4.4 Article

Valuing thinness or fatness in women - Reevaluating the effect of resource scarcity

Journal

EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 257-270

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.02.001

Keywords

fatness; thinness; resource scarcity; male dominance; cross-cultural research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brown and Konner [Brown, P. J., & Konner M. (1987). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 499, 29-46] proposed that plumpness or moderate fatness is valued in most preindustrial societies because of fat's adaptive value during periods of resource scarcity. Using three measures of resource scarcity, we tested the hypothesis that societies with little or no such scarcity value. thinness in women, whereas those with high scarcity value plumpness. In one cross-cultural sample, the evidence was significantly opposed to this hypothesis, and in a second, resource scarcity and valuation of fatness were unrelated. We explore possible reasons for the contradiction between these results and those of Anderson, Crawford, Nadeau, and Lindberg [Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau J., & Lindberg T. (1992), Ethol. Sociobiol., 13, 197-227], who reported a positive relationship between resource scarcity and plumpness being beautiful and conclude that their measure of scarcity was, in fact, a measure of food storage, which modulates the relationship: Resource scarcity and valuing fatness in women are negatively associated when there is little or no food storage and unrelated when there is moderate or high storage. Finally, we retest the possible effects of climate and male dominance suggested by Anderson et al., finding that some measures of male dominance indeed predict valuing fatness in women, but we suggest that considering these to be measures of protest masculinity rather than male dominance may better account for the results. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available