The Psychology of Physical Attraction (2007) is a research-based overview of what makes people attractive, covering face, body, and behavior through both evolutionary and social psychology.

NOTES

About the Authors:
Viren Swami and Adrian Furnham are psychologists known for their research on physical attractiveness, body image, and individual differences. Their work combines evolutionary psychology with social and cultural perspectives, and they have published extensively in academic journals and books on attractiveness, personality, and human behavior.
We also previously reviewed Swami’s ‘Attraction Explained‘.

Chapter 1: What Pythagoras unleashed upon the world

Modern psychology approaches physical attraction through two distinct but intersecting lenses:

• Social psychology emphasizes how attraction is shaped by dynamic social interactions and cultural contexts.
• Evolutionary psychology: focus on universal, adaptationist traits that define human nature across millennia

The authors position the book as an integration of evolutionary, social, and cultural perspectives to explain both why attractiveness exists and how it operates in real-world contexts.

• Lookism: The documented phenomenon where physical appearance profoundly impacts how individuals are treated by society and how they view themselves, confirming that beauty is a highly consequential social factor rather than a triviality (Patzer, 2002; Mann, 2003).

Chapter 2: What is beautiful is good

A diagram of impression formation (Swami and Furnham, 2007)

Physical appearance is the most accessible human trait and plays a dominant role in impression formation, boosting personal value in social exchanges without even having to do anything.

• Impression Formation: The instant, cognitive process of categorizing individuals based heavily on non-verbal cues and physical appearance, which dictates expectations about their behavior and personality (Asch, 1946; Park, 1986).
• The Attractiveness Bias: Attractive individuals are judged as more honest (Yarmouk 2000), less maladjusted and disturbed (Cash et al. 1977; Dion 1972), happier, more successful and more sociable than less attractive individuals (Dion et al. 1972). Attractive people are also reported to be afforded more personal space, more likely to win arguments, more trusted with secrets and generally considered better at everything in comparison with less attractive individuals (Cash and Soloway 1975; Horai et al. 1974; Patzer 1985).
• Courtroom and Employment Leniency: The phenomenon where attractive defendants receive more lenient sentencing and mock-juror verdicts (Castellow et al., 1990; Stewart, 1980), and attractive applicants are more likely to be hired and receive higher starting salaries (Dipboye et al., 1975).
  • Exceptions for using beauty: when the defendant ‘used’ her attractiveness in the crime (a swindle), the advantages of attractiveness in sentencing were lost (Sigall and Ostrove 1975; but see Wuensch et al. 1991)
  • Exception with ‘lazy’ stereotype: Shahani-Denning and Plumitallo (1993) showed that when an employee had committed a mistake, supervisors were more likely to perceive those who were attractive as failing because of a lack of effort.
• Beauty Matters More in Individualistic Cultures: Rosenblatt and Cozby (1972) found that the function that attractiveness plays varies with the cultural context. Other cross-cultural research suggests that the attractiveness bias may be more pronounced in cultures that emphasise individualism over group-oriented values (Dion 1986). In their review of various cultural dimensions, Fiske et al. (1998) referred to two culturally patterned social systems or ‘psyches’: the individualistic, Euro-American (sometimes referred to as ‘Western’) cultural dimension and the collectivist, East Asian (or ‘Eastern’) dimension.
• Implicit Personality Theory: The framework explaining the attractiveness bias as a set of learned knowledge structures where social categories of “attractive” are mentally linked with specific positive evaluative dimensions, primarily social competence (Eagly et al., 1991; Ashmore, 1981).
• The Dark Side of Beauty: A counter-bias where highly attractive individuals are occasionally penalized or perceived as vain, egotistical, or using their looks for manipulation (Cash and Janda, 1984; Sigall and Ostrove, 1975).

Physical Attractiveness Matters Less In Real-Life Interactions & Long-Term (Compared to Pictures & Short-Term)

Eagly and colleagues’ (1991) meta-analysis showed that the strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype was affected by
information other than physical attractiveness. That is, the attractiveness bias was weaker when participants received individuating information along with attractiveness cues.
Other research supports this idea: in a celebrated study, Argyle and McHenry (1971) showed that when shown photographs as stimuli, participants rated individuals wearing spectacles as more intelligent than those not wearing spectacles. However, this effect disappeared when the same individuals were shown communicating on video-recordings, suggesting that the individuating information provided by such recordings allowed participations to be more discriminating in their perceptions. This would seems to suggest that physical attractiveness may be less important in the perception of friends, family members and co-workers than in the perception of strangers, because we have considerable additional, ‘moderating’ information about people close to us.

