What the economic crisis will do to Playboy models

Never mind whether this crisis is good for Gordon Brown. It is good for tall women.

Over on Marginal Revolution Alex Tabarrock has news of some riveting research. Apparently:

The Environmental Security Hypothesis says that in tough times men will prefer women who are good at production, generally older, taller, heavier, less curvaceous women with less body fat.

In good times, they will prefer women who are good at reproduction, generally younger, shorter, lighter, more curvaceous women.

Believe it not Terry Pettijohn and Brian Jungeberg have been looking at the characteristics of Playboy Playmates from 1960 to 2000 and here's what they found:

Consistent with Environmental Security Hypothesis predictions, when social and economic conditions were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of the Year with larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to-hip ratios, smaller bust-to-waist ratios, and smaller body mass index values were selected.

These results suggest that environmental security may influence perceptions and preferences for women with certain body and facial features.

For anyone who believes, as I do, that a huge amount of human behaviour is explained by the adoption of successful evolutionary strategies this is further confirmation.

Comments

[Thomas Hughes]

I think this is hardly true if Lily Cole's latest playboy spread is anything to go by!

[John Blackley]

Daniel, I heartily agree with your hypothesis (that an amount of human behaviour is explained by the adoption of successful evolutionary strategies).

Now, please tell me what the purchase of a magazine, specifically designed to induce sexual gratification without a partner, has to do with a successful evolutionary strategy.

[georgemarvin]

Actually, some scientists did studies with monkeys; the male monkeys liked looking at the pictures of the lead females' genitals. The monkeys also liked looking at the faces of the lead members of the group, both male and female. Their behavior would seem to indicate that the popularity of both supermarket celebrity tabloids and adult magazines have an evolutionary basis.

[lisa]

There aren't any reasons why we should care about Playboy models or other models in general (male or female).

[Man of Kent]

Darwin had it right all along. the God hypothosis just does cut it in the light of real understanding.

[Tom]

It sounds to me like all they wanted to do was concoct an excuse to study Playboys.

/Hey guys, there's free porn on the Internets

[Robert Johnson]

Hi. Robert Johnson here from http://www.stirtalk.com and I want to make a comment.

More than Environmental Security, it appears there are parallels between challenging economic conditions and the desire for "lower maintenance" partners. During times of vibrant growth, there's likely greater desire for what's "preferred" over what's needed. It's worthy of debate. History will tell.

Interesting article, nonetheless.

[William]

What? Tall rangy guys go for tall rangy women while short blobs go for shot blobs.

What's new?

[Peter Marcer]

Capitalism's Epitaph?
Never in human history did so few owe some much to so many!
Peter Marcer
for publication in readers letter

[A Taylor]

Hmm...another excuse for attracting readers by making degrading references to women? Now I remember why this paper has gone to the dogs. First the Olympic montage of female competitors' buttocks and breasts, and now more sexist drivel. Jesus, are you completely oblivious to how gross blog post is? Would you make some form of racial comparison on evolution? No? So why reduce women to hanging pieces of meat? Its the 21st Century for crying out loud, not the 1960s.Get with the plan and stop writing sexist material, it reflects badly on the whole paper. Leave this insulting rubbish to the tabloids, or are you trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in an effort to boost readership?

[Andrew Milner]

Depends on the criteria; recreation or procreation.

[compton]

John Blackley > the strategy would be attraction to particular body types according to environmental circumstances. As the circumstances change, so do the preferred body types.

A vast amount of human behaviour will inevitably be moulded by evolutionary pressure, I agree.

Behaviour is learned; it's copied, albeit imperfectly, but that's much the same as DNA. So definitely, behaviour that leads to survival will persist in preference to behaviour that does not.

[Mike]

Let's see, 48 years, 12 centerfolds a year, that's 576 data points with some very cloudy data... I sincerely doubt they could extract any statistically meaningful inferences from so little information.

[Roland Richardson]

What rubbish and waste of a good brain. Do men still really think they chose who they mate with and reproduce with? Delusions?

[Paul]

Daniel, did you buy a fair volume of Playboy - and other less literary - magazines in the men's market, for this research? Has your boss signed them off on your expenses tab?

[Roger B]

Did these guys get paid for doing this study?

I would help for free!

How does choosing a woman with less 'good at reproduction' help in a recession? Making a baby is the single biggest contribution any couple can make to society. (A baby's worth is at least £10 million and rising for higher socio-economic groups.) In a recession such contributions are even more important.

[Martin]

John Blackley - many behaviours, especially in our age, arise not out of a direct evolutionary pressure but more as a side-effect of something that is. Buying that type of magazine is clearly not an evolutionary strategy (not an immediately apparent one, anway) but is rather a byproduct of various other tendencies which ARE helpful.

Consider the way a moth will fly to a flame - self-immmolation is obviously not an evolutionarily advantageous behaviour but it arises somewhat 'accidentally' due to other behaviours of the moth, namely flying at a certain angle to a light source, which is used for navigation and is essential for their travel by night.

[Jamie]

The problem is, it seems to me that a correlation between tall women and good times and curvy women and bad times could be explained equally well in an evolutionary context (e.g. exploit resources while they are available, plan for the future in bad times). So finding supporting evidence for your belief in this report is not sound thinking - you can construct an evolutionary explanation for any conceivable behaviour

This sort of "just so" story has done a lot of damage to the evolutionary position (I think that's a bad thing, fwiw).

