“What Women Like”: Influence of Motion and Form on Esthetic Body Perception

Abstract

Several studies have shown the distinct contribution of motion and form to the esthetic evaluation of female bodies. Here, we investigated how variations of implied motion and body size interact in the esthetic evaluation of female and male bodies in a sample of young healthy women. Participants provided attractiveness, beauty, and liking ratings for the shape and posture of virtual renderings of human bodies with variable body size and implied motion. The esthetic judgments for both shape and posture of human models were influenced by body size and implied motion, with a preference for thinner and more dynamic stimuli. Implied motion, however, attenuated the impact of extreme body size on the esthetic evaluation of body postures, while body size variations did not affect the preference for more dynamic stimuli. Results show that body form and action cues interact in esthetic perception, but the final esthetic appreciation of human bodies is predicted by a mixture of perceptual and affective evaluative components.

Different contributions of visual and motor brain areas during liking judgments of same- and different-gender bodies

“…The results of the baseline liking rating of the stimuli confirmed previous findings (Cazzato et al, 2012) that body size and implied motion interact in influencing the aesthetic appreciation of human bodies and may play a different role for the appreciation of same-or different-gender bodies.…”

“…Furthermore, in our previous study (Cazzato et al 2012) we directly compared different types of judgments on the stimuli used here (liking, beauty, and attractiveness ratings), and found largely overlapping modulations by size and implied motion. Still the question remains as to whether the involvement of visual and motor cortices is sensitive to different dimensions of aesthetic experience.…”

“…In particular, symmetry and consistency of movements (Escós et al, 1995;Hampson & Kimura, 1988) and distribution and overall amount of body fat as also measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (Fan et al, 2004;Singh, 1993a,b) may signal attractiveness, youthfulness, health and reproductive potential. Therefore, quality of implied or actual motion and body weight may both influence the aesthetic appreciation of the body and the relative impact of these properties may vary when judging the aesthetic value of same-or different-gender bodies (Cazzato et al, 2012). Research on how the neural underpinnings of body aesthetic appreciation are shaped by the correspondence between the observer and model's gender, however, is scant.…”

“…Furthermore, to rule out the possibility that rTMS may induce a simple bias either towards preferring (or not preferring) the first image of a pair of stimuli by using a forced-choice aesthetic preference task (Calvo-Merino et al, 2010), we asked participants for explicit aesthetic ratings of how much they liked each stimulus. In addition, while previous aesthetic studies have focused on only one dimension of body aesthetic preference, presenting for examples pictures of the same model while performing different dance moves (Calvo-Merino et al, 2010), in keeping with the Cazzato et al (2014)'s study, here we included stimuli with systematic variations of body size and body motion, which have a specific, common aesthetic value for a group of individuals, with a preference for thinner and more dynamic stimuli (Cazzato et al, 2012;Mele et al, 2013). Furthermore, rather than asking participants to separately rate the aesthetic value of the model's body or of the body posture (Cazzato et al, 2012), here, we allowed participants to rely on both body form and body action cues in their aesthetic ratings of all stimuli.…”

“…In addition, while previous aesthetic studies have focused on only one dimension of body aesthetic preference, presenting for examples pictures of the same model while performing different dance moves (Calvo-Merino et al, 2010), in keeping with the Cazzato et al (2014)'s study, here we included stimuli with systematic variations of body size and body motion, which have a specific, common aesthetic value for a group of individuals, with a preference for thinner and more dynamic stimuli (Cazzato et al, 2012;Mele et al, 2013). Furthermore, rather than asking participants to separately rate the aesthetic value of the model's body or of the body posture (Cazzato et al, 2012), here, we allowed participants to rely on both body form and body action cues in their aesthetic ratings of all stimuli. We capitalized on the idea that, while in informing the aesthetic appreciation judgments, the extent of implied motion and body size should be processed by dPMC and EBA respectively, this would not necessarily determine that dPMC-rTMS should be selectively interferring with the aesthetic judgments of implied motion stimuli.…”