Chapter 3: Darwin, sexual selection and the peacock’s tail

Evolutionary psychology is based on Charles Darwin’s theory of sexual selection to explain why certain physical traits are considered universally attractive. Attractive features are biological ornaments that evolved to signal an individual’s underlying genetic quality, health, and reproductive value to potential mates. Due to the differing biological costs of reproduction, men and women have evolved distinct mate-selection strategies and preferences.

• Sexual Selection: Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism explaining how traits that hinder survival (like a peacock’s bright tail) evolve because they provide significant advantages in attracting mates and outcompeting same-sex rivals (Darwin, 1871).
• Parental Investment Theory: The principle that the sex investing the most physiological resources into offspring (typically females) will evolve to be choosier in selecting mates, forcing the lesser-investing sex (males) to compete for access (Trivers, 1972; Bateman, 1948).
• Runaway Selection and Sensory Bias: Evolutionary models suggesting mate preferences can originate from arbitrary perceptual biases (e.g., a bias for a specific color to find food) that become genetically linked to exaggerated physical traits in the opposite sex (Fisher, 1930; Kirkpatrick and Ryan, 1991).
• Good Genes Hypothesis: The dominant evolutionary theory asserting that physical attractiveness serves as an “honest signal” of an individual’s immunocompetence, parasite resistance, and overall physiological condition (Hamilton and Zuk, 1982; Zahavi, 1975).
• Men and Women Value the Same Thing But With Different Weights: while both men and women may value the same characteristics (such as attractiveness, status, emotional stability and so on), they weigh these characteristics differently as a result of their evolutionary endowments.
• Quality Detection Varies in Evolutionarily Predictable Fashion in Men and Women: The evolutionary proposition that men prioritize cues of youth and peak reproductive potential (fecundity) in women, while women prioritize cues indicating a man’s ability and willingness to provide resources and parental care (Buss, 1989; Symons, 1979).

Chapter 4: The naked woman and man

Evolutionary psychologists argue that features such as youthfulness, facial sexual dimorphism, symmetry, and height act as observable markers of a potential partner’s underlying genetic fitness, developmental stability, and reproductive value. However, preferences for these traits often reveal complex interactions between biological signaling and socio-cultural modification.

• Women Use More Cues, Men Fewer: Grammer (1989) found that women use more cues than men when evaluating prospective mates. Men typically prioritise physical attractiveness, while women consider many different traits including both social and economic status. Similar findings have been found by ethnographers and anthropologists: men in many tribal societies prize youth above all else in their prospective brides (Borgerhoff Mulder 1988).
• Masculinity Holds Longer Than Femininity: Studies have shown that ratings of physical attractiveness for men and women decline with age (McLellan and McKelvie 1993), although these effects are more pronounced for the latter. While women are rated as less feminine with increasing age (Arking 1998), ratings of male masculinity do not appear to be affected to the same degree (Deutsch et al. 1986).
• Facial Sexual Dimorphism is Attractive: The preference for hormone-driven facial differences; female facial femininity (driven by estrogen) signals reproductive condition, while male facial masculinity (driven by testosterone) signals immunocompetence, though female preferences for the latter fluctuate based on the menstrual cycle (Penton-Voak et al., 1999b; Gangestad and Scheyd, 2005).
  • Facial masculinity as costly ornament: For example, a broad jaw is thought to be a costly ornament, insofar as increasingly masculine features reduce men’s resistance to disease and parasites (Folstad and Karter 1992)
• Rarity is Attractive (for female hair, at least) Thelen (1983) showed that for the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series. In other words, preference for the brunette increased in proportion to the rarity of her hair colour. More recently, Schweder (1994) reported that women tend to change their hair colour and style to a type that is less common in the general population.
• Symmetry is Attractive: Small, random deviations from perfect bilateral symmetry in the face and body; high symmetry is theoretically perceived as attractive because it signals “good genes” and the ability to resist environmental pathogens during development (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1993; Moller, 1992).
• Vocal Attractiveness: The “vocal attractiveness stereotype” where pitch and vocal quality communicate biological information (like symmetry and hormone levels) and are linked to perceived personality traits and sexual behavior (Hughes et al., 2004; Zuckerman and Driver, 1989).
• Height, Stature, and Leg Length: Taller men enjoy greater reproductive, social, and economic success, leading to women’s generalized preference for tallness as a cue for genetic quality and resource access (Pawlowski et al., 2000; Judge and Cable, 2004). Higher leg-to-body ratios (LBR) are generally preferred in women as a dimorphic signal of stable childhood development, but not in men (Swami et al., 2006)

Figures used to test leg-to-body ratio preferences (ratios are noted below each image) (from Swami et al. 2006)

Facial Masculinity Isn’t Universally More Attractive

Across cultures, men with masculine faces are perceived as being more socially dominant (Mazur et al. 1984).

