PERSONALITY

10.1177/0146167204264078
Pettijohn, Jungeberg
AND /SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES
BULLETIN

Playboy Playmate Curves: Changes in

Facial and Body Feature Preferences Across
Social and Economic Conditions

Terry F. Pettijohn II
Brian J. Jungeberg
Mercyhurst College

Past research has investigated ideals of beauty and how these ide- ronmental factors influence these trends, and how dif-
als have changed across time. In the current study, facial and ferent theories can be used to explain these changing
body characteristics of Playboy Playmates of the Year from preferences for facial and body characteristics in
1960-2000 were identified and investigated to explore their rela- women.
tionships with U.S. social and economic factors. Playmate of the To explain how social preferences are affected by
Year age, body feature measures, and facial feature measure- changing environmental security conditions, Pettijohn
ments were correlated with a general measure of social and eco- and Tesser (1999) offer the Environmental Security
nomic hard times. Consistent with Environmental Security Hypothesis. Building on existing evolutionary and social
Hypothesis predictions, when social and economic conditions ecological theories (Buss, 1994; Cunningham, 1986;
were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of the McArthur & Baron, 1983; Zebrowitz, Fellous, Mignault,
Year with larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to-hip ratios, & Andreoletti, 2003), these researchers contend that
smaller bust-to-waist ratios, and smaller body mass index values perceptions and feelings of environmental security influ-
were selected. These results suggest that environmental security ence facial feature preferences. Specifically, when condi-
may influence perceptions and preferences for women with cer- tions are threatening and uncertain, individuals with
tain body and facial features. more mature facial features are preferred to a relatively
greater extent compared to preferences in less threaten-
ing conditions. Pettijohn and Tesser (1999) have found
Keywords: facial features; body features; physical appearance; physi- evidence that popular American movie actresses from
cal attraction; environmental security 1932-1995 with mature faces (small eyes, large chins,
thin faces) are preferred to a relatively greater extent in
For decades, psychologists have been studying the ide- social and economic hard times compared to social and
economic good times. However, this same pattern of
als of beauty and what makes an individual physically
attractive. Researchers have provided detailed accounts preferences was not found in a sample of popular Ameri-
of changing trends in U.S. history by studying the mea- can movie actors, suggesting that male appearance pref-
surements of Playboy Playmates, Miss America contest erence patterns are not equivalent (Pettijohn & Tesser,
winners, and models in popular women’s magazines 2003). In addition, Pettijohn and Tesser (2004) have
(i.e., Vogue, Ladies Home Journal) and advertisements
Authors’ Note: Preliminary findings of this research were presented at
across time and their relationships to popular culture and the 15th annual American Psychological Society conference in Atlanta,
dieting or clothing fads (Garner, Garfinkel, Schwartz, & Georgia, May 2003. Special thanks to Stephanie Dulaney for her assis-
Thompson, 1980; Mazur, 1986; Owen & Laurel-Seller, tance in measuring model faces and Abraham Tesser for his comments
2000; Voracek & Fisher, 2002; Wiseman, Gray, Mosi- on the article. Correspondence concerning this article or reprint re-
quests should be addressed to Terry F. Pettijohn II, Department of Psy-
mann, & Ahrens, 1992). Continuous representations of
chology, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA 16546-0001; e-mail: terrypet@
women in the media provide a medium for studying usa.com.
changes across time and conditions. Although these
PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 9, September 2004 1186-1197
trends are intriguing, questions still remain regarding DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264078
why these trends occur, what societal and individual envi- © 2004 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

