys such significant infor-
mation about the mate value of a women suggests
that men in all societies should favor women with a
low WHR over women with a high WHR for mate
selection or at least find such women sexually
attractive. Singh (1993, p. 305)
Singh (1993) reported in a sample of young men
from the USA that preferences were greatest for a
low WHR of 0.7 and proposed that men’s prefer-
ences should be similar cross-culturally, as men
tend to value youth and healthiness in long-term
mate across cultures. Replications of Singh’s
(1993) study that were restricted to industrialized
cultures such as England, Germany, Poland,
China, the USA, and New Zealand reported that
men tend to prefer low WHRs of 0.6–0.7
(reviewed in Brooks et al. 2015). However,
among the Bakossi of Cameroon, who live pri-
marily as subsistence horticulturalists, men
judged a more masculine WHR of 0.8 as most
attractive for both long- and short-term relation-
ships (reviewed in Brooks et al. 2015. Similarly,
Shuar men of the Ecuadorian Upper Amazon pre-
ferred WHRs of 0.7 and 0.8 when controlling for
body weight (reviewed in Cashdan 2008). The
Matsigenka of Peru, a culturally isolated popula-
tion of slash and burn agriculturalists, preferred a
WHR of 0.9 (reviewed in Cashdan 2008). Finally,
among the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania,
men’s preferences were initially reported to be
highest for a WHR of 0.9 (reviewed in Cashdan
2008). However, a follow-up study employing
stimuli in profile view that looked more like
Waist-to-Hip Ratio
Hadza women revealed that men preferred a
WHR of 0.6 (reviewed in Cashdan 2008).
Many of the findings from these studies suffer
from important methodological drawbacks. The
stimuli were manipulated to only vary in WHR by
tightening or widening the midriff, which con-
founds WHR with body mass index
(BMI = weight ⁄ height2; Tovée et al.2006). In
an attempt to address these issues, studies instead
employed photographs of female patients taken
before and after elective cosmetic surgery to
alter their body shape (Singh et al. 2010) and
found that low WHRs elicited neural reward
responses in fMRI studies (Singh and Singh
2011) and were judged as most attractive across
several Western and small-scale societies (Singh
et al. 2010). However, these stimuli presented
only the gluteal–femoral region, which does not
allow height relative to weight to be visually
assessed.
This debate became more complex when
cross-cultural research using full body stimuli
reported that BMI accounted for significantly
more variance than WHR in women’s attractive-
ness (Tovée et al. 2006). Similarly, other research
using full body stimuli reported that the abdomi-
nal depth and the volume–height index are signif-
icant contributors to female physical
attractiveness (reviewed in Brooks et al. 2015).
Further, visual attention when assessing female
attractiveness shares stronger associations with
judging body fat than WHR with minimal differ-
ences reported as a function of WHR (reviewed in
Brooks et al. 2015). Finally, computer models of
women’s fat distribution around the hips, but-
tocks, and thighs demonstrated that WHR as a
contributor to body shape is best understood in
light of increases in BMI (reviewed in Brooks
et al. 2015).
Prevailing environmental, ecological, and
social factors may give rise to these cross-cultural
differences in WHR and body weight. Female
physiques are more robust in horticulturalist set-
tings, possibly because women engage in manual
labor which drives higher androgen levels and
more masculine WHRs (Cashdan 2008). Varia-
tion in preferences for body shape and size may
also be influenced by a “visual diet,” wherein the
3
distribution of body types that people are accus-
tomed to seeing within their given cultures under-
pins preferences (Boothroyd et al. 2012). For
example, indigenous Zulu men preferred a much
higher female BMI than Zulu migrants to the UK,
who tended to prefer a BMI equivalent to that of
UK born men (Tovée et al. 2006). Thus, the eco-
logical context and the local distribution of body
types to which individuals are accustomed to see-
ing may influence the direction of preferences for
female body shape.
Multivariate Selection on Preferences
for Female Body Shape
Perhaps the debate surrounding the role of WHR
in women’s mate value became so complex due to
a narrow focus on the effects of singular or a small
number of indices of shape or size. Examining
single traits cannot determine the strength of
selection on components of WHR or how WHR
contributes in concert with other bodily indices to
shape physical attractiveness (Brooks et al. 2015).