But social dominance doesn’t equal attraction. Says the author:

Some studies have also found that feminine features are sometimes attractive on male faces (Little et al. 2001), while others show no consistency in sexually dimorphic features that are considered attractive (Scheib et al. 1999).

And the authors explain it as a tradeoff:

Perrett et al. (1998) have proposed that women actually seek a ‘tradeoff between good mates and good fathers, and that more feminine faces suggest better fathering abilities. As this view hypothesises, men with feminine faces are perceived to be warmer, more agreeable and more honest than men with masculine faces (Fink and Penton-Voak 2002).

All in all, the consensus seems to be this that the “winning” male face is:

• moderately masculine
• high in averageness
• not overly dominant-looking
• not too feminized either

Mix of Neonate-Maturity-Expressivity For Women’s Face

Early research seemed to suggest that neotenous features like large, widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin are important for female facial attractiveness. Cross-cultural support for this was provided by studies with African-American, Asian, Hispanic and Taiwanese participants, whose judgements of women from their own cultural background gave the same result (Cunningham et al. 1995; Zebrowitz et al. 1993).

But later criticism noticed that high cheekbones in attractive female faces is in marked contrast to the protruding, puffy cheeks of babies (Grammer and Atzwanger 1994).
Modern evidence indicates that feminization, or the presence of features shaped by estrogen during puberty, is a more reliable predictor of attractiveness than mere youthfulness (Little et al., 2011; Perrett et al., 1998). These markers include high cheekbones, a narrow lower face, and full lips. Unlike neoteny (which just signals “young”), these traits signal fertility and immunocompetence.

The most recent meta-analyses and studies suggest that attractiveness is a “composite” signal. The highest-rated faces typically possess:

• Neotenous “Baby” Features: Large eyes and a relatively small nose/lower face. These act as a “first-pass filter” signaling youth and high reproductive value (fecundity).
• Sexually Mature “Adult” Features: Prominent cheekbones and a narrow chin. These provide the “second-pass” signal, proving the individual is a fertile, post-pubescent adult
• Expressive Cues: High eyebrows and a wide smile, which signal social competence and accessibility.

Chapter 5: Of hourglasses and triangles: human body weight and shape

While male attractiveness is heavily dependent on an upper-body “V-shape,” the debate surrounding female attractiveness centers on whether the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) or overall Body Mass Index (BMI) is the dominant cue for health and fertility.

• Male Body Shape (The Inverted Triangle): Women generally prefer men with a mesomorphic physique featuring broad shoulders and a narrow waist—a low waist-to-chest ratio (WCR)—which signals physical strength and upper-body muscle development, combined with a normal BMI (Maisey et al., 1999; Dixson et al., 2003).
• Female Body Shape (The Waist-to-Hip Ratio): Singh’s (1993a) hypothesis posits that a low WHR (around 0.70) evolved as a universal “first-pass filter” for female attractiveness because it reliably signals optimal fat distribution, fertility, and resistance to major diseases.
• Body Mass Index (BMI) vs. WHR: Extensive methodological critiques using photorealistic stimuli demonstrate that overall body weight (BMI) accounts for vastly more variance in female attractiveness ratings than WHR, serving as a more accurate visual proxy for health, nutrition, and reproductive potential (Tovee et al., 1998, 1999)
  • BMI was a far more important factor than WHR (Tovée and Cornelissen 2001; Tovée et al. 1998, 1999). In their studies, BMI accounted for more than 70 per cent of the variance in attractiveness ratings, whereas WHR accounts for little more than 2 per cent.

Stimuli used by Swami and Furnham (2008)

Chapter 6: The Venus of Willendorf, Rubens and milking huts

Attractiveness ideals for body weight and shape are demonstrably malleable and vary significantly across history and cultures, varying based on socio-economic conditions, environmental resource security, and cultural practices.

