Gay male attraction toward muscular men: Does mating context matter?

Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Gay male attraction toward muscular men: Does mating context matter? Eleanna Varangis a , Nicholas Lanzieri b,∗ , Tom Hildebrandt a , Matthew Feldman c a

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, Eating and Weight Disorders Program, New York, NY, United States New York University, Silver School of Social Work, New York, NY, United States c Gay Men’s Health Crisis, New York, NY, United States b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 May 2011 Received in revised form 9 January 2012 Accepted 10 January 2012 Keywords: Attractiveness Gay males Short and long-term relationship Muscularity Body fat

The purpose of this study was to examine gay men’s perceived attractiveness of male figures based on short-term and long-term partner contexts. A sample of 190 gay adult men rated the attractiveness of line-drawings depicting male figures varying systematically in muscularity and body fat percentage in both short-term and long-term dating contexts. Mixed effects modeling was used to estimate the effects of figure (muscularity and body fat), dating context (short-term vs. long-term), and individual rater characteristics on attractiveness ratings. Results indicated that figure muscularity and body-fat had significant non-linear (i.e., quadratic) relationships with attractiveness ratings, and short-term dating context was associated with more discriminating ratings of attractiveness. Interactions between individual characteristics and figure characteristics indicated that the more available the individual and lower body fat, the more discriminating they were in ratings of attractiveness. The implications for future investigations considering both object and observer characteristics of attractiveness preferences are discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The concept of men’s attractiveness has been subject to considerable investigation; however prior studies on male partner attractiveness have primarily focused on women rating men’s attractiveness (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Dixson, Halliwell, East, Wignarajah, & Anderson, 2003; Frederick & Haselton, 2007; Honekopp, Rudolph, Beier, Liebert, & Muller, 2007; Maisey, Vale, Cornelissen, & Tovée, 1999; Singh, 1995; Swami & Tovée, 2005; Swami et al., 2007). Findings from these studies have substantiated the theory that aesthetics plays a key role in women’s judgments of men’s physical attractiveness. Less research has been conducted on perceptions of attractiveness in gay male populations, but past research has confirmed that physical appearance is an important factor in perceived attractiveness of other men among gay men (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Hospers & Jansen, 2005; Sergios & Cody, 1985; Siever, 1994; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Previous studies on gay male attractiveness have focused on either single dimensions or determinations of attractiveness (e.g., Lippa, 2007; Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001) or on the content of personal advertisements (e.g., Bartholome, Tewksbury, & Bruzzone, 2000; Child, Low, McCormick,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 659 9292. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Varangis), [email protected] (N. Lanzieri), [email protected] (T. Hildebrandt), [email protected] (M. Feldman). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.003

& Cocciarella, 1996; Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Epel, Spanakos, KaslGodley, & Brownell, 1996; Gonzales & Meyers, 1993; Hatala & Predhodka, 1996; Laner & Kamel, 1978; Thorne & Coupland, 1998). There is evidence that gay men preferred lean, proportionate, muscular, and athletic (in-shape) men (Bartholome et al., 2000; Halkitis, Green, & Wilton, 2004; Hatala & Predhodka, 1996; Swami & Tovée, 2008). The schema for partner attractiveness has generally replicated the heterosexual paradigm (women rating men) in the manner in which muscles, weight, and bodily structure were used to select an ideal partner (Lippa, 2007; Swami & Tovée, 2008; heterosexuality: Furnham, Tan, & McManus, 1997; Henss, 1995; Maisey et al., 1999; Singh, 1995). However, further studies have shown that gay men’s ratings of attractiveness are more sensitive to muscularity than to weight (Levesque & Vichesky, 2006). Previous studies on individual variability in perceptions of attractiveness have examined the influence of personality type and mating strategy (or “sociosexuality”) on self-reported perceptions of attractiveness (Swami, 2011; Swami, Miller, Furnham, Penke, & Tovée, 2008). Results from studies on individual differences found that heterogeneity in the observer group based on these factors has a significant impact upon partner selection, and can explain some of the variability in partner preference (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Furnham, Moutafi, & Baguma, 2002; Maner, Galliot, & DeWall, 2007). Mating context in particular has been shown to be a crucial factor in perceptions and ratings of attractiveness, and research has demonstrated attractiveness ratings to be highly dependent upon the level of investment the observer seeks in his/her potential partner (i.e., Confer, Perilloux, & Buss,