1186
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1187

found that when participants were subjected to threat in indicated by the decreasing percentage of ideal body
a lab setting, they showed a general preference to work weight, but the WHR remained relatively constant at .70.
with a female partner with smaller eyes (a mature fea- But might these preferences be impacted by social and
ture) over a partner with larger eyes (a neotenous fea- economic security factors?
ture). These studies have focused on preferences for Consider work by Anderson, Crawford, Nadeau, and
facial features under conditions of threat but have not Lindberg (1992), which found that the amount of
tested changing preferences for mature body features. female body fat considered most attractive varies across
The current study was undertaken to provide additional cultures. In cultures where women have limited eco-
support for the Environmental Security Hypothesis by nomic opportunities and wealth, body fat is considered
replicating previous findings using an alternative sample attractive and negatively correlated with women’s politi-
and by expanding the set of predictions to investigate cal power and economic resources. The terms “fat” and
preferences for mature body features under conditions “curvaceous” are not interchangeable, but they are
of threat. related (Singh, 1993). Because women generally store
The Environmental Security Hypothesis considers fat in their hips, buttocks, and breasts, increasing body
evolutionary theory and further adjusts evolutionary fat tends to increase curvaceousness, or the difference
predictions of preferences within specific conditions of between bust and waist and waist and hips. Larger bust-
historical and cultural variation. Evolutionary mate to-waist ratios and smaller waist-to-hip ratios would
selection theories (Buss, 1989; Buss & Barnes, 1986; therefore denote greater degrees of curvaceousness.
Symons, 1979) suggest that men and women select mates Research also suggests that greater curvaceousness in
to maximize reproduction success and cues of reproduc- women is quite attractive to men (Furnham, Hester, &
tive value in women are largely determined by physical Weir, 1990; Singh, 1993; Singh & Young, 1995).
appearance. Preferences for specific facial and body fea- Silverstein, Peterson, and Perdue (1986) investigated
tures that signal health and reproductive promise have changes in curvaceousness across time by measuring
been explained in the context of evolutionary theory models in Vogue and Ladies Home Journal between 1901
(Buss, 1994; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Singh, 1993; and 1981. They found that when more women gradu-
Thornhill & Grammer, 1999). Many studies have cited ated from college or entered the job market, the stan-
the importance of neotenous facial features in determin- dard of attractiveness presented in popular women’s
ing female attractiveness and have found support for magazines was less curvaceous. To support their predic-
these ideas cross-culturally, suggesting this preference is tions, they explained that women with different body
related to evolutionary influences (Cunningham, Rob- shapes may develop different mating strategies and
erts, Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995; Jones, 1995; Zebrowitz, means for obtaining economic resources. Curvaceous
1997). The Environmental Security Hypothesis suggests women, which are more attractive to men, can use mar-
that within these evolutionary preference findings, spe- riage to gain resources for childrearing. Noncurvaceous
cifics of attractiveness may in part depend on how secure women are not as attractive to men so they must use alter-
people feel in their surroundings. Additional social native strategies and obtain economic independence
influences and contextual information may help to through their own means. In some cultures, marriage is
explain the variability within these sets of evolutionary the only economic strategy for women, but in the United
preferences across time. States, women can pursue careers and have children.
For example, Singh (1993) has examined the prefer- Barber (1998a) tested the idea that the male standard
ence for a certain waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) by conduct- for a woman’s attractiveness is more curvaceous than the
ing studies in which men rated the attractiveness of female standard by measuring bust-to-waist ratios of Play-
female figures, which varied in total fat and WHR. Men boy models, Miss America winners, and models appear-
found the average figure to be the most attractive, and ing in Vogue magazine across time. Consistent with pre-
regardless of the total amount of fat of the figures, men dictions, the male standards (Playboy models and Miss
found the figures with a low WHR most attractive. As America winners) varied less than the female standard
WHR increased, suggesting a less curvaceous and more (Vogue), suggesting standards of attractiveness are influ-
tubular figure, attractiveness ratings decreased. Figures enced by evolutionary factors. Barber (1998b) also sup-
with a low WHR also were rated as healthier and of ported his assertions by finding correlations between
greater reproductive value than those with a higher curvaceousness of models in Vogue and Playboy with eco-
WHR. Singh also analyzed Playboy centerfolds and win- nomic growth (Standard and Poor’s index, per capita
ners of Miss America beauty contests in the United States gross national product), women’s participation in the
across time through 1990. Singh found that Playboy Play- economy (percentage of married women working, ratio
mates’ WHR increased slightly from .68 to .71 for the of male to female undergraduate college enrollment,
years examined. The models got thinner over the years, ratio of male to female college degrees awarded), and
1188 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

