Freese Meland Relationship
The phenomenon under probeThe phenomenon under probe in Freese and Meland research is the waist to hip ratios ( WHR ) of adult females looking in centrefold magazines and American beauty pageant victors, they are interested in the relationship between two variables. For lucidity the waist to hip ratios is the measured by the ratio of the perimeter of the waist to that of the hips.
This measurment indicates the proportion of fat that is distributed around the trunk. This phenomenon relevent to modern public involvement due to the icreaseing media attending, advancing scraggy theoretical accounts and size nothing famous persons, this type of research investigates why society has a captivation with adult females of a peculiar size. Freese and Meland want to detect if there is any fluctuation in correlativity between WHR over clip, if so ; therefore showing that WHR are contingent and socially constructed instead than a consistent and supported by evolutionary behavioral forms, and a presentation of Darwin’s natural choice.Get aid with your essay from our adept essay authors..
.HypothesisFreese and Meland hypothesis is to prove the internal and external cogency of claims made by Singh ( 1993 ) and followings. They besides want to prove the dependability of Singh’s research procedure. Singh’s original findings dtermind that woman’s WHR over the past few decennaries have merely ranged between 0.68 – 0.72 over clip ; therefore proposing there is a consistent relationship between the two variables. The average figure centered in the center of the distribution is 0.
70 over this interval. Singh and others ( Buss 1999, Burnham and Phelan 2000, Etcoff 1999, Newsweek and Cowley 2000 ) have supported Singh’s findings have been used as grounds in some of their publications. Singh’s generalisations have besides been used as grounds in evolutionary psychological science proposing that American heterosexual male’s prefer adult female of a certain size ( an norm waist to hip ratio of 0.70 ) therefore back uping the statement for a hard-wired penchant. In evolutionary graduated table, this is non a big clip span, but harmonizing to singh this ratio has persisted over this period hence important, therefore ; back uping the suggestion that 0.
70 penchant must be an invariant characteristic of the human mind. Freese and Meland want to detect if it is so right to back up Singh’s findings and if it correct to accept the void hypothesis as discovered in Singh’s consequences. They investigate if there is in fact a strong consistent correlativity, between the WHR of adult females looking in centrefold magazines and American beauty pageant victors ( dependent variables ) when compared over a period of clip ( independent variable ) therefore proving the external cogency of Singh’s research. Freese and Meland suggest that the repeat of an amazingly narrow and invariant convergence to a 0.70 WHR in beauty icons merely distracts attending from some of the field ‘s more mensural treatments.Theoretical applicationSingh’s hypothesis has been applied theoretically by others to do broader generalisations about the male population ; therefore proposing the information supports catholicity of male’s penchant on what male find physically attractive. However Freese and Meland inquiry if the information is representative to the male population.
Therefore Freese and Meland wish to prove Singh’s hypothesis to detect if these claims are valid and the broader generalisations correct. I will discourse subsequently the jobs with the generalisations evolutionary psychologists have made about of Singh’s research.The type of informations usedThe type of informations used in these surveies is interval/ratio uninterrupted informations from secondary beginnings. The independent variable is clip and the two dependent variables are the Waist to hip ratio’s of centrefold theoretical accounts and American pageant victors, the informations used by Singh ( 1993 ) secondary informations sets of the recorded WHR for American pageant victors between the periods of 1921 to 1986 was available from Bivans ( 1991 ) figure of recorded WHR was 59. The information on the WHR of Playboy centerfold theoretical accounts was obtained from the Playboy Corporation’s web site. Frees and Meland’s informations came from Atlantic City newspaper in these surveies use of antecedently recorded WHR of adult females looking centrefold magazines and American beauty pageant victors.
The cogency of the informationsThe cogency of the informations used in both surveies is questionable. Secondary information has low cogency because the research workers do non hold fist manus cognition to how it was comprised and whether or non it was subjected to bias. It is unknown if adult females were honest about their measurings, or later if they were measured by person if they lost weight merely before the measurement as they did non desire to be seen as fat, and hence they were following with normative stereotyped ideals. To increase the cogency of this research they should hold conducted a longitudinal survey roll uping primary informations to guarantee that the measurings were right, nevertheless the world of this non practical because longitudinal surveies are clip devouring and dearly-won.Method/types of analysisREWORDFreese and Meland seek to retroflex Singh’s research, but they have some jobs when comparing the two informations sets and by using more in-depth statistical processs dwelling of a hisotgram and arrested development analysis. arrested development analysis is a technique that examines the relation of a dependent variable ( response variable ) to specified independent variables ( explanatory variables ) . Arrested development analysis is a descriptive method of informations analysis. Arrested development can be used for predicing causal relationships.