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

2010; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Little, Jones, PentonVoak, Burt, & Perrett, 2002; Penke, Todd, Lenton, & Fasolo, 2007). However, the perceived personality of the potential partner is equally important in mate selection. Further studies on the influence of potential partner traits in mate selection have examined how aspects of appearance and personality contribute towards perceptions of attractiveness. A majority of previous studies focused on differences in personality (or perceived personality) and their effect on partner preference (i.e., Buss, 1989; Hassin & Trope, 2000; Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006). Swami et al. (2010) expanded upon these findings by examining the effect of personality on determinations of physical attractiveness of female figures. They found that individuals rating figures described as having “positive” personalities found a broader range of female figures to be attractive than those rating figures with “negative” or “neutral” personality characteristics; the thinnest figure rated to be attractive did not change between groups, but the heaviest figure rated to be attractive was the heaviest in the positive personality group. Incorporating the two potential partner dimensions of personality and physical attractiveness, it also may be the case that observers associate attractiveness with having an “attractive” or positive personality, and thus perceive them to be overall more desirable (i.e., Feingold, 1992; Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000). This field has focused almost exclusively on women’s preference among heterosexual men, and has yet to delve into such individual variability within a gay male population. Extending this investigation into individual differences, in past studies, researchers have been able to model figure-level variability in perceptions of attractiveness based on bodily characteristics (e.g., body mass index, or BMI; waist-to-hip ratio; and waist to chest ratio) using non-linear relationships. Swami and Tovée (2005) found a quadratic relationship between figure BMI (but not waist-to-hip ratio or waist-to-chest ratio) and attractiveness rating. Though the peak of the curve and the magnitude of the peak differed, this non-linear relationship held true for all three populations studied (women from Britain and Malaysia). Swami and Tovée (2008) confirmed this non-linear pattern with a population of gay and heterosexual men. Thus, we can hypothesize that a quadratic relationship exists between figure BMI and ratings of attractiveness with extremes having lower ratings than average BMIs. Examining another aspect of figure-level variability, past studies on heterosexual self-report attractiveness suggest that heterosexual women are willing to compromise on prospective partner attractiveness when rating men in the context of a long-term relationship (Scheib, 2001). Research on heterosexual men’s perceptions of attractiveness found that their ratings of attractiveness within the context of a short-term relationship are more dependent upon bodily characteristics, while ratings of attractiveness in the context of a long-term relationship are more dependent upon facial characteristics (Confer et al., 2010). Despite the growing body of research on gay male ratings of attractiveness, much of the methodology used in past studies is constrained by their study design and statistical approach. Many past studies have observers choose a single figure from a set of line drawings or photographs that vary systematically in some important way (e.g., degree of muscularity) (Levesque & Vichesky, 2006), with inferences about entire patterns of partner preference made through interpretations of this selection. It is possible that this choice may be a better reflection of a cultural ideal than actual partner preference, as few people can actually achieve the physical features of figures consistently identified as the most attractive. Furthermore, this paradigm does not reflect partner selection for which multiple potential partners are considered or when partner choice is limited by availability or other observer characteristics (e.g., personal level of attractiveness). Existing, single-choice, paradigms therefore fail to capture this important person-centered

271

variability or individual differences in the pattern of attractiveness ratings, and tend to focus more on variability originating from the line-drawing or picture (e.g., degree of muscularity). The current study was designed to extend observations from studies of attractiveness conducted within heterosexual populations to a gay male population and to approach the paradigm of gay male partner preference using both person-centered variability and figure-based variability (or item-level variability in the psychometric literature; see de Boek & Wilson, 2004). This approach required observers to rate the attractiveness of each figure as opposed to selecting the most attractive figure from a range of images, and required individuals to rate each figure in the context of both a short-term and a long-term relationship. This paradigm allowed us to incorporate the effects of variation in the object (the figures) in terms of muscularity, body fat, and relational context, and variation in the observer (the participants) while accounting for variance originating from body fat, weight, relationship status, age, and other demographic components. Thus, variation in observers’ ratings was dependent upon a fixed effect originating from the figure, and a random effect that originated from the individual. Previous studies have treated this random effect as a fixed effect, which assumes that unexplained variance around the mean is error. By characterizing both variance and means, the prediction becomes more accurate and allows us to answer questions about the degree to which selfreported attractiveness varies as a function of item-level (figure muscle, figure body fat) and person-centered (demographics, partner status), and individual (intercept) predictors. This model built off of the non-linear models proposed by Swami and Tovée (2005, 2008), and assessed for variability in both figure characteristics (body fat, muscularity, and relationship status) as well as observer characteristics (body fat, relationship status, etc.) in determinations of attractiveness of a series of figures. Based on the aforementioned findings, we hypothesized the following: (1) figure-level variation will be non-linearly related to physical attractiveness: two orthogonal features (body fat and muscularity) will peak at the cultural ideal (low body fat and high muscularity) but taper away from this peak, and reflect quadratic relationships with attractiveness; (2) gay men will be more discriminating (i.e., steeper taper from/toward the most attractive figure) when observing figures under the expectation of a shortterm relationship compared to a long-term relationship; and (3) gay men’s partner status and other physical characteristics (e.g., body fat percentage, age, etc.) will predict the pattern of attractiveness ratings. We also explored interactions between observer and figure level predictors.

Method Participants Participants for the study consisted of 193 self-identified gay, adult men (above the age of 18). A total of 415 people accessed the survey site, so in total there was a 46.5% response rate. The mean age was 32.38 years old (SD = 12.20 years), with participants ranging in age from 18 to 74 years. A majority of participants were single (n = 103), while 13 were in short-term relationships, and 77 were in long-term relationships. Of the 193 participants, 173 identified as being primarily gay, while 17 identified as primarily bisexual, and 3 identified as being heterosexual (these were excluded from analyses). The final sample pool, therefore, consisted of 190 gay and bisexual men. Of the 190 participants in the final subject pool, 80% (n = 152) self-reported their ethnicity as non-Hispanic, 15.8% (n = 30) identified as Hispanic, and 4.2% (n = 8) chose not to report their ethnicity. Additionally, 73.2% of the final pool indicated their race was Caucasian (n = 139), 4.2% identified as African American