reproductive variables (birth rate, female to male ratio, weaker than mature faces. Mature faces are perceived as
single women/men ages 20-24). In subsequent research, relatively more powerful, dominant, strong, expert,
Barber (1999) investigated women’s dress fashions as a competent, independent, shrewd, and mature than baby
function of reproductive strategy. Short skirts were cor- faces. Individuals possessing mature facial characteris-
related with low sex ratios, increased economic opportu- tics also are considered to possess a higher level of social
nities for women, and marital instability. These findings status and are seen as more important, more influential,
help explain Mabry’s (1971) connection between stock more in control, and physically stronger (e.g., Berry &
prices and women’s skirt length. In addition, larger McArthur, 1985; Brownlow, 1992; Brownlow &
waists were correlated with increased economic op- Zebrowitz, 1990; Cherulnik, Turns, & Wilderman, 1990;
portunities for women. Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990; Cunningham et al.,
Studies such as these provide additional support for 1995; Enquist & Ghirlanda, 1998; Keating, 1985; Keating
Environmental Security Hypothesis predictions. & Doyle, 2002; Keating, Mazur, & Segall, 1981; Zebrowitz
Indeed, social and economic hard times include factors & McDonald, 1991; Zebrowitz, Tenenbaum, & Goldstein,
such as economic growth, female participation in the 1991).
economy, and reproductive values that have been inves- Cunningham and colleagues (Cunningham, 1986;
tigated in the past. The current study builds and extends Cunningham et al., 1990, 1995) also have accounted for
these findings by considering an alternative, more gen- the interplay between biology, human development, and
eral measure of social and economic threat and by con- evolution in determining preferences in their Multiple
sidering the impact of threat on facial, body, and age Fitness model of social perception. Researchers contend
preferences across time. The usefulness and functional- that an ideal combination of neonate and sexual matu-
ity of preferences in different contexts relies less on a rity features produces the most romantically attractive
strictly evolutionary explanation. face. Neonate features would be located in the center of
According to ecological theory, social goals can influ- the face, such as large eyes, and sexually mature features
ence social perception and lead the perceiver to focus on would be located in the periphery, such as cheekbone
adaptive function in the decision-making process prominence in women and large chin size in men. The
(McArthur & Baron, 1983). Perception provides an Environmental Security Hypothesis further argues that
adaptive function for directing evolutionary and social the Multiple Fitness model does not consider changing
behaviors. Directly related to the Environmental Secu- environmental conditions. This specified combination
rity Hypothesis, when social and economic conditions may not always be preferred. Specifically, large eyes may
are threatening, individuals should be attuned to the be preferred to a greater extent when social and eco-
heightened need for security. This attunement should nomic conditions are nonthreatening or large chins may
lead to the selection of others with mature features to sat- be preferred to a greater extent when conditions are
isfy these needs. Depending on the situation, individuals threatening. These preferences, even if rooted in evolu-
use appearance information to make decisions about tionary biology, may vary depending on environmental
how they will behave and the choices they will make. conditions and what is functionally advantageous.
However, different situations may influence people’s Besides facial features, body characteristics such as
preferences for certain facial and body features. For shape and size, also can communicate maturity and con-
example, threatening situations cause people to feel jure attributions associated with strength. For instance,
scared, stressed, and uncertain. In these situations, it consider research conducted on the attribute of physical
may be functional to prefer a person with mature fea- height. Tall individuals are commonly perceived to be
tures, whose facial and body features communicate stronger, more independent, and more dominant than
maturity, independence, and security, qualities that shorter individuals (Adams, 1980; Melamed, 1992;
should decrease feelings of fear, stress, and uncertainty. Young & French, 1998). Although many studies of
Maturity may be expressed through different facial height and dominance/power have considered male
features, and indeed, research in this area suggests that height, more recent work by Boyson, Pryor, and Butler
mature facial features and neotenous facial features (1999) considered female height. Participants were
(baby faces) produce different groupings of attributions shown a male and female silhouetted drawing of various
(e.g., see Zebrowitz, 1997, for a review). Neotenous facial heights where the woman was shorter or taller than the
features include larger eyes, a smaller nose, a smaller man. When the woman was taller than the man, the
chin, and round cheeks, whereas mature facial features woman was rated as significantly more dominant than
include smaller eyes, a larger nose, a larger chin, a thin- the man.
ner face, and more pronounced cheekbones. Overall, In addition to these body feature investigations, it also
baby faces are seen as relatively more warm, kind, naïve, makes intuitive sense that relatively older individuals are
honest, agreeable, sociable, trustworthy, and physically perceived to be more responsible and mature. Indeed,
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1189