A arrested development equation containsarrested development parametric quantitieswhose values are estimated utilizing informations. The estimated parametric quantities measure the relationship between the dependant variable and each of the independent variables. When a arrested development theoretical account is used, the dependant variable is modeled as arandom variablebecause of either uncertainness as to its value or built-in variableness. The informations are assumed to be a sample from a chance distribution, which is normally assumed to be a normal distribution.The spread plot’s on the line of arrested development bespeaking the relationship between the two variables and a fitted arrested development line. Linear arrested development efforts to explicate this relationship with a consecutive line tantrum to the informations. They besides used excess informations extracted from Atlantic City intelligence paper. This information included WHR of Miss American pageant victors from 1921 to 1922 ; this information was non antecedently used in Singh’s original informations pool Bivans ( 1991 ) .
Freese and Meland brush jobs when comparing the two sets of informations showing the deficiency of dependability in Singh’s work ; they discover the information from Singh’s beginning Bivans ( 1991 ) had rounded the measurings of Miss American pageant victors WHR up to about half an inch in 36 instances ; hence diminishing the information internal cogency, the predicted computations made by Singh of an mean waist to hip ratio of 0.70 was non valid. The presentation of the incompatibilities in Singh’s informations pool emphasized the jobs that can happen from utilizing secondary informations.Change in WHR over clipFurthermore Freese and Meland Freese discover more incompatibilities in Singh’s research discovered over the short a clip span as 40 old ages, the mean WHR has changed in both samples, wholly countering Singh’s claim that the women’s were consistent over clip. This job could ensue of the statistical methods Singh used were deficient. The statistical grounds provided by Singh is a distribution graph it shows us the distribution of the two dependent variables, However this graphical representation does non bespeak the scope of the dependent variables and the relationship to the independent variable ( continuance of clip ) . The right stastical process would be to bring forth a histogram with a arrested development line to bespeak the relationship between the independent and dependent variables and to enable us to see how the information alterations over clip ; this method was employed by Freese and Meland.
They found that the WHR recorded at the Centre of Singh’s distribution was wrong ; Singh’s mean WHR was 0.70 nevertheless Freese and Meland discovered that the mean is 0.667 bespeaking Singh’s findings are wrong this is little nevertheless it’s a statistically important difference when used to cipher predicted WHR of a much larger sample.Cultural fluctuationAs I indicated above evonutuany psychologists and scientists suggest that WHR is a factor that is attributed to the degree of a woman’s psysical attraction, it is suggeted by Singh that adult female with a waist to hip curcumfrance of 70 % is more physicaly attractive to work forces. However this can non be gernralized to the whole population as WHR are extreamly dependant on the wetern organic structure type and can non be used as evluntary grounds as it can non use to those from different ethic groups, Asian adult female are non the same physique as western adult female so this 70 % waist to hip curcumfrance can non be applied. As personal penchant differ significantly among racial and cultural groups hence I do non back up the suggestion that this type of mesurements are good index to back up the reasurch’s hypothisis as it can non be genralized as WHR are capable to cultural fluctuation.
DecisionIn decision the artice by Freese and Meland, their article did demostrate the importance of utilizing the right staticical processs in sociological reasurchCalculations ( average = 0.677, T = -4.89, P & lt ; .001 ) .Their articlePulling on an article by Singh ( 1993 ) , many treatments of the evolutionary psychological science of heterosexual male penchants have reported a singular consistence in the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy centerfold theoretical accounts and Miss America pageant victors over clip. We re-examine the measuring informations on these American beauty icons and show that these studies are false in several ways.
- the fluctuation in waist-to-hip ratios among these adult females is greater than reported.
- the Centre of the distribution of waist-to-hip ratios is non 0.70, but less than this.
- the mean waist-to-hip ratio within both samples has changed over clip in a mode that is statistically important and can be regarded as reciprocally consistent.