272

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

(n = 8), 6.3% identified as Asian (n = 12), 1.1% identified as Native American or Pacific Islander (n = 2), 10% identified as more than one race (n = 19), and 5.3% chose not to report a racial background (n = 10). Measures Demographics. Participants indicated their age, gender, ethnicity, race, height, weight, and current body fat percentage. Participants were also asked to indicate current partnership status as either single, in a short-term relationship (defined as “dating someone more than once with no expectation of a long-term relationship”), or in a long-term relationship (defined as “dating someone for a long period of time, with the possibility but not certainty of a marital state”). Participants who were unsure of their exact body fat percentage were presented with approximate body fat percentage ranges for low, medium, or high body fat, and were instructed to report an approximation. The ranges as quoted in the survey included underweight (e.g., BMI for men < 18.5, body fat < 8%), normal weight (e.g., BMI for men 18.5–25, body fat = 8–21%) and overweight (e.g., BMI for men > 25, body fat > 21%). These ranges were based on population norms for men (Gallagher, Heymsfield, Heo, Jebb, Murgatroyd, & Sakamoto, 2000), and have been used reliably and validly in self-report measures of body fat in previous studies (i.e., Hildebrandt & Walker, 2006; Hildebrandt, Langenbucher, & Schlundt, 2004; Hildebrandt, Shiovitz, Alfano, & Greif, 2008).1 BMI was calculated as weight (kg)/height2 (m). Sexual orientation. The sexual orientation of each participant was assessed by using the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG, Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). The KSOG assesses several different aspects of an individual’s sexual orientation. Participants were asked to respond to seven questions intended to understand the contexts of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preferences and social preferences. All items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (other sex only) to 7 (same sex only). Participants were also asked two questions that assessed their own sexual identity or lifestyle. The items of lifestyle preference and sexual identity were also rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (heterosexual only) to 7 (homosexual only). The questionnaire used standard assessments; however some questions were modified to accommodate the sample and intent of the study. Attractiveness stimuli. The Bodybuilder Image Grid (Hildebrandt et al., 2004) was designed to measure perceptual disturbance in men’s body image and as a stimulus set for perceived attractiveness of the male body. The BIG figures can be visualized along two orthogonal dimensions – muscle mass and body fat percentage. A total of 30 figures (as depicted by a standardized set of line-drawings) were created systematically at intervals of 6.5% body fat (3.5–36%) and a fat-free mass index of 2.0 (range 15.5–29.5). The figures have test–retest reliability for attractiveness ratings of .84–.94 for each figure (Hildebrandt et al., 2004). Upon beginning the task, participants were presented with the BIG, and were able to view all 30 figures concurrently. Participants were first asked to choose the figure that best represented their own current body-type, their own ideal body-type, the most attractive body-type, and the most attractive body-type as observed by other men. In addition, participants were also asked to provide the associated height, weight, and body fat percentage

1 Pearson correlation for SRBF% was r = .86 (Hildebrandt et al., 2004). This was not reported within the context of the aforementioned paper since it was not the primary focus of the study.

for each chosen figure. Participants were then asked to assess attractiveness of each of the 30 figures two times, using a 0 (not attractive) to 9 (extremely attractive) ordinal scale. Throughout this part of the survey, participants were only able to view one figure at a time (the one they were rating). In the first set of directions, participants were given a short definition of a short-term relationship (someone with whom another man would have a brief affair or one night stand) and asked to make ratings for each figure. After completing their ratings for all figures in the context of a short-term relationship, a second definition for a long-term relationship (someone with whom another man would like to share a life with) was then provided and participants asked to rate attractiveness for the same set of 30 figures. Procedure Participants were recruited over the course of 1 year through introductory emails that were posted on various gay community web-sites. Recruitment was also conducted using a snowballing technique, whereby interested participants emailed colleagues and friends the introductory email. The introductory email consisted of a brief statement describing the research project, and a link to the Survey Monkey website for the study questionnaire. Participants were presented with an IRB-approved electronic statement of informed consent when they accessed the questionnaire. The informed consent communicated that participants could decide not to continue the questionnaire at any time and their answers would not be recorded. The questionnaire was completed over 5 pages, contained a total of 75 questions, and took approximately 25 min to complete. All questionnaires were presented in the same order to all participants. Participants were not reimbursed for participation in the study. Statistical Analysis To examine both the person-centered and figure-centered effects, we chose a mixed model approach with random effects estimated for the intercept. The model was estimated using a hierarchical structure with figure-centered effects (figure-muscularity, figure-leanness, short-term vs. long-term) modeled as Level-1 predictors and observer demographics (age, body fat percentage, BMI, relationship status, and race/ethnicity) as Level-2 predictors of attractiveness ratings. We chose a random-intercept model because the intercept variance can be interpreted as observerspecific variability in attractiveness ratings. In other words, a random-intercept model provides an estimate of individual heterogeneity in perceived attractiveness to male figures. Modeling steps began with determining the best fitting Level1 (baseline) model and then adding complexity to the model by including Level-2 predictors followed by examining interactions. To determine the best fitting models, we used Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) where lower BIC indicates better overall fit. Mixed models were run using Supermix 1.0 (Hedeker, Gibbons, du Toit, & Cheng, 2008) and estimated with a maximum likelihood estimator, which allowed for replacement of missing Level-1 data under the assumption of missing at random. Once the superiority of the random effects model was established, we fit both linear and non-linear effects of the figurecentered variables. This was accomplished by testing quadratic and cubic relationships between BIG-muscle and BIG-body fat percentage and attractiveness ratings. After testing these relationships, we built upon the Level-1 random effects model by adding in Level-2 predictors. Non-significant predictors were dropped and the final model re-calculated. The final step involved adding interactions to the Level-2 models.