researchers have considered self-reported personality tions are related to preferences for certain facial and
factors and have found that age is negatively associated body features.
with sensation seeking and positively correlated with
responsibility (Adams, 1980). Henss (1991) also has METHOD
found that people are quite accurate when asked to
To test the current hypotheses, three pieces of infor-
judge the age of people in their 20s to 60s, often missing
mation were required: (a) a measure of American soci-
the exact age by between 3 to 7 years. In sum, facial fea-
etal preferences for female facial and body characteris-
tures, body features, and age communicate useful infor- tics in models across time, (b) facial photographs and
mation about a person’s personality and social utility. body measurements of the preferred models, and (c) an
These different affordances may be of great conse- index of the social and economic condition across time.
quence in distinct social and economic environments. These pieces of information were identified, collected,
and organized.
CURRENT PREDICTIONS
Data Collection
The current study tests a context-dependent theory of
Playboy Playmate of the Year. In the current investiga-
attraction and preferences, as presented in Pettijohn
tion, Playboy magazine’s annual Playmate of the Year
and Tesser’s (1999) Environmental Security Hypothesis.
competition was selected as a measure of societal prefer-
It is theorized that when social and economic times are
ences for female models (facial and body features).
threatening and pessimistic, individuals will prefer oth-
“Playboy is the leading men’s magazine in the world. It
ers with relatively greater maturity characteristics. These
contains award winning fiction, investigative articles,
characteristics can be represented through facial fea-
humor, in-depth interviews and pictorials featuring the
tures and include preferences for smaller eyes, thinner
world’s most beautiful women” (www.playboy.com/
cheeks, and larger chins. The current study extends worldofplayboy/faq/what.html). Playboy magazine, part
beyond facial feature predictions and predicts that of Playboy Enterprises, Inc., was founded by Hugh
mature characteristics also can be represented through Hefner in 1953 and is considered by many to be a cul-
body features and include preferences for taller, heavier tural icon. “In the United States, Playboy reaches nearly
individuals with larger waists. When social and economic 10 million adults each month whose median age is 32.
times are nonthreatening and prosperous, facial feature 83% of Playboy readers are male and 17% are female”
preferences will be for larger eyes, fuller cheeks, and (www.playboyenterprises.com/FAQs).
smaller chins, and body feature preferences will be for Each month, Playboy features a nude pictorial layout
relatively shorter, lighter individuals with smaller waists. of a selected Playmate of the Month. The Playmate of
As a secondary hypothesis, it is predicted that greater the Month is chosen from photos of women sent in to
curvaceousness (indicated by relatively smaller waist-to- Playboy or women discovered by photographers. Test
hip ratios and relatively larger bust-to-waist ratios) and shots are taken of potential Playmate candidates and
greater body fat (indicated by body mass index) will be together with photography editors, Hugh Hefner, edi-
preferred to a relatively greater extent in social and eco- tor in chief, chooses the Playmates (www.playboy.com/
nomic good times compared to social and economic worldofplayboy/faq/playmates.html). Each year since
hard times. When times are difficult, reproductive fit- 1960, Playboy magazine has named a Playmate of the Year
ness may be less important and the ability to acquire (PMOY) from the year’s Playmates of the Month. “Hef
resources and be productive may become more chooses the PMOY after taking into account votes cast by
important (see Barber, 1998a, 1998b). readers” (www.playboy.com/playmates/faq/pmoy.
In sum, it was hypothesized that there would be signif- html). Subscribers send letters to Playboy expressing
icant relationships between facial and body feature mea- their preference for particular Playmates during the year
sures of Playboy Playmates of the Year and social and eco- and Playboy regularly provides a more formal voting
nomic conditions, consistent with the Environmental opportunity to help decide who becomes Playmate of
Security Hypothesis. In difficult social and economic the Year. In previous years, this voting has taken place by
times, compared to good social and economic condi- mail, telephone, and the Internet. Although Mr. Hefner
tions, there will be a preference for relatively greater makes the final determination, popular opinion is ulti-
mature facial and body characteristics. The current mately expressed through his choice.
study builds on previous investigations by expanding the The Playmate of the Year contest winners were chosen
time frame of study to include body measurements of in the current study because they offer a reflection of the
Playboy Playmates of the Year through the year 2000, adds popularity of Playmates with magazine audiences in the
the dimension of facial feature measurement, and pro- United States in a continuous fashion across time.1 Based
vides a theory to explain how social and economic condi- on the results of the Playmate of the Year competitions,
1190 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

the Playmates of the Year from 1960 through 2000 were TABLE 1: Playboy Playmate of the Year Grouped Descriptive
Statistics 1960-2000
identified from Playboy magazine.2 The names of each of
these Playmates and when they were Playmate of the Year Feature M Minimum Maximum SD
is available in the appendix.
Age 22.27 18 33 2.68
Body features. The body measurements (height, Bust 35.68 32 39 1.35
weight, hips, bust, waist) and age of each Playmate of the Waist 23.43 20 27 1.45
Year from 1960 through 2000 were collected using acces- Hips 35.21 32 38 1.23
Height 66.95 62 71 2.44
sible Playboy data available in Playboy publications and
Weight 118.44 102 140 9.13
online at www.playboy.com.3 Height, hips, bust, and waist Waist-to-hip ratio .67 .57 .73 .04
measurements were reported in inches and weight was Bust-to-waist ratio 1.52 1.38 1.80 .10
published in pounds.4 Waist-to-hip ratio, bust-to-waist Body Mass Index 18.57 15.96 20.36 .95
ratio, and body mass index were calculated from these Eye height .057 .041 .077 .009
Eye width .192 .158 .228 .017
measurements. The age when Playmates were named
Eye area .011 .007 .016 .002
Playmate of the Year was determined using published Cheek thinness .203 .161 .249 .022
birth date information. The individual body measures Chin length .229 .198 .263 .017
and age of each Playmate of the Year are presented in the Chin width .462 .345 .600 .056
appendix. Chin area .106 .071 .155 .019

