Translated Titles

Does Short-term Hunger Affect Men’s Preference for Women’s Body?





Key Words

吸引力 ; 偏好 ; 飢餓 ; 飽足 ; Attraction ; Body preference ; Sense of hunger ; Full



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese Abstract

關於擇偶及吸引力之研究國內外皆有大量的文獻及資料,但是目前國內尚未有研究關於環境安全假說之檢驗的部分,因此,本研究以環境安全假說試圖檢驗國內是否與外國研究結果相符合。 關於環境安全假說檢驗方式有兩種,第一種為長期跨文化之研究(Swami & Tovée, 2005)。若生長在較安全且資源富裕的環境中,男性在挑選女上較偏好纖瘦之女性,若生長在不安全且資源較貧乏的環境下,男性對女性的偏好身材則較為豐腴。第二種則是針對短期飢餓前後檢驗其是否對異性身材偏好有所差異(Pettijohn, et.al, 2009)。本論文為第二種論點的檢驗。本文採用Singh(1993)的女性身體輪廓圖進行問卷發放,讓受測者填寫其個人基本資料後再以1-10分的評分方式調查男性對12張女性輪廓圖之偏好,並詢問其填寫問卷當下的飢餓程度。回收問卷後檢驗男性飢餓組與飽足組對12張女性輪廓圖之偏好分數是否有顯著差異。經t檢定﹔研究結果顯示,兩組分數並無差異。亦即,短暫飢餓感或飽足感不會使男性對異性身材偏好產生差異。本研究結果Pettijohn等人(2009)的結果不同。

English Abstract

There is a large amount of literature and information on the study of mate selection and attraction at home and abroad. However, at present, there is no research on the environmental safety hypothesis in China. Therefore, this study attempts to test whether the domestic and foreign research results are consistent with the environmental safety hypothesis. There are two ways to test the environmental safety hypothesis. The first is long-term cross-cultural research (Swami & Tovée, 2005). If grown in a safer and resource-rich environment, men are more likely to choose women who are more lean, and if they grow in an unsafe and resource-poor environment, men's preference for women is more abundant. The second is to test whether there is a difference in heterosexual body preference before and after short-term hunger (Pettijohn, et.al, 2009).Keywords: This paper is a test of the second argument. This paper uses Singh's (1993) female body contour map to issue questionnaires, allowing the subjects to fill in their personal basic data and then survey the male's preference for 12 female contour maps with a score of 1-10, and ask them to fill out the questionnaire. The current level of hunger. After the questionnaire was collected, it was tested whether the male hunger group and the satiety group had significant differences in the preference scores of the 12 female contour maps. After t-test; the results of the study showed that there was no difference in the scores between the two groups. That is, short-term hunger or satiety does not make men's preferences for heterosexual body differences. The results of this study are different for Pettijohn et al. (2009).