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

273

Table 1 Parameter estimates for random-intercept model with linear and quadratic effects of muscle and body fat on attractiveness ratings. Model

Linear Model

Squared Model

Parameter

Standard error

p-Value

Intercept Figure body fat Figure muscle Short-term vs. long-term Residual variance Random intercept variance

Estimate 6.551 −0.903 0.049 −0.105 4.351 0.940

0.092 0.011 0.014 0.039 0.058 0.103

<.00001 <.0001 .00034 .00683 <.00001 <.00001

Intercept Figure body fat Figure muscle Short-term vs. long-term Figure body fat squared Figure muscle mass squared Residual variance Random intercept variance

3.518 −0.003 1.621 −0.105 −0.128 −0.262 4.051 0.945

0.139 0.054 0.068 0.037 0.008 0.011 0.054 0.103

<.0001 .95036 <.0001 .00505 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Results Participants’ self-reported mean BMI was 24.32 (SD = 2.11) with a mean body fat percentage of 14.76% (SD = 7.89). Their Ideal Body was estimated to be smaller and more lean, with an average BMI of 23.14 (SD = 2.23) and an average body fat percentage of 10.14% (SD = 5.18). The body believed to be most attractive to other men was similar, with an average BMI of 23.7 (SD = 2.41) and an average body fat percentage of 9.06% (SD = 5.12). In terms of fat-free mass index (FFMI), a measure of lean body mass (Kouri, Pope, Katz, & Oliva, 1995), these ideal or attractive figures all fell within physically obtainable, but lean and muscular standards of 21–22. According to Kouri et al., a FFMI of greater than 25 would not be possible without use of anabolic-androgenic steroids or appearance and performance enhancing drugs. Responses from the KSOG confirmed the gay male sample, with a mean of 6.41 (SD = 1.17) on the sexual attraction question of the KSOG (with a 1 meaning only sexual attraction to women, and a 7 meaning only sexual attraction to men), and a mean of 6.44 (SD = 1.37) on the sexual behavior question of the KSOG (with a 1 meaning only sexual behavior with women, and a 7 meaning only sexual behavior with men). A standard analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was estimated as a null model with figure-based predictors entered as covariates and this model was compared to a random-intercept model. The figure-based predictors were all treated as Level-1 predictors with individuals treated as Level-2 random effect. There was clear evidence of the superiority of this random-intercept model over the null model. The BIC dropped by 328 (Model 1 BIC = 84,768, Model 2 BIC = 84,540), and the addition of the random effect significantly improved the fit of the model, 2 (1) = 166.12, p < .001. Table 1 includes the parameter estimates for the linear and non-linear random intercept models. Quadratic terms for body fat and muscularity were statistically significant, and their addition to the model yielded a significant improvement in model fit, 2 (2) = 407.59, p < .001 and lower BIC. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the nonlinear model was ICC = .189, indicating that 18.9% of the variance in attractiveness scores was unique to the observers. Cubic models were also estimated but did not offer significant improvement in model fit. There was a significant non-linear relationship between muscle mass, body fat, and a figure’s perceived level of attractiveness, which is consistent with the first hypothesis. Furthermore, there was a significant relationship between short-term versus long-term relationship context and attractiveness ratings. The direction of this relationship indicated that figures rated within this long-term context were perceived as significantly less attractive. Building on the best fitting model, Level-2 predictors were added to determine the effects of specific individual characteristics. Table 2 includes the parameter estimates for the final model

BIC

# Free parameters

50,424.65

6

49,621.73

8

including the significant Level-2 predictors. Both observers’ relationship status and observers’ self-reported body fat percentage were predictive of attractiveness scores, even when controlling for dating context and figure characteristics. The other predictors (age, race/ethnicity, and self-reported BMI) were not significantly related to attractiveness ratings and their addition to model worsened overall estimates of goodness of fit. The final model, including both observer-based predictors and figure-based predictors, had a significantly better overall fit, 2 (2) = 434.23, p < .001, and lower BIC than the figure-based predictor model (Model 3 BIC = 82,111, Model 4 BIC = 81,772). As evident by the differences in intercept variance between the models in Tables 1 and 2, observer-body fat and relationship status accounted for about 6% (.945–.883/.945) of the between-subject variance in attractiveness ratings. Furthermore, the directions of the relationships between predictors and attractiveness ratings suggested that the greater one’s self-reported body fat percentage or the more invested their relationship status (i.e., long-term), the more attractive they rated observed figures. First order interactions were added to the model and the results are summarized in Table 3. There were significant interactions between both predictors (observer body fat and relationship status) and the squared BIG-fat and BIG-muscle terms. This suggests that the shape of the quadratic curve differed by these observer characteristics. Figs. 1 and 2 graphically depict these interactions. Mean attractiveness ratings were plotted in using area plots to demonstrate how attractiveness ratings varied by BIG-figure characteristics and observer characteristics. Those observers with less body fat had steeper quadratic curves with higher peaks than those individuals with higher body fat, whose attractiveness ratings were more moderate but for a greater range of body types. A similar pattern was found for differences in observer relationship status. The less-involved the observer’s relationship status (i.e., single, shortterm), the steeper the quadratic curves for muscularity, but there was no significant interaction with BIG-body fat. The steeper curves