Facial features. High-quality photographs that cap- NOTE: Values were published in Playboy magazine and are available on-
line at www.playboy.com. Age is represented in years. Bust, waist, hips,
tured a complete, front, facial view of each of the 41 Play- and height were measured in inches. Weight was reported in pounds.
boy Playmates of the Year from 1960 to 2000 were located. Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was calculated by dividing waist measure-
The majority of the images were downloaded from the ment by hip measurement. Larger WHRs would indicate less differ-
ence between waist and hip measurements than smaller WHRs, hence
Internet (www.playboy.com) and the remaining photo- lesser curvaceousness. Bust-to-waist ratio (BWR) was calculated by di-
graphs were found in magazines and books, scanned viding bust measurement by waist measurement. Larger BWRs would
using a flatbed scanner, and saved as graphic files. Two indicate greater difference between bust and waist measurements than
smaller BWRs, hence greater curvaceousness. Body mass index (BMI)
raters, unaware of the current set of predictions, pro- was calculated as the product of weight in pounds and the constant
vided independent facial measurements of each Play- 703, divided by height in inches squared (http://www.cdc.gov/
mate based on Cunningham’s method of facial measure- nccdphp/dnpa/bmi). Larger BMI values indicate greater body fat. Eye
height was the distance from the top to bottom of the visible eye at pu-
ment (Cunningham, 1986; Cunningham et al., 1995). pil center divided by the length of the face. Eye width was the distance
Raters used a computer program (PhotoMagic, 1993) to between corners of the visible eye divided by the width of the face at the
measure facial features by placing the mouse curser at a cheekbones. Eye area was calculated as the product of the eye height
ratio and the eye width ratio. Chin length was the distance from the top
beginning point, moving the curser to an ending point, of the lower lip to the bottom of the chin divided by the length of the
and reporting the change in spatial coordinates for each face. Chin width was the width of the face at the jaw measured at the
facial measurement. The areas of the face that were mea- middle of the chin height, divided by the length of the face. Chin area
was calculated as the product of the chin length ratio and the chin
sured included the eyes (eye height, eye width, and eye width ratio. Cheek thinness was the inner corner where the lips meet to
area), chin (chin length, chin width, and chin area), and the outer edge of the cheek divided by the length of the face.
thinness of the face (cheek thinness).5 All measurements
were standardized as ratios to the appropriate vertical or
horizontal axis. The reliability of facial feature measure-
ments was calculated by figuring the correlation
between the unique component measurements of the aggregate, standardized, global measure that is com-
two raters and adjusting this value using the Spearman- posed of U.S. unemployment rate, change in disposable
Brown prophecy formula. All reliabilities were satisfac- personal income, change in consumer price index,
tory (ranging from .97 to .99). Based on the facialmetric death rate, birth rate, marriage rate, divorce rate, suicide
assessments made by each independent rater, the mean rate, and homicide rate.6 Each of the indicators was stan-
for each facial feature for each Playmate of the Year was dardized and the annual percentage change in con-
computed. Descriptive statistics of these grouped facial sumer price index, annual percentage change in dispos-
and body measurements and age are provided in Table 1. able personal income, birth rate, and marriage rate were
Social and economic hard times measure. To evaluate multiplied by –1 so that positive scores on all measures
changes in the social and economic environment in the would reflect hard times. All of the standardized scores
United States from 1960-2000, the General Hard Times were then averaged for each year to provide a single
Measure (GHTM) used in Pettijohn and Tesser’s (1999, GHTM where larger values represent relatively greater
2003) previous work was considered and expanded to hard times and smaller values represent relatively
include more recent years (1996-2000). This is an greater good times.
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1191