Taken together, the findings undermine some of the grounds given for the perennial suggestion that there is something special-evolutionarily hard-wired or otherwise-about a specific female waist-to-hip ratio of 0.70 as a penchant of American heterosexual males.PurposeWe seek to rectify what appears to be an emerging “ academic urban fable ” ( Tooby & A ; Cosmides, 2000 ) sing the stableness and preciseness of what heterosexual males find sexually attractive. The academic urban fable in inquiry is that there has been a singular consistence in the waist-to-hip ratios ( WHR ) of both Playboy centrefolds and victors of the Miss America pageant. Because these adult females are taken as representative icons of venerated beauty criterions, this supposed consistence has been taken by some writers as Prima facie grounds of an evolved footing for this really specific penchant, although that claim would look to be refuted by surveies that have failed to happen the penchant in societies whose conditions resemble those of our Pleistocene ascendants far more closely than our ain ( Wetsman & A ; Marlowe, 1999 ; Yu & A ; Shepard, 1998 ) .
There is besides dispute about the cogency of the statements that have been made for why such a penchant would hold been adaptative in the environments of our evolutionary yesteryear ( Wetsman, 1998 ) . We do non prosecute these points here ; what we dispute are the empirical averments that have been made about the WHR of these supposed twin pillars of American beauty: Playboy Playmates and Miss Americas. The information presented below demonstrates both that the WHR has been more variable than others have suggested and that the mean WHR has in fact changed in what seems to us to be a consistent manner over clip.
Before showing these informations, nevertheless, we need to set up that the inchoate academic urban fable does be. We submit four illustrations, which in no manner should be taken as thorough: 1. From Buss ‘s ( 1999 ) Evolutionary Psychology text edition ; virtually the same two sentences besides appear in Buss and Kenrick ‘s ( 1998, p. 1000 ) reappraisal of evolutionary psychological science for the Handbook of Social Psychology( 1 ) : Singh ‘s analysis of Playboy centrefolds and victors of U.
S. beauty competitions over the past 30 old ages confirmed the invariability of this cue. Although both centrefolds and beauty competition victors got somewhat thinner over that period, their WHRs remained precisely the same, at 0.70. ( p. 144 )2. From the book Mean Genes, by economic expert Terry Burnham and biologist Jay Phelan ( 2000 ) : Although the organic structures of [ Miss America ] victors are sometimes larger and sometimes smaller over the decennaries, their hourglass form ne’er varies.
In peculiar, when the waist measuring is divided by the hip measuring for more than 60 Miss Americas from the 1920 ‘s to the 80 ‘s, the computation ne’er deviates from the tight scope of 0.69-0.72. ( p. 142 )3. From psychologist Nancy Etcoff ‘s ( 1999 ) Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty: Looking at Miss Americas from the 1920s through the 1980s and at Playboy from 1955 to 1965 and 1976 to 1990, [ Singh ] found Miss Americas waist-to-hip ratios varied merely within the.
72 to.69 grade, and Playboy theoretical accounts within the.71 to.68 scope.
( p. 193 )4. From a Newsweek article by Geoffrey Cowley ( 2000 ) , which has since been reprinted as portion of an anthology for societal psychological science pupils: Singh ‘s findings suggest the manner wo n’t alter any clip shortly. In one survey, he compiled the measurings of Playboy centrefolds and Miss America victors from 1923 to 1990. Their organic structures got measurably leaner over the decennaries, yet their waist-hip ratios stayed within the narrow scope of.68 to.
72. ( 2 ) ( p. 193 )As for the beginning of these averments, all of the above either explicitly cite or look to be trusting on Singh ( 1993 ) , who writes: WHR for Playboy centrefolds increased somewhat from.68 to.71 over the old ages examined, whereas Miss America competition victors had WHR lessening from.72 to.69 ( Figure 1 ) .
Therefore, WHR of both the Miss America competition victors and the Playboy centrefolds, in malice of decrease of organic structure weight over the old ages, remained within the.68 to.72 scope. ( p. 296 )To our eyes, this claim would really look to be contradicted by the Figure 1 that is provided in Singh ( 1993, p. 297 ) ; in other words, despite the frequent repeat of Singh ‘s averment by faculty members and others, the warrant for it is non even evident to us from the information available in the original paper. The reading of the above statement that makes the most sense to us is that when Singh is speaking about additions and decreases over clip — every bit good as about the scope — he is speaking about the predicted WHR values from a fitted arrested development line.