• Historical Relativity of Beauty: Ideals of female beauty have fluctuated drastically over time, from the robust, statuesque ideals of the Victorian era and the plumpness celebrated by painters like Rubens, to the tubular thinness idealized in contemporary Western media (Freese and Meland, 2002; Mazur, 1986; Eco, 2004).
• Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Body Weight: Cross-cultural findings show an inverse relationship between societal wealth and preferred body weight.
  • Poorer cultures prefer larger women: In resource-scarce, low-SES environments, heavier female bodies are idealized as symbols of health, fertility, and status, whereas resource-rich, high-SES environments idolize thinness (Swami and Tovee, 2005b; Tovee et al., 2006).
• Adjustments Are Evolutionary Predicted: The evolutionary counter-argument that human mate preference mechanisms are not fixed to one absolute standard, but are designed to recalibrate to local environmental and nutritional conditions, resulting in a preference for a WHR or weight that is simply optimal for that specific locality (Sugiyama, 2004)

Chapter 7: Welcome to the mating market

Mating market dynamics, Swami and Furnham (2007)

Individuals do not form attractiveness judgments in a vacuum, but actively negotiate the “mating market” based on their own mate value, relationship goals, and shifting environmental circumstances. Humans deploy conditional strategies that adapt to social exchanges.

• Mating Strategies: Preferences shift based on intent; individuals prioritize physical attractiveness when pursuing short-term casual relationships, but compromise on physical traits in favor of interpersonal responsiveness and resources for long-term partnerships (Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Regan, 1998).
• Assortative Mating: “Like prefers like” and people tend to form relationships with partners who closely match their own level of physical attractiveness, social background, and market value, functioning as a stabilizing evolutionary strategy (Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Berscheid et al., 1973).
• Social Exchange Theory: A framework viewing attraction as a dynamic negotiation where partners assess the costs and rewards of the interaction against their own subjective “comparison levels” built from past experiences and societal norms (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959; Rusbult et al., 1991).
• The Environmental Security Hypothesis: The theory that immediate physiological and socioeconomic threats (such as financial scarcity or physical hunger) cause individuals to temporarily shift their preferences toward heavier, more mature partners who signal stability and resource access (Nelson and Morrison, 2005; Pettijohn and Tesser, 1999)
  • Hungry men prefer larger women: hungry men preferred heavier women than did satiated men. Nelson and Morrison (2005) proposed that the construct of hunger is more universal than financial satisfaction, and suggest that their findings, therefore, lend support to the idea that implicit cues are used when stating preferences for potential partners. Moreover, when Swami and Tovée (2006a) replicated their study using photographic stimuli, using hunger as a proxy for personal resources, they found the same result: hungry men found a slightly heavier female body weight more attractive than satiated men.
• Power Motive Can Boost Results: The power motive refers to the predisposition to strive for status and power, which some studies have shown provides men with access to fertile women as well as making them more attractive to women (Kenrick et al. 2003; Li et al. 2002; Simpson and Orina 2003).
  Note: this is why dark triad may have a ‘dating advantage’ (see psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism)
• Lovers and Providers Have Different Strategies: Men too showed a corresponding tendency: those who were unlikely to invest favoured flaunting their sexuality to women, while those were likely to invest emphasised chastity and fidelity (Cashdan 1993). Pawtowski and Dunbar (1999) have also considered how an individual’s market value affects her or his willingness to make demands of a preferred partner.
  Also see: lover, provider, friend roles.

Also see:

• Global & Local Mating Markets and how to use them for better dating

Chapter 8: No one is an island

(by Swami and Furnham, adapted from Kim and Markus 1999).

Attractiveness ideals are also constructed and maintained through a process of mutual constitution between the individual and their surrounding socio-cultural environment. Gender roles, subcultural affiliations, and social learning mechanisms continually script what individuals perceive as beautiful, demonstrating that biology alone cannot account for human aesthetic preferences.

• Mutual Constitution: The continuous feedback loop where historical values, cultural institutions (like media), and daily social practices shape individual psychological preferences, which in turn reinforce those societal structures (Kim and Markus, 1999).
• Gender Roles and Ideals: Traditional gender role socialization deeply impacts physical preferences; individuals subscribing to rigid gender norms generally prefer highly dimorphic body shapes (muscular men, hourglass women), whereas liberated roles correlate with less stereotyped preferences (Courtenay, 2000; Swami et al., 2006a).
• Subcultural Divergence: Specific communities actively construct their own beauty norms that defy mainstream ideals. For example, the lesbian community often rejects the patriarchal “thin ideal” in favor of heavier body weights, while gay male culture places a hyper-focus on extreme upper-body muscularity (Siever, 1994; Swami and Tovee, 2006b).
• Sources of Learning and Fetishes: Beauty standards are learned early via parental modeling and pervasive mass media messaging (Bandura, 1973; Levine and Smolak, 1996). Furthermore, classical conditioning and imprinting can explain the development of highly specific, non-adaptive sexual fetishes (Staats and Staats, 1957).