Topic Category 教育學院 > 社會與區域發展學系
社會科學 > 社會學
  1. 一、 中文部分
  2. 朱玉娓(2008)。體重控制對女性大學生身體形象的意義。弘光學報,53,109-122。
  3. 吳秀娟(2009)男女性對女性完美身材的偏好差異。台北:台北教育大學碩士論文。
  4. 曾育齡(2005)。大學生身體意象與戀愛關係相關之研究。中國文化大學,臺北市。
  5. 邱鳳梓、楊淳淳、吳依伶(2009)。現代審美觀影響身材標準認同之探討設計。紡織綜合研究期刊,4,53-63。
  6. 李美枝(1996)。〈兩性關係的社會生物學原型在傳統中國與今日台灣的表現型態〉,《本土心理學研究》,5:114-174。
  7. 張錦華(2002)。「女為悅己者“瘦”?-媒體效果與主體研究」。台北:正中書局。
  8. 張春興(1991)。教育心理學 。台北: 東華書局。
  9. 溫凰玲(2010)。男女性對異性身材的偏好差異。台北:國立臺北教育大學社會與區域發展學系碩士論文。
  10. 劉文溪(2004)。不同體脂肪測量評估大學男學生身體組成之研究。屏東:國立屏東師範學院體育學系教學研究所碩士論文。
  11. Grogan, Sarah(2001)《身體意象》,黎士鳴譯,初版,台北:弘智文化。
  12. 二、 英文部分
  13. Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J. & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was the duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural study of the socioecology of ideals of feminine bodyshape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13: 197-227.
  14. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.
  15. Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459-491
  16. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
  17. Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 2, 239–260.
  18. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.
  19. Buss,D.M. & Schmitt,D.P.(1994). The Evolution of Desire:Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic.
  20. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984)Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  21. Bolig, R., Stein, P. J., & McKenry, P. C. (1984). The self-advertisement approach to dating: Male-female differences. Family Relations, 33, 587-592.
  22. Berry, D.S., & McArthur, L.Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323.
  23. Clary, E., & Tesser, A. (1983). Reactions to unexpected events: The naive scientist and interpretive activity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 609–620.
  24. David A. Frederick & Martie G. Haselton(2007. Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis. Society for Personality and Social Psychology , 33(8):1167-1183.
  25. Fallen, A. E. & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in perceptions of desirable
  26. body shape. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94,102-105.
  27. Fallon, A. E. (1990). Culture in the mirror: Sociocultural determinants of body image.
  28. Furnham,A.,Baguma,P.(1994).Cross cultural differences in the evaluation of male and female body shapes.International Journal of Eating Disorders 15, 81–890.
  29. Furnham, A., Dias, M. & McClelland, A. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractivenes, 39(3-4): 311-26.
  30. Furnham,A.(1994).Cross-Cultural Differences in the Evaluation of Male and Female Body Shapes.International of Eating Disorders,15:81-89
  31. Grogan, S., Williams, Z., & Conner, M. (1996). The effects of viewing same gender photographic models on body satisfaction. Women and Psychology Quarterly, 20,569-575.
  32. Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31,1-16.
  33. Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. P. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772–778.
  34. Hill, J. (1984). Prestige and reproductive success in man. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5,77–95.
  35. James, P.T., Leach, R., Kalamara, E. & Shayeghi, M.(2001).The Worldwide Obesity Epidemic. Obesity Research, 9 (Supp. 4):228S-233S.
  36. Keating, C., A. Mazur, and M. Segall. (1981). A Cross-cultural Exploration of Physiognomic Traits of Dominance and Happiness. Ethology and Sociobiology 2:41-48.
  37. Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: Is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 26–34.
  38. Marlowe,F.,&Wetsman,A.(2001).Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481−489.
  39. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.
  40. Nelson, L.D., Morrison, E.L., 2005. The symptoms of resource scarcity: Judgements of food and finances influence preferences for potential partners. Psychological Science 16, 167–173.
  41. Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12 , 186-241.
  42. Pontius, A. (1987). Obesity types in Stone Age art: A study iniconodiagnosis. In R. J. Wurtman, J. J. Wurtman (Eds.),Human Obesity(pp. 331−334). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
  43. Pettijohn TFII, Sacco DF Jr, Yerkes MJ (2009) .Hungry people prefer more mature mates: A field test of the environmental security hypothesis. J Soc Evol Cultural Psychol 3: 216–232
  44. Pettijohn, T. F. II, & Tesser, A. (1999). An investigation of popularity in environmental context: Facial feature assessment of American movie actresses. Media Psychology, 1, 229-247.
  45. Peter J.Brown&Melvin Konner(1987). An Anthropological Perspective on Obesity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 499:29-46.
  46. Swami, Viren & Tovee, Martin J. (2005). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A crosscultural study. Body Image, 2: 383-393.
  47. Singh D, Randall PK (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43: 329–340.
  48. Singh,D.,Dixson,B.J.,Jessop,T. S.,Morgan, B.&Dixson,A.F. (2010).Cross-cultural consensus for waist-to-hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31: 176-181.
  49. Symons, D. (1979). The Evolutionary of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  50. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995).Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and Garza et al.15 desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.
  51. Swami, V., & Tovee, M. J. (2005). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image 2( 2005) 115-128.
  52. Srikanthan, P., Seeman, T.E., and Karlamangla, A.S. (2009).Waist-hip-ratio as a predictor of all-cause mortality in high-functioning older adults.Annals of Epidemiology, 19, 724-731.
  53. Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.
  54. Sobal, J. and Stunkard, A.J. (1989) Socioeconomic status and obesity: a review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 105, pp.260-75.
  55. Thomas Gregor(1985). Anxious pleasures: The sexual lives of an Amazonian people. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  56. Trivers, R.(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871-1971 (pp.136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
  57. Tovée, M. J., Edmonds, L., & Vuong, Q. C. (2012). Categorical perception of human female physical attractiveness and health. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 85–93.
  58. Trivers, R.(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871-1971 (pp.136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
  59. Townsend, J.M., and Levy, G.(1990) Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology 124:371–389.