However, stating the predicted values of a dependent variable alteration little over the scope of an independent variable is chiefly a claim about the strength of the association and does non needfully connote anything about the existent scope of the dependant variable, even though the latter seems to be the prevalent reading that has been made of the consequences by others.In any event, to seek to unclutter the affair up resolutely, we have independently reassembled and updated informations on both pageant victors and Playboy centrefolds ; as we explain below, in both instances the information we use can be thought to excel the quality of that used by Singh. ( 3 ) The analysis below provides consequences that show both the extent of the scope of WHR of these putative icons of beauty and supply a different position of how WHR has changed over clip.MethodData for Miss America victors from 1921 to 1986 ( when the pageant stopped roll uping this information ) are available in Bivans ( 1991 ) , the same beginning used by Singh ( N = 59 ) . We checked Bivans ‘s reported measurings against those of the Atlantic City newspaper histories of the pageants for the 36 instances in which the paper reported measurings. This was eventful because the Bivans informations rounded any half-inch measurings reported by contestants, which is eventful for the calculation of waist-to-hip ratio.
Furthermore, every bit far as we can state, Bivans randomly rounded either up or down ( normally the latter ) . In instances where a disagreement between the newspaper and Bivans ‘s informations could be explained by the latter ‘s pattern of rounding, the newspaper measuring was used alternatively. For three instances in which there was a disagreement that could non be attributed to rounding, we included both beginnings ‘ measurings in the dataset and used weights so that each beginning counts for half of an observation in all computed statistics.Datas on the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy centrefold theoretical accounts was obtained from the Playboy corporation ‘s web site. Singh ( 1993 ) reports that “ bodily measurings for centrefolds were non published between 1966-1975 ” ( p. 296 ) and were non available for informations analysis, but informations are available on the web site for about all centrefolds during these old ages. Measurements were merely provided sometimes anterior to September 1959, when Playboy seemingly began its pattern of showing a data sheet on each Playmate, and there were besides still a few subsequent cases in which the organic structure measurings were non listed.
Datas for the old ages 1966 to 1975 make non look to be confined merely to the web site, as they besides appear to be used in Garner, Garfinkel, Schwartz, and Thompson ( 1980 ) . while Singh ‘s analyses merely use centrefolds through 1990, we besides collected measurings on centrefolds through May 2001 ( N = 524 ) . We note that these are, to our cognition, self-reported measurings, and one can conceive of grounds why either Playboy theoretical accounts or pageant contestants may deliberately misreport their measurings. Of class, one could reason that this might be even more ideal for the subject of enquiry because we might anticipate mistakes in self-report to be biased in favour of what would be seen as more desirable.
In any instance, since this has non been raised as an issue when these informations have been used to back up the thought of WHR exhibiting a consistent and time-invariant ( programming ) invariant – A regulation, such as the ordination of an ordered list or pile, that applies throughout the life of a information construction or process. Each alteration to the information construction must keep the rightness of the invariant. form among these adult females, we see no ground for it to be seen as any more compromising in a survey that challenges this decision. RESULTS Variation in WHR Figure 1 presents the distribution of waist-to-hip ratios for both samples. This figure makes field that the predating averments that all Playboy centrefolds or Miss Americas autumn into a narrow scope of WHR values are erroneous.
Not merely is the existent scope of WHR values much wider than what is claimed above, but the narrow scopes reported do non even encompass most of the members of either sample. For the Miss America sample, the WHR of victors have ranged from 0.61 ( Mayer, victor in 1963, W = 22/H = 36 ) to 0.78 ( Gorman, victor in 1921, 25/32 ) . ( 4 ) Merely 9 of the 59 victors have WHRs between 0.69 and 0.72 ( 15 % ) . The median for the Miss America sample is 0.
667. The average WHR value is non 0.70, as person reading Buss ( 1999 ) or Buss and Kenrick ( 1998 ) might believe, but in fact the mean is significantly less than 0.70 ( average = 0.677, T = -4.
89, P & lt ; .001 ) . One could protest that the difference between 0.70 and 0.