Manipulating one trait, such as waist girth, might
change how attractive a body is judged via inter-
actions with other bodily traits like abdominal
depth or BMI. Thus, unpacking how bodily indi-
ces exert independent or interacting effects on
overall physical attractiveness is complicated by
their intercorrelated nature. To address this com-
plexity, evolutionary biologists have developed
selection analysis, wherein the principle dimen-
sions of nonlinear and linear selection are charac-
terized using linear and nonlinear multiple
regressions to uncover the true targets of selection
(Brooks et al. 2015).
A recent study combined multivariate selection
analyses with experimental manipulations of
suites of bodily traits using computer-generated
avatars (Brooks et al. 2015). In this study, avatars
served as “progenitors” from which “clonal
daughters” were created using computer algo-
rithms by making minor changes to 24 bodily
indices. In an online experiment, bodies were
allowed to “evolve” via attractiveness ratings
over eight generations (Brooks et al. 2015).
From the first generation to the eighth generation,
4 Waist-to-Hip Ratio
selection was strongest on the waist with prefer-
ences being higher for smaller waist girths,
followed by preferences for slender buttocks and
longer legs so that bodies became progressively
taller and slimmer. WHR was also an important
factor in women’s attractiveness and converged
on a WHR of approximately 0.7. However, the
buttocks continued to become slimmer, while
waist girth evolved more rapidly than the but-
tocks, suggesting that preferences for low WHRs
of 0.7 were dragged along due to strong selection
acting on slender waists rather than direct selec-
tion on lower WHRs. These findings highlight the
multivariate complexity of how sexual selection
may shape the evolution of bodies and suggests
that the role of simple measures of shape and
weight may be of less importance than selection
for waist girth and overall slenderness.
Conclusion
Almost 25 years from Singh’s (1993) seminal
article, a great many advances have been made
on our understanding of how body fat distribution
influences attractiveness. His suggestions for cul-
turally universal preferences were not supported,
and subsequent cross-cultural research has
highlighted a key role for BMI in accounting for
variance in women’s attractiveness. Building on
this work, multivariate selection analyses and
evolutionary selection experiments have paved
the way for determining the targets of sexual
selection among suites of correlated bodily indi-
ces. Finally, studies integrating prevailing cul-
tural, social, and ecological factors have made
advances toward our understandings of what
maintains variation in preferences within and
between cultures. The task moving forward may
be to employ multivariate selection cross-
culturally and determine the strength of selection
on body shape in variable ecological and eco-
nomic contexts.
View publication stats
Cross-References
▶ Body Attractiveness
▶ Body Fat Percent and Distribution
▶ Men’s Mate Preferences
References
Boothroyd, L. G., Tovée, M. J., & Pollet, T. V. (2012).
Visual diet versus associative learning as mechanisms
of change in body size preferences. PLoS One, 7(11),
e48691.
Brooks, R. C., Shelly, J. P., Jordan, L. A., & Dixson, B. J.
(2015). The multivariate evolution of female body
shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 36(5), 351–358.
Cashdan, E. (2008). Waist-to-hip ratio across cultures:
Trade-offs between androgen-and estrogen-dependent
traits. Current Anthropology, 49(6), 1099–1107.
Jasienska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P., Lipson, S., &
Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indi-
cate high reproductive potential in women. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences, 271(1545), 1213–1217.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2712.
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and
cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store
of neurodevelopmental resources? Evolution and
Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–34.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical
attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307.
Singh, D., & Singh, D. (2011). Shape and significance of
feminine beauty: An evolutionary perspective. Sex
Roles, 64(9–10), 723–731.
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., &
Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for
waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 31(3), 176–181.
Tovée, M. J., Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Mangalparsad,
R. (2006). Changing perceptions of attractiveness as
observers are exposed to a different culture. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 27(6), 443–456.
Wells, J. C. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of body composi-
tion. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism, 21(3), 415–430.