RESULTS TABLE 2: Correlations of the General Hard Times Measure With Fa-
cial Features of Playboy Playmates of the Year (1960-2000)
Correlation of Playmate of the Year Facial Features r p
With Social and Economic Conditions
Eye height –.343 .028
Facial feature measurement values of Playboy Play- Eye width –.512 .001
mates of the Year were correlated with the GHTM. There Eye area –.454 .003
were significant negative relationships between the Cheek thinness –.077 .630
GHTM and Playmate of the Year eye height, eye width, Chin length –.070 .664
Chin width –.152 .342
and eye area measurements. There were no significant Chin area –.141 .379
relationships between social and economic conditions
and Playmate of the Year chin measurements or facial NOTE: N = 41 years. All tests were one-tailed. Larger values on the Gen-
thinness. These relationships are summarized in Table 2. eral Hard Times Measure indicate relatively harder social and economic
times.
In Figure 1, the GHTM and Playmate of the Year eye
area data were plotted against each other and the best fit-
ting regression line was added. Each data point is labeled .018
by the year it represents (i.e., 74 is the data point for
1974). This figure shows that as the GHTM increases, 62
75
Playmate of the Year eye area measurements decrease, or
.016
69

become more mature in appearance. 74

71

Figure 2 illustrates how the GHTM and Playmate of

.014 61
81

the Year eye area measurements have varied as a function Eye Area
65 70
64

of time. In general, there is correspondence between

.012
80 84 72
89 77

these measures. However, it should be noted that the 68 67 78 90 85

83
60 66 00 99 86
73 88 76 94
curves do not match between 1963 and 1968, 1975, and
.010 92
87
79 82 95

between 1995 and 1998. In the 1960s, the United States 63 97 91

experienced increased racial tensions and the assassina-

.008
96
tion of important leaders, President John Kennedy and
93
98
.006
Dr. Martin Luther King. In 1975, America was preparing -.3 -.2 -.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5

to celebrate its bicentennial. In the middle to late 1990s, General Hard Times Measure
Americans were saddened and upset by the bombing of
the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and several Figure 1 General Hard Times Measure and Playboy Playmate of the
instances of school shootings, including Columbine. Year eye area scatterplot.
NOTE: Numbers represent the corresponding year of the individual
These events may not have been expressed in the statis- data points. General Hard Times Measure values are plotted along the
tics used to measure social and economic conditions in x-axis and Playmate of the Year eye area is plotted along the y-axis.
the current study, which may explain the discrepancy. Larger General Hard Times Measure values represent relatively hard
times and smaller values represent relatively good times. Larger eye
area values are considered more neotenous and smaller eye area values
Correlation of Playmate of the Year Age and Body are considered more mature. A best-fitting regression line was added to
Features With Social and Economic Conditions illustrate the relationship between these two variables.

Age and body measurement values of Playboy Play-

mates of the Year also were correlated with the GHTM.
and these Playmate of the Year feature measures can be
There were significant positive relationships between
seen in the 1960s, as previously discussed.
the GHTM and Playmate of the Year age, waist measure-
To consider the temporal effect on these outcomes,
ment, height, weight, and waist-to-hip ratio. There was a
we found that time (indicated as year corresponding to
significant negative relationship between the GHTM
and bust-to-waist ratio (curvaceousness) and body mass when each Playmate of the Year was named) was corre-
index. There were no significant relationships between lated with our measure of social and economic condi-
social and economic conditions and Playmate of the Year tions within this set time period (1960-2000). This is not
bust size or hip measurements. These relationships are surprising because it is common for social and economic
summarized in Table 3. indicators to go through time trends. However, it should
For further illustration, Figures 3 and 4 show how be noted that the GHTM was not correlated with time in
Playmate of the Year age and height varied across years previous investigations (see Pettijohn & Tesser, 1999), in
with the GHTM. In general, these measures also corre- which the time frame included a wider range of years
spond with changes in social and economic conditions. (1932-1995). Additional regression analyses identifying
Of interest, the same discrepancy between the GHTM part and partial correlations for each of the statistically
1192 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

0.8 0.004 0.8 34

Hard Hard
Times Times 32
0.6 0.006 0.6
30
General Hard Times Measure _____

General Hard Times Measure _____

0.4 0.008 28
0.4
26

Area - - -
0.01
0.2 0.2 24

- - - Age - - -
0.012 22

- - - Eye
0 0
20
0.014
-0.2 -0.2 18

0.016 16
-0.4 -0.4
14
_____

_____
0.018
12
-0.6 -0.6
Good Good 10
Times 0.02 Times
-0.8 -0.8 8
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year Year

Figure 2 General Hard Times Measure and Playboy Playmate of the Figure 3 General Hard Times Measure and Playboy Playmate of the
Year eye area change across time. Year age change across time.
NOTE: The solid line represents the General Hard Times Measure. NOTE: The solid line represents the General Hard Times Measure.
Along the left vertical axis, larger General Hard Times Measure values Along the left vertical axis, larger General Hard Times Measure values
indicate relatively hard times and smaller values indicate relatively indicate relatively hard times and smaller values indicate relatively
good times. The dashed line represents measured Playmate of the Year good times. The dashed line represents Playmate of the Year age, pre-
eye area. Along the right vertical axis, smaller eye area values are con- sented in years, which corresponds with the right vertical axis.
sidered more mature and larger eye area values are considered more
neotenous.