Table 2 Parameter estimates for mixed model including significant Level-2 predictors. Parameter

Estimate

Standard error

p-Value

Intercept Figure body fat Figure muscle Short-term vs. long-term Figure body fat squared Figure muscle mass squared Observer relationship status Observer body fat Residual variance Random intercept variance

4.068 0.012 1.627 −0.105 −0.130 −0.263 0.121 0.03 4.070 0.883

0.055 0.054 0.069 0.038 0.008 0.011 0.022 0.01 0.055 0.098

<.00001 .83084 <.00001 .00577 <.00001 <.00001 <.00001 .00281 <.00001 <.00001

Note. Bayesian Information Criterion = 48,651.5834, # free parameters = 10.

274

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

Fig. 1. (a) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Individuals with a Body Fat of 0–10%. The body fat percentage along the x-axis represents figures depicting an approximate body fat percentage ranging from 3.5 to 36%, and the muscle index along the y-axis represents figures depicting very low-very high levels of muscle mass. The grid setup above roughly mirrors that of the BIG, with figure 1 lying in the box with coordinates of very low-low muscle mass and 3.5–10% body fat, figure 2 lying in the box with low-medium muscle mass and 10–16% body fat, etc. (b) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Individuals with a Body Fat of 10–20%. (c) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Individuals with a Body Fat of 20% and Above. As observer body fat increases, ratings along the body fat axis increase (i.e., higher figure body fat is rated as more attractive), and the (slightly lower) peak shifts further away from very low body fat figures towards medium body fat figures.

characteristic of these quadratic relationships can be conceptualized as a more discriminating pattern in attractiveness ratings. The inclusion of interactions significantly improved the overall model fit, 2 (8) = 234.72, p < .001 (Model 4 BIC = 81,772 vs. Model

5 BIC = 80,241). Examination of the variance components indicated that inclusion of the interaction terms yielded a 41.87% reduction in between group variance when controlling for Level-1 covariates and Level-2 main effects. Furthermore, the inclusion of these interactions also led to a 30.16% reduction in within-subject variance.

Table 3 Parameter estimates for mixed model including significant Level-2 predictors and interactions. Parameter

Estimate

Standard error

p-Value

Intercept BIG-body fat BIG-muscle Short-term vs. long-term BIG-body fat2 BIG-muscle mass2 Observer relationship status (RS) RS × BIG-body fat RS × BIG-body fat2 RS × BIG-muscle RS × BIG-muscle mass2 Observer body fat (O-Fat) O-Fat × BIG-body fat O-Fat × BIG-body fat2 O-Fat × BIG-muscle O-Fat × BIG-muscle mass2 Residual variance Random intercept variance

4.068 −0.258 1.662 −0.105 −0.130 −0.273 0.119 0.045 −0.007 −0.062 0.012 3.083 0.648 0.01 0.078 0.003 2.842 0.37

0.055 0.129 0.075 0.032 0.008 0.013 0.077 0.044 0.006 0.029 0.005 0.397 0.096 0.001 0.02 0.001 0.039 0.041

<.00001 .04496 <.00001 .00097 <.00001 <.00001 .12230 .29966 .21729 .03146 .03217 <.00001 <.00001 <.00001 .00006 <.00001 <.00001 <.00001

Note. Bayesian Information Criterion = 46,266.9758, # free parameters = 18.

Discussion The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the heterogeneity in perceptions of male physical attractiveness within a gay male population and to examine this heterogeneity while accounting for both observer and figure derived based variability. Results of the study confirmed that gay men tend to rate muscular and athletic physiques as the most attractive body types. These findings are consistent with prior studies that found a positive relationship between a figure’s lean muscularity and self-report ratings of attractiveness (Bartholome et al., 2000; Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Epel et al., 1996; Gonzales & Meyers, 1993; Hatala & Predhodka, 1996; Laner & Kamel, 1978; Thorne & Coupland, 1998). Extending such previous research, results from the current study indicate that observer and figure characteristics interact in determinations of attractiveness, suggesting a dynamic relationship between observer, potential partner, and dating context on perceived figure attractiveness.

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

275

Fig. 2. (a) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Single Individuals. The body fat percentage along the x-axis represents figures depicting an approximate body fat percentage ranging from 3.5 to 36%, and the muscle index along the y-axis represents figures depicting very low-very high levels of muscle mass. The grid setup above roughly mirrors that of the BIG, with figure 1 lying in the box with coordinates of very low-low muscle mass and 3.5–10% body fat, figure 2 lying in the box with low-medium muscle mass and 10–16% body fat, etc. (b) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Individuals in Short-Term Relationships. Notice, the “peak” of attractiveness ratings for individuals in short-term relationships is similar in location to that of single individuals, but is significantly higher, and descends rapidly along the body fat axis. (c) Average Attractiveness Ratings by Individuals in Long-Term Relationships. For individuals in long-term relationships, the peak is similar in magnitude to that of single individuals, but the area within that peak (representing the “most attractive” figures) is significantly smaller.