[Stephanie]

Breast implants and collagen injections will be less affordable?

[Helen]

I can't agree with some of the comments other people have posted here.
Firstly, I don't think that this piece is at all sexist. They published that story on how women find different men attractive at different times of the month and no one complained then about any sexism. It's the same basis here (at certain times people find more attractive..) but with the roles reversed. Sure, there are heavy references to a magazine which is sexist but the actual piece isn't.
Neither do I believe that this article was wholly just an excuse to read Playboy. Surely an efficient way to tell what body figure men find most attractive is through such magazines where womens' bodies play heavy feature. As for how that links to evolutionary theory...do I really need to explain the birds and the bees?
The evolutinary theory here appears to make sense. So I suppose that the idea here is that men prefer tall, practical women during harsh times becuase they are more able to cope and their children will be more likely to survive but I wonder why smaller, more curvaceous women are at all attractive (even during the good years) seeing as they don't appear to be as useful and so less liable to excell the race (and that's what evolution is for, isn't it?).
So why are these smaller, curvier women attractive in the good times?- is it because they tend to have other charecteristics that would be advantageous? Are they generally more fertile? Or does that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory?
Would like to know more.

[B Jones]

I agree somewhat with the comment of A Taylor, above. This article, though significantly more defensible than the outrageous gallery of pictures of female Olympic athletes, still rests on some pretty thin journalistic ice. Please stop churning out this dubious, sexist, tat.

[George Dreyfus]

John Blackley: such magazines were not available when the laws of attraction were evolving. So an inclination which would lead to more reproduction back in the Era of Evolutionary Adapation, today can lead to long breaks at the lou.

[Carly]

This post is not journalism or science, it's puff to get men's attention.

[fadi]

Men always be happy with any woman apart from their wives, so don't worry .....

[cathy]

when times are difficult men want their mothers back....is it the need to feel protected by a larger female no nonsense aunty/mother figure?

[Steve]

Another successful article designed to illicit a response from insecure women.

I would have to agree with the people commenting on the limited data & would also have to agree with the biological imperative.

With this article we've got 2/3's of a James Bond film. Sex & Money, but where is the violence?

Tomorrow's article; how Violence and a Strong Male physique attracts women.

[Steve Buckel]

It always appeared to me that Playboy's appeal was to men of a certain age, certainly somewhat older than I am and considerably older than yourself. I will be sixty next birthday and am still of this opinion.

Because I held this view, I never bought a copy in my life as I did not see it as meeting my criteria. I did read an occasional copy when I saw one lying around. I even once found one once on a bus, or was it a train? OK, I know you don't believe it but it happens to be true. No matter.

The upshot of this, if that is permissible, is that I cannot see how one can draw universal conclusions from a magazine whose appeal is limited to such a small sub-section of men. The models from all the other magazines of this genre would have to compare and I do not believe they do. My unparalleled experience of bus and train journeys helps to substantiate this view.

[Andy]

Hello think about it do men choose women or as exhibited by behaviour its more likely that women choose men. The research may have been fun but it missed the point

[g.z]

Good God man. This is appalling! Who cares whether men are attracted to tall women? any way, play boy is irrelevant as I can guarrantee that every model has undergone surgery to "enhance" their "natural"(and I use that word SPARINGLY) beauty, so to use them in one of the few decent papers left to this country is ridiculous. they have no scientific relevence what so ever and this was clearly written, as mentioned above, to attract readers from scummy tabloids which rely heavily on page three models to boost their own reader levels. Are times so bad that you must scope to their level?

[Jarrad Wilkes]

At last a more interesting boom and bust.

[Michael]

Two comments:
1. Both categories work nicely for me, regardless of economic climate.
2. How much of what you see in Playboy is what men like and how much is what Hugh Hefner likes?

[steve]

how many months ahead of the newsstand is production - model selection, photo shoot, layout etc.. pet of the year is definitely behind the times - times are usually improving by the time we admit being in a recession, and last but not least, my taste in women has never changed with the fortunes of society - I like thin happy women, tall or short, medium or not - cute happy and thin. The girls in the mags are chosen by someone else, not me...
s

[Grant Writer]

In US these fellows would likely get a grant from the gov't as well as an academic chair for their research.

[Tina]

What a complete waste of your time and resources - who really cares - there are far more worthwhile things to be spending 'research' on! Get a life boys and do something that makes a difference!

[Rachael]

I really liked this article and don't think it is sexist in the slightest! however i do have one question.... I am tall and curvy....does that mean I am going to end up living with 59 cats seeing as in tough times men will prefer women who are taller and less curvaceous and in good times, they will prefer women who are shorter more curvaceous women...?

[pashley]

I can't run with the puritans who can't talk about women attractiveness without wagging their tongues. But using the model choice of a niche magazine for conclusions on reproductive evolutionary choice does seem like a waste of research grant money.

[Alpha Dominance]

It has been demonstrated that females with some experience at motherhood have better offspring survival rates in times of hardship. The traits elucidated above as preferable in easy times are those associated with the youngest most fertile and desirable women. In harder times your chances of having an offspring survive would be nominally higher with women who have some experience, i.e. those more long in the tooth with the traits they state are more desirable in times of hardship. Ultimately though the fella's are still going to gravitate to the most reproductively viable options, young beautiful women.
www.alphadominance.com