677 is substantively little, even if statistically important. We do non needfully differ, but we besides believe that evolutionary psychological Hagiographas on WHR do non give one much sense of how the magnitude of differences in WHR should be substantively regarded. In the face of perennial averments that the WHR of beauty icons seems to constellate constantly and tightly around 0.70 — every bit good as that the evolved WHR penchant is tuned exactly to 0.70 as the optimum ( e.g.
, Alcock, 2001 ) — a statistically important difference in a sample of modest size would look substantively eventful. For the sample of centrefolds, the overall scope is even wider: from 0.529 ( Winters, appeared in Sept. 1962, 18/34 ) to 0.788 ( Fare, appeared in Aug. 2000, 26/33 ) . Again, contrary to what has been reported, merely 31.4 % of these adult females have WHR values between 0.
68 and 0.71. The median for the sample is 0.
676, and, as with the Miss America sample, the mean is significantly less than 0.70 ( average = 0.677, T = -4.89, P & lt ; .001 ) . See that low fluctuation in waist-to-hip ratio would besides look to connote a really high zero-order correlativity between waist size and hip size, given the being of fluctuation in the two variables from which the ratio is constructed. The zero-order correlativities between these two variables are merely r = .
29 for the Miss America sample and R = .38 for the Playboy sample. Change in WHR over Time Simple correlativities between WHR and a additive step of the clip of pageant triumph or magazine visual aspect show that the WHRs of Miss American victors and Playboy centrefolds have changed over clip. The correlativity coefficients indicate that the WHR Miss America victors have decreased over clip ( r =.-55, P & lt ; .001 ) and those of Playboy centrefold theoretical accounts have increased over clip ( r =.46, P & lt ; .
001 ) . One might take this as grounds of an invariability in the implicit in penchant over clip ; the opposing tendencies, while important, could reflect foibles of utilizing self-reported Playboy and Miss America measurings as steps of indexs of male penchants at a given point in clip. In other words, because the tendencies are in opposite waies, they can be thought of as call offing each other out, leting the decision that reflected WHR penchants have efficaciously been temporally invariant despite grounds of alteration in both samples. A more satisfactory reply, we believe, is found when we investigate theoretical accounts that allow for a curvilineal relationship between WHR and clip. As shown in Table 1, the Miss America informations are better fit by a theoretical account that includes a quadratic quadratic, mathematical look of the 2nd grade in one or more terra incognitas ( see multinomial ) . The general quadratic in one terra incognita has the signifierax2+bx+degree Celsiuss,wherea, B,anddegree Celsiussare invariables andtenis the variable.
A quadratic equationax2+bx+degree Celsiuss=0 ever has two roots, non needfully distinct ; these may be existent or complex ( see figure ) . term, while the Playboy informations are non ( Figure 2 provides a scatterplot of the information with the fitted arrested development lines ) . ( 5 ) If we use the consequences to calculate the point at which the incline alterations from negative to positive, we find that it is about 1969, which is still merely about of a 3rd of the manner into the corresponding clip series of Playboy theoretical account informations ( which runs from 1953-2001 ) . In other words, if we are willing to do the premise that these self-reported measurings are indexs of male WHR penchant, so the combined consequences from the Miss America and Playboy samples can be interpreted as proposing that the preferable value in the United States may hold decreased in the early through mid-20th century and so increased in the mid- to late-20th century. In any instance, the claim that the WHR for these samples has displayed a singular stability over clip is obviously unsupported by an scrutiny of the existent information. WHR has changed in both samples, and non in a contradictory manner.
Note. Significance degrees in parentheses. Coefficients are unstandardized. “ Year ” is twelvemonth of pageant triumph or month/year of magazine visual aspect.( 1 ) The sentences are indistinguishable except the “ got ” above is changed to “ became ” and the “ at ” above to a colon in the Buss and Kenrick article.( 2 ) More casually, we mention the followers from a magazine newsman covering an evolutionary psychological science conference for Health magazine: “ Waist-hip ratio of 1.0 or over? Nah. Waist-hip ratio of, say, 0.
6? Nah once more… . Waist-hip ratio around 0.7? Mmmmm, babe, iola guapa! ” ( Mestel, 1999 ) .( 3 ) The dataset used for these analyses is available on the first writer ‘s web site: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.