The results from this study support the role of dating context and figure dimensions (such as body fat and muscularity) in self-report attractiveness. Gay men rated muscular and lean figures in the context of a short-term relationship as more attractive than those rated for long-term relationships. This muscular/lean body ideal may hold particularly true for gay (as opposed to heterosexual) men, and it is believed to be a source of elevated investment in appearance in this population (Pope, Olivardia, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2001; Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000; Tiggemann, Martins, & Kirkbride, 2007; Wood, 2004; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Halkitis et al. (2004) showed that gay men place a strong emphasis on outward displays of masculinity (i.e., having a muscular build) in order to attract potential partners, and that this is an aesthetic ideal strongly reinforced within the gay community. The increased value of body attractiveness in short-term dating may also lead observers to attend more closely to this feature, which could explain the higher overall ratings for this relationship context. When assessing personal ads, studies have found that gay men tended to emphasize physical attributes to attract potential partners (Gonzales & Meyers, 1993; Regan et al., 2001). However, regardless of relationship contexts and intentions, the content of the ads consistently emphasized

physical attributes of attractiveness more so than intrinsic traits (Bartholome et al., 2000; Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Gonzales & Meyers, 1993; Hatala & Predhodka, 1996). These results from previous studies further our findings that figure-level differences in body fat, muscularity, and the dating context in which they are being rated. One of the key findings of this study was that of a non-linear relationship between self-report attractiveness ratings and figure body fat and muscularity indices. This finding confirms that of past studies indicating the presence of such a non-linear relationship between attractiveness ratings and figure bodily characteristics (Swami & Tovée, 2005, 2008). This idea of a non-linear relationship suggests an attractiveness rating schema in which individuals tend to rate bodily extremes as less attractive (i.e., high body fat and low muscularity), while they rate the figure representative of the “cultural ideal” (low body fat, high muscularity) as significantly more attractive. However, in this study our results extend this past research by showing the individual variability in this non-linear relationship based on observer-level differences (dating context, relationship status, and observer body fat). Therefore, not only do our results confirm this non-linear attractiveness rating pattern, but also show how the pattern might be different across individuals

276

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

based on various characteristics of the observer. Thus it is not just the figure that plays a role in perceptions of attractiveness; it is also the individual rating the figure. Our results indicate that observer-level differences in partner status and body fat percentage are significant factors in observer ratings of figure attractiveness. More specifically, lower observer body fat was associated with more discriminating ratings of attractiveness across body fat and muscularity dimensions, and less-invested (e.g., single, short-term relationship) observer partner status was associated with more discriminating ratings of attractiveness along the muscularity scale, but not along the body fat scale. Interestingly, this appears to be a specific effect of self-reported body fat percentage since BMI was not a significant predictor of attractiveness ratings. The results from the current study also suggest that both observer partner status and body fat percentage interact significantly with figure body fat and muscularity. For each participant, the combination of their own body fat percentage or relationship status influenced their perceptions of attractiveness, or attractiveness rating schema, across all figures being rated. These results can support various theoretical explanations of gay male attraction; the first of which is that the emphasis on physical appearance may be because gay men have to attract other men who, as prior research has indicated, value physical appearance more strongly than women (Feingold, 1990). Therefore, gay men may be more likely than heterosexual men to believe that their appearance is more important to the other (their partner, potential partner, or the external object). Furthermore, body fat percentage, as it relates to levels of thinness and being lean, has been correlated with feelings of self-worth among gay men (Atkins, 1998; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Past research has found that body fat is a critical component of a gay or heterosexual man’s perception of self and will often drive behavior, such as dating (Hatoum & Belle, 2004). As a result, it is unsurprising that in our study observer body fat interacted significantly with the figure muscularity and body fat dimensions in ratings of attractiveness, since the observer’s own level of body fat played a role in how he evaluates himself and others. These concepts of self and how one is evaluated by others play a significant role in how individuals approach dating and relationships in a more real-world context. The fact that gay men place greater emphasis on the attractiveness of both themselves and their partners makes the interaction between their own body fat and the figure’s muscularity and body fat particularly relevant in determinations of attractiveness rating schemas (see Cross & Madson, 1997; Hayes, 1995; Higgins, 2006). More specifically, observers with lower body fat percentage and less invested relationship status appear to perceive attractiveness in others in a highly discriminant way. This pattern suggests that men who are closer to the cultural ideal are likely to have higher standards for pursuing or accepting potential partners. The relationships between observer body fat and attractiveness are also consistent with objectification theory. This theory asserts that individuals who are consistently exposed to sexually objectifying images will progressively adopt an observer’s perspective, thereby forming judgments about their own bodies and sense of self on the extent to which they emulate the sexualized cultural images (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Findings from past studies have supported the notion that the emphasis on physical attraction within gay culture may motivate gay men to be attracted to suitors who are just as concerned or preoccupied with the physical attractiveness of their partners (Martins, Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007; Siever, 1994). Consequently, gay men may be more attracted to men who are as lean and muscular as they are, since they infer that these men are equally vested in their own appearance (i.e., are similarly lean or muscular).