TABLE 3: Correlations of the General Hard Times Measure With

Age and Body Features of Playboy Playmates of the Year
0.8 74
Hard
(1960-2000) Times
0.6 72

r p df
General Hard Times Measure _____

0.4 70

Age .379 .007 39

- - - Height - - -
0.2 68
Bust –.107 .252 39
Waist .273 .044 38 0 66
Hips –.238 .070 38
Height .607 .001 39 -0.2 64
Weight .343 .014 39
Waist-to-hip ratio .480 .001 38 -0.4 62
Bust-to-waist ratio –.366 .010 38
_____

Body Mass Index –.364 .010 39 -0.6 60

Good
Times
NOTE: All tests were one-tailed. Larger values on the General Hard -0.8 58
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Times Measure indicate relatively harder social and economic times. 2000

Varied df represent unavailability of Playboy Playmate of the Year mea- Year

sures for certain years.
Figure 4 General Hard Times Measure and Playboy Playmate of the
Year height change across time.
NOTE: The solid line represents the General Hard Times Measure.
significant dependent measures and the independent Along the left vertical axis, larger General Hard Times Measure values
variables of GHTM and year were conducted. As indicate relatively hard times and smaller values indicate relatively
good times. The dashed line represents Playmate of the Year height,
expected, the additional variable of year in the model presented in inches, which corresponds with the right vertical axis.
reduced the relationships between the Playmate mea-
sures and the GHTM, but the dependent variables of
age, height, and body mass index remained statistically
significant. Another way to assess the impact of time
would be to correlate year with each of the facial and other Playmate measures and time disappeared when
body measures and partial out the variance attributed to the GHTM was considered. These analyses show that the
the GHTM. When this was done, all measures except current relationships between Playmate of the Year
bust-to-waist ratio and eye width were nonsignificant. measures and social and economic conditions cannot be
Any relationships that may have existed between the explained by a simple temporal trend.
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1193

In addition, the GHTM was lagged for 1 and 2 years taken in context. The tallest Playmate in the sample was
and the relationship between these delayed statistics and 71 in. tall, the shortest was 62 in., and the oldest Playmate
Playmate of the Year features was assessed. Results were in the sample was 33 years old, the youngest was 18. Cer-
not stronger than the original outcomes in either case. tainly, these values do not represent extremes. Further-
more, according to the National Center for Chronic Dis-
DISCUSSION ease Prevention and Health Promotion (www.cdc.gov/
nccdphp/dnpa/bmi), when considering body mass
Consistent with the Environmental Security Hypothe-
index (BMI), 19 of the 41 Playmates of the Year would be
sis predictions, when social and economic conditions
classified as underweight (below 18.5) and the remain-
were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of
the Year with larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to- ing 22 would be classified as average (18.5-24.9). None
hip ratios, smaller bust-to-waist ratios, and smaller body fell into the overweight or obese categories and the aver-
mass index values were selected. Conversely, as indicated age BMI of all Playmates of the Year was slightly above the
with the prescribed correlations, as social and economic minimum to be placed into the normal category. There-
conditions improved, younger, lighter, shorter Playboy fore, these results may only be generalized to nonobese
Playmates of the Year with smaller waists, larger eyes, female populations (see Singh, 1993).
smaller waist-to-hip ratios, larger bust-to-waist ratios, and Of interest, recent research has found that under-
larger body mass index values were preferred. Mature weight female figures were rated as more attractive than
features and a more tubular body shape were preferred normal weight or overweight figures, and figures with a
to a relatively greater extent when times were bad and high waist-to-hip ratio (.86) were considered more
neotenous features and a more curvaceousness body attractive than the figures with a low waist-to-hip ratio
type were preferred when times were good. across all weight conditions (Puhl & Boland, 2001).
Although there was overall support for the Environ- These findings run counter to Singh’s (1993) original
mental Security Hypothesis predictions, Playmate of the results and a follow-up (Singh & Young, 1995) showing
Year chin size and facial thinness did not follow the pre- that larger body size, waist-to-hip ratio, and hips also
dicted pattern of relating positively with hard social and made women appear older and less desirable. Tassinary
economic conditions. The measures of facial thinness, and Hansen (1998) also show that waist size, hip size, and
chin length, chin width, and chin area showed no rela- weight can be varied to produce differences in waist-to-
tionship with the General Hard Times Measure, whereas hip ratio judgments of attractiveness. These recent find-
the eye measures were significantly negatively related to ings suggest that preferences may have stronger
social and economic hard times. One way to explain this sociocultural influences that depend less on evolution
discrepancy may lie in the weighted importance of body and that these ideals may change. Perhaps the samples,
features over facial features for this particular sample. which were tested at different times and in different loca-
Nude models are selected for their beauty, but the signif- tions, experienced differences in environmental secu-
icance of physical attractiveness may be connected more rity that could partially explain this discrepancy. Within
with body features than facial features for Playboy center- an average range of body shapes and weights, larger
folds. Having a strong chin or a thin face may be of waist-to-hip ratios may be preferred to a relatively greater
smaller consequence for Playmates, whereas body fea- extent when environmental security is high compared to
tures, such as height and fat distribution, may be of uncertain conditions. This possibility warrants future
larger consequence in determining attractiveness. In investigation.
contrast, movie actresses may rely more on facial appear- Although correlational in nature, these results sug-
ance than body appearance for their profession, hence gest that environmental security may influence percep-
the connection of eye size, chin size, and facial thinness tions and preferences for Playmates with certain body
with social and economic conditions in the actress sam- and facial features. We recognize the limitations of using
ple (Pettijohn & Tesser, 1999). In addition, research the Playboy Playmate of the Year competition as a source
findings concerning eye size differences and attribu- of preferences for female attractiveness over time. Play-
tions have yielded robust findings in the arena of facial boy is in business to sell magazines. They would not be
feature investigations, whereas other facial features have able to sell magazines if they featured unattractive
been more variable (see Zebrowitz, 1997). women who were not desirable to their subscribers.
Although relationships between feature measure- Therefore, it is in the company’s best interest to know
ments and the state of the social and economic environ- what the public wants in order to be successful. Some
ment were exposed, the range of facial and body mea- have speculated that model photos are airbrushed and
surement values was somewhat restricted. For example, “corrected” in editing. To the extent that any alterations
the statement that taller and older Playmates of the Year are made, we would argue that they would be in the
were selected in social and economic bad times must be direction of the current societal trends. Furthermore, if
1194 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