Also see:

• Sexual Market Value tactics that leverage these ‘market differences’

Traditional Gender Beliefs Impact People’s Ideals of Attractiveness

In one early study, for instance, Wiggins et al. (1968) found that men who were very ‘masculine’ according to the traditional sense (that is, had a high need for independence and dated frequently) showed a greater preference for large-breasted women than did less masculine men. Similarly, Beck et al. (1976) showed that women who preferred a large bust had an interest pattern which could be considered as traditionally feminine. Unfortunately, such studies have used definitions of gender roles that are today considered quite imprecise. In another study, Lavrakas (1975) reported that women who adopted a traditionally feminine gender role had a greater preference for masculine male physiques (a tapering V-shape) than did less ‘traditional’ women. In conjunction with more recent work (Swami et al. 20071), this study suggests that individuals adopting traditional (that is, more strongly masculine or feminine) gender roles tend to have preferences for body shapes that are defined as attractive in the ‘traditional’ sense, namely hourglass shapes for women and muscular V-shapes for men. In contrast, individuals adopting ‘liberated’ gender roles have less stereotyped preferences (Furnham and Greaves 1994; Maier and Lavrakas 1984).

Chapter 9: Getting to know you

Beyond static morphological features, the actual process of interpersonal attraction involves dynamic, non-physical variables. Factors such as physical proximity, behavioral reciprocity, shared values, and expressive communication skills ultimately dictate whether people end up dating or not.

• Proximity and the Mere Exposure Effect: The foundational social psychological finding that geographical closeness and repetitive visual exposure to a person significantly increase familiarity and subsequent liking (Festinger et al., 1950; Zajonc, 1968).
• Extraversion and Exhibition Can Boost Attraction: Certain personality dimensions, most notably extraversion and exhibition, have been shown to be positively related to both increased display of expressive behaviour and attraction ratings in initial encounters (Friedman et al. 1988; Riggio et al. 1981; Riggio and Friedman 1986).
• Reciprocity and Similarity: Attraction is heavily driven by mutual reinforcement (liking those who explicitly like us) and the “law of attraction,” where relational bonds strengthen linearly with the proportion of shared attitudes, beliefs, and demographic traits (Byrne, 1971; Dittes and Kelley, 1956).
• Dynamic Attractiveness and Self-Disclosure: Overall physical attractiveness is a composite that includes dynamic expressive styles, conversational skills, and the building of trust through reciprocal self-disclosure, which can permanently alter how a partner’s physical form is perceived (Riggio et al., 1991; Altman and Taylor, 1973).
• Non-Verbal Communication: The powerful role of covert cues—such as mutual gaze, interpersonal distance, and touch—in regulating intimacy and signaling romantic interest outside of conscious awareness (Argyle and Ingham, 1972; Hall, 1966).
• The Love is Blind Bias: A positive psychological illusion where individuals in established romantic relationships rate their partners as significantly more physically attractive than themselves, a mechanism that enhances relationship stability and personal well-being (Swami et al., 2007b).

🙋‍♂️Lucio’s Take: Familiarity and ‘liking’ ≠ attraction

Lucio:
It seems that this chapter sometimes may conflate liking, dating, and attraction.
It’s normal and expected that people tend to date people who live close by. But that is not the same as someone’s level of attractiveness, or what others find attractive.

Riggio et al. (1991) Model

Riggio’s model of attractiveness (1991), as conceptualized by Swami and Furnham

The model breaks “Attractiveness” down into an equation of several different variables rather than a single source of attractiveness. It argues that overall attractiveness is the sum of them all:

1. Static Components

These are the fixed physical traits that evolutionary psychologists focus on.

• Facial Attractiveness: Symmetry, neoteny, and sexual dimorphism.
• Body Attractiveness: BMI, WHR (women), and WCR (men).
• The Role: This provides the “first-pass” filter. It sets the baseline for the “Halo Effect.”

2. Adornment Components

These are the elements of self-presentation that an individual chooses.