Although much of the data on relationship context has originated in the evolutionary field, there are no dominant evolutionary frameworks of gay male attractiveness preferences. Our results, however, are similar to findings of relationship context among heterosexuals (i.e., Kenrick et al., 1990; Penke et al., 2007). However, most importantly, the discussion of evolutionary theory within the context of gay male perceptions of attractiveness gives rise to the question of why long-term relationship status would have significance to gay men from a traditional evolutionary perspective. The methodology used in this study also allowed us to characterize contributions from the individual. These contributions can be conceptualized as part of each individual’s attractiveness “schema” (Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2011) that may be independent of observed demographic or physical characteristics. The mechanism by which these individual contributions vary independently informs preference for potential mates, and accounts for considerable variability in self-report attractiveness. Though past studies have assumed this variance to be error (e.g., Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Halkitis et al., 2004; Hatala & Predhodka, 1996; Lippa, 2007), in this study it has been examined as an entirely separate construct: the individual differences in ratings of attractiveness (measured within this study as the intercept). These individual schemas may be accounted for by unmeasurable characteristics that each individual subconsciously contributes to his ratings of attractiveness such as personality, conditioned or modeled preferences, biological phenomena, upbringing, etc. Results from this study indicate that this impact of individual differences is not insignificant; 20% of the variability in data can be attributable to these characteristics, making these individual attractiveness rating schemas crucial to the characterization of the heterogeneity in self-report perceptions of attractiveness. However, there are several limitations in the present study that may have implications for the results obtained. First, the study was based on a convenience sample in which participants were recruited from the community via the internet, which may have introduced some sampling bias. These results will need to be replicated in larger samples with greater diversity of age, race, and ethnicity. Second, observer body fat and BMI were all self-reported which could have introduced additional bias into the findings. Since body fat is a less-measured variable than say weight or height, individuals might be less familiar with this measure, so some self-report estimates might be slightly skewed as a result of lack of personal familiarity with the measure. Future studies should use biological measures to ensure greater reliability. Finally, the BIG figure set used in this study has good psychometric properties, although the face validity and ecological validity could be questioned. Because figures are based on line drawings and not actual pictures it is unclear whether attractiveness ratings of these figures accurately parallel perceptions of humans made in vivo. Testing the ecological validity of these measures in the future will be essential to theory development and hypothesis setting. The findings from this study support the hypothesis that perceived attractiveness is more heterogeneous than implied by single choice attractiveness paradigms. The future of attractiveness research will benefit from using paradigms and statistical models that allow for direct investigation of this heterogeneity as it can elucidate otherwise unobserved relationships between individuals and perceived attractiveness. Furthermore, the use of this paradigm may also help in testing more complex theoretical models of attractiveness within the gay community. For instance, other observer characteristics such as socioeconomics, personality, or psychopathology (e.g., eating disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.) could be explored as well as exploration of specific subtypes of individuals who display homogeneous patterns of attractiveness. In addition, more complex models that examine the predictive validity of attractiveness ratings in determining sexual

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

risk taking or use of appearance and performance enhancing drugs could be explored. Overall, results from our study demonstrated the importance of an individual’s body fat and its interaction with mating context in evaluations of physical attractiveness. Similarly, figure body fat percentage also had an important independent impact on ratings of attractiveness. Combined, these findings reinforce the idea that lean muscularity is deemed to be the most attractive physique, with particular emphasis on the role of body fat in perceptions of physical attractiveness.

References Atkins, D. (1998). Looking queer: Body image and identity in lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender communities. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Bartholome, A., Tewksbury, R., & Bruzzone, A. (2000). “I want a man”: Patterns of attraction in all-male personal ads. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, 309–321. doi:10.3149/jms.0803.309 Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The influence of sexual orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 135–141. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992 Buss, D. M, & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychology Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204 Child, M., Low, K. K., McCormick, M. C., & Cocciarella, A. (1996). Personal advertisements of male-to-female transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals. Sex Roles, 34, 447–455. doi:10.1007/BF01547812 Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: Men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.04.002 Cross, S. E, & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-constructs and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5 Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personal column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363–375. doi:10.1007/BF00287465 de Boek, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (statistics for social and behavioral sciences). New York, NY: Springer. Dixson, A. F., Halliwell, G., East, R., Wignarajah, P., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 29–39. doi:10.1023/A:1021889228469 Epel, E. S., Spanakas, A., Kasl-Godley, J., & Brownell, K. D. (1996). Body shape ideals across gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, race, and age in personal advertisements. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19, 265–273. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199604)19:3<265::AID-EAT5>3.0.CO;2-K Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in the effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.981 Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304 Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72 Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183. doi:10.1177/0146167207303022 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory. Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Baguma, P. (2002). A cross-cultural study on the role of weight and waist-to-hip ratio on judgments of women’s attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 729–745. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00073-3 Furnham, A., Tan, T., & McManus, C. (1997). Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 539–549. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00241-3 Gallagher, D., Heymsfield, S. B., Heo, M., Jebb, S. A., Murgatroyd, P. R., & Sakamoto, Y. (2000). Healthy percentage body fat ranges: An approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 694–701. Gonzales, M. H., & Meyers, S. A. (1993). “Your mother would like me”: Self-presentation in the personals ads of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 131–142. doi:10.1177/0146167293192001 Halkitis, P. N., Green, K. A., & Wilton, L. (2004). Masculinity, body image, and sexual behavior in HIV-seropositive gay men: A two-phase formative behavioral investigation using the internet. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 27–42. doi:10.3149/jmh.0301.27