( 4 ) For grounds non explained in the article, Singh ‘s analysis begins with the 1923 victor alternatively of 1921, even though the latter is available in Bivans ( 1991 ) .( 5 ) For pulling the arrested development lines in the scatterplots in both Figures 2 and 3, we use the Model 2 consequences for the Miss America sample and the Model 1 consequences for the Playboy sample because of the differences in the comparative tantrum of the two theoretical accounts across the two samples.( 6 ) Some of the points in the Playboy scatterplot have values that are non half-or full-inch increases. These are non mistakes in the informations but alternatively reflect that the organic structure measurings of European theoretical accounts were frequently presented in centimetres, which we of class converted to inches for these analyses.A alteration in the waist-to-hip ratios of these cultural beauty icons over clip can connote ( a ) a alteration in waist size, but non hep size ; ( B ) a alteration in hip size, but non waist size ; or ( degree Celsius ) an amiss and/or negatively correlative alteration in both. Given that we are covering with a dependant variable that is a ratio, the obvious following measure in the analysis is to see the numerator and denominator of this ratio individually.
The consequences of the arrested development analyses are presented as waist sizes and hip sizes in Table 1, while scatterplots of these relationships are shown in Figure 3. ( 6 ) Waist sizes in the Miss America sample appear to hold decreased over the old ages, while those of the Playboy theoretical accounts have increased. However, including a quadratic term improves the tantrum of the theoretical account for the Miss America informations, and this term implies increasing waist size in the ulterior old ages of the sample as it overlaps the old ages reported by the Playboy information. Traveling to hip size, in the Playboy information we have grounds proposing a additive lessening in the hip size of centerfold theoretical accounts over clip. Meanwhile, we do non hold any existent indicant of a systematic relationship between clip and hip size for the sample of pageant victors, as even for the quadratic theoretical account the F trial that the coefficients are at the same time equal to zero is non important ( p = .15 ) .
Of class, the much smaller sample size should be noted, as should the fact that the basic form of coefficients once more does non belie the Playboy informations when a quadratic term is included in the theoretical account.DecisionWhether sing gender or other facets of societal life, evolutionary psychological accounts have sparked considerable argument across assorted subjects. While we have no wrangle with evolutionary psychological science per Se, one claim that has been repeatedly advanced by some of its more fervent practicians and popularisers is that the position offers a more scientific attack than its options in the behavioural scientific disciplines. ( For a peculiarly blatant presentation of this claim in a work turn toing gender, see Thornhill & A ; Palmer, 2000. ) We believe that scientific discipline is much more, nevertheless, than merely pulling connexions to theories in the natural scientific disciplines, and we remind readers of the first axiom of Galileo ‘s Discors: “ description foremost, account second ” ( see Pearl, 2000, pp.
334-335 ) . The oft-repeated claim about the stableness and time-invariance of the waist-to-hip ratio of Playboy centrefolds and Miss America victors has been used to back up a theory about a extremely specific and unmalleable penchant built into male psychological science through development by natural choice. As already noted, there are other grounds to be disbelieving of the Darwinian account. Yet, irrespective of its evident virtues, this paper shows that the empirical description of the self-reported WHR among these two sets of American beauty icons is non right. For both groups, there is more fluctuation in WHR than has been suggested and a more specific form of alteration over clip.
Whether sing gender or other facets of societal life, evolutionary psychological accounts have sparked considerable argument across assorted subjects. While we have no wrangle with evolutionary psychological science per Se, one claim that has been repeatedly advanced by some of its more fervent practicians and popularisers is that the position offers a more scientific attack than its options in the behavioural scientific disciplines. ( For a peculiarly blatant presentation of this claim in a work turn toing gender, see Thornhill & A ; Palmer, 2000. ) We believe that scientific discipline is much more, nevertheless, than merely pulling connexions to theories in the natural scientific disciplines, and we remind readers of the first axiom of Galileo ‘s Discors: “ description foremost, account second ” ( see Pearl, 2000, pp. 334-335 ) . The oft-repeated claim about the stableness and time-invariance of the waist-to-hip ratio of Playboy centrefolds and Miss America victors has been used to back up a theory about a extremely specific and unmalleable penchant built into male psychological science through development by natural choice.
As already noted, there are other grounds to be disbelieving of the Darwinian account. Yet, irrespective of its evident virtues, this paper shows that the empirical description of the self-reported WHR among these two sets of American beauty icons is non right. For both groups, there is more fluctuation in WHR than has been suggested and a more specific form of alteration over clip.