• Dress Sense & Grooming: Clothing, hairstyles, and cosmetics (Cash et al., 1985).
• The Role: These signal Socio-Economic Status (SES), subcultural belonging, and conscientiousness (effort). They can compensate for lower static attractiveness by signaling high “mate value” in other domains.

Also see:

• Value-signaling: the full framework
• How to signal value on a date (value-sequence model)

3. Dynamic Expressive Style

This is the core of Riggio’s contribution. It consists of individual differences in social and emotional skills:

• Emotional Expressiveness: The ability to spontaneously and accurately communicate emotions through facial expressions and gestures.
• Social Sensitivity: The ability to read the room and adjust one’s behavior (Self-Monitoring).
• Social Control: Skill in formal self-presentation and verbal fluency.
• The Role: This is the “Multiplier.” Riggio found that people with high “Dynamic Expressivity” are rated as more attractive than those with identical physical features but “flat” or “awkward” expressions.

TPM Note: A model that highlights the importance of traits beyond pure looks
This model, and supporting research, should be encouraging to less attractive men about their dating prospects (Schneider et al. 1979; Byrne 1971). Also see our article on ‘escaping the black pill‘

SHARPEST INSIGHTS

These are the insights that struck us the most.
We use the authors’ quotes and research, but the titles and interpretations are our own—and may not reflect the authors’ intent.
Credit for the insight goes to them; blame for the interpretation is on us.

Reciprocity Is Most Attractive to Low Self-Esteem

But the effects of reciprocity may not be the same for everyone: positive interpersonal feedback may be more important for those individuals who have a higher need for interpersonal security (Sperling and Borgaro 1995). Similarly, Dittes (1959) found that people with low self-esteem showed stronger positive and negative reactions to group feedback; by contrast, people with high self-esteem did not seem to be affected by acceptance or rejection.

🙋🏼‍♂️ Lucio’s Analysis

Possible Bias Against Evolutionary Psychology

The authors present their position as straddling social and evolutionary psychology, and they’re not wholly wrong, both angles are covered.

Yet, I find them leaning towards the social aspect, including a tendency to criticize evolutionary psychology that at times feels unwarranted and may oversimplify evolutionary psychology.
For example, quoting from the book:

• We remain unconvinced that evolutionary psychology will be able to explain all facets of human behaviour.
• Despite the proclamations of some evolutionary psychologists, it is clear that the ‘ideal’ female body has not remained static

I doubt most evolutionary psychologists would claim that they explain all facets of human behavior. It’s not its goal. It can, however, provide the foundation for understanding most of the general tendencies related to attraction, mating, survival, and reproduction.
And I don’t think that many evolutionary psychologists would proclaim that the ‘ideal’ female body has remained static.

Exaggerates Cultural Relativity

For example:

In some cultures, the advantages of plumpness or obesity can be significant, and individuals of extreme size such as Sumo wrestlers in Japan can become cultural icons.

This is misleading because:

1. Sumo wrestlers can absolutely be a cultural icon without being sexually or romantically attractive (and I’d bet they’re not very attractive to most women)
2. Japan may actually be a counterexample, because one of the lowest obesity rates in the developed world may suggest that low body fat is the dominant attractiveness standard, not the opposite.
3. Almost no overweight person becomes a cultural icon in Japan if we account for the total number of overweight people and high-status sumo wrestlers

Sometimes Shies Away From Unpopular Truths

For example, the authors say that studies show that mock jurors consider sexual harassment more likely when the defendant is less attractive, or when the plaintiff is attractive (Castellow et al. 1990; Wuensch and Moore 2004).

However, a deeper analysis should look at the actual numbers, or at least raise some questions, rather than treating these findings as a sure perceptual bias.

REVIEW

The Psychology of Physical Attraction offers a solid, science-based approach to attraction.

It would have benefited from some editing, trimming for example, the history of waist-to-hip ratio research and focusing more on later research and emerging consensus. And I would have liked a stronger focus on the universals of attraction, while the authors instead focused more on the equally valid cultural variations.

The authors and TPM may have slightly different perspectives. TPM favors a slightly more evolutionary angle because we believe it sets stronger foundations of attraction common to many, though not all, people. The authors instead, at least in this book, slightly favor a cultural approach. But the commonalities are stronger than the differences, we enjoyed the book, and it has served as a reference for refining several of our science-driven articles. And that’s always the biggest compliment we can provide to anyone.

Check the best evolutionary psychology books & TPM top recommendations