277

Hassin, R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 837–852. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.837 Hatala, M. N., & Predhodka, J. (1996). Content analysis of gay male and lesbian personal advertisements. Psychological Reports, 78, 371–374. Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2004). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily concerns in men. Sex Roles, 51, 397–407. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000049229.93256.48 Hayes, A. F. (1995). Age preferences for same and opposite-sex partners. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 125–133. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R., du Toit, M., & Cheng, Y. (2008). Supermix: Mixed effects models. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Henss, R. (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness. Replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 479–488. doi:10.1016/01918869(95)00093-L Higgins, D. (2006). Narcissism, the Adonis Complex and the pursuit of the ideal. In C. Kendall & W. Martino (Eds.), Gender outcasts and sexual outlaws: Sexual oppression and gender hierarchies in queer men’s lives (pp. 79–100). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Hildebrandt, T., Langenbucher, J., & Schlundt, D. G. (2004). Muscularity concerns among men: Development of attitudinal and perceptual measures. Body Image, 1, 169–181. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.01.001 Hildebrandt, T., Shiovitz, R., Alfano, L., & Greif, R. (2008). Defining body deception and its role in peer based social comparison theories of body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 5, 299–306. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.04.007 Hildebrandt, T., & Walker, D. C. (2006). Evidence that ideal and attractive figures represent different constructs: A replication and extension of Fingeret, Gleaves and Pearson. Body Image, 3, 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.01.002 Honekopp, J., Rudolph, U., Beier, L., Liebert, A., & Muller, C. (2007). Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 106–111. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.001 Hospers, H. J., & Jansen, A. (2005). Why homosexuality is a risk factor for eating disorders in males. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1188–1201. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.8.1188 Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variate dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. doi:10.1300/J082v11n01 04 Kouri, E. M., Pope, H. G., Katz, D. L., & Oliva, P. (1995). Fat-free mass index in users and non-users of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 223–228. Laner, M. R., & Kamel, G. W. L. (1978). Media mating: Newspaper “personals” ads of homosexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 146–162. doi:10.1300/J082v03n02 04 Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L. E., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A. D., Hallam, M. J., & Smoot, M. T. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 Lanzieri, N., & Hildebrandt, T. (2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay men’s attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 275–293. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.540184 Levesque, M. J., & Vichesky, D. R. (2006). Raising the bar on the body beautiful: An analysis of the body image concerns of homosexual men. Body Image, 3, 45–55. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.10.007 Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2 Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). What is beautiful is good: Face preference reflects desired personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1107–1118. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.015 Little, A. C, Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society in London B, 269, 1095–1100. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1984 Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L. E., Cornelissen, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. Lancet, 353, 1500–1501. doi:10.1016/S01406736(99)00438-9 Maner, J. K., Galliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.006 Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those speedos become them. The role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634–647. doi:10.1177/0146167206297403 Penke, L., Todd, P. M., Lenton, A., & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions. In G. Geher & G. F. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Borowiecki, J. J., & Cohane, G. H. (2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A longitudinal survey of advertising in women’s magazines. Psychosomatics, 70, 189–193. doi:10.1159/000056252 Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis Complex. New York, NY: The Free Press. Regan, P. C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 625–634. doi:10.2224/sbp.2001.29.7.625

278

E. Varangis et al. / Body Image 9 (2012) 270–278

Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8, 371–389. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00046.x Sergios, P. A., & Cody, J. (1985). Physical attractiveness and social assertiveness skills in male homosexual dating behavior and partner selection. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 505. Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 252–260. Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089–1101. Swami, V. (2011). Love at first sight? Individual differences and the psychology of initial romantic attraction. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm & A. Furnham (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 747–772). West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell. Swami, V., Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Akbar, K., Gordon, N., Harris, T., et al. (2010). More than just skin deep? Personality information influences men’s ratings of the attractiveness of women’s body sizes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 628–647. doi:10.1080/00224540903365497 Swami, V., Miller, R., Furnham, A., Penke, L., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). The influence of men’s sexual strategies on perceptions of women’s bodily attractiveness, health, and fertility. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.017

Swami, V., Smith, J., Tsiokris, A., Georgiades, C., Sangareau, Y., Tovee, M. J., et al. (2007). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece: A cross-cultural study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 15–26. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.1.1526 Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2, 383–393. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.08.001 Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). The muscular male: A comparison of the physical attractiveness preferences of gay and heterosexual men. International Journal of Men’s Health, 7, 59–69. doi:10.3149/jmh.0701.59 Thorne, A., & Coupland, J. (1998). Articulations of same-sex desire: Lesbian and gay male dating advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 233–257. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00042 Tiggemann, M., Martins, Y., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Oh to be lean and muscular: Body image ideals in gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 15–24. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.15 Wood, M. J. (2004). The gay male gaze: Body image disturbance and gender oppression among gay men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Services, 17, 43–62. doi:10.1300/J041v17n02 03 Yelland, C., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Muscularity and the gay ideal: Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in homosexual men. Eating Behaviors, 4, 107–116. doi:10.1016/S1471-0153(03)00014-X