images are always corrected in the same fashion, this monthly Playmates from many cultural and racial back-
practice could not account for the current pattern of grounds have been featured in Playboy, only one
changing preferences with social and economic condi- Playmate of the Year has been African American (1990:
tions. Does Playboy mirror American culture? We believe Rene Tenison). Considering the lack of diversity in the
so, and the editors of Playboy magazine certainly think so. Playmate of the Year, it is important to consider the
According to Hugh Hefner, “No other magazine and no implications for preferences between and within differ-
other images more dramatically reflect the cultural ent races. For example, research has shown that U.S.
changes that America has been through during the last African American men prefer larger African American
half of the 20th century” (The Playmate Book, 1996, p. 13). female body types compared to Anglo-American men’s
We also recognize the limitations of using the GHTM preferences for smaller Anglo-American female body
as an indicator of social and economic conditions in types (Jackson & McGill, 1996; Rosenfeld, Stewart,
America over time. The GHTM is a gross, societal indica- Stinnett, & Jackson, 1999). This research suggests a race-
tor that is not sensitive to all social and economic threat. specific prototype of body attractiveness to help explain
As noted earlier, events such as assassinations of impor- cultural differences and regional variations within cul-
tant political and social leaders and acts of violence in tures. If a particular race is exposed to a greater social
the United States, such as September 11, 2001, may not and economic threat than another race, this threat may
be captured in the current measure. The GHTM also influence preferences in the manner suggested in the
does not allow for a precise assessment of how particular current Environmental Security Hypothesis.
groups (i.e., men) or individuals themselves are influ- Although relationships were reported in the current
enced by the social and economic conditions. Future study, we do not account for all of the variance in selec-
experimental work may correct these limitations. How- tions and recognize that other factors certainly influence
ever, the GHTM includes many of the components cited preferences for Playboy Playmate of the Year. Besides
in previous archival research on societal threat (i.e., those mentioned previously, model leg length, hair
Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991; McCann, 1991; Sales, color, and the presence of a tan (Broadstock, Borland, &
1972, 1973), such as unemployment, consumer price Gason, 1992) may influence perceived attractiveness as
index, suicide, homicide, and divorce, and provides a well. As noted in the commentaries to Voracek and
nice consistency of methodology in which to make com- Fisher’s (2002) study on temporal changes of Playmate
parisons to American actresses (Pettijohn & Tesser, body measures, geographical and historical variation in
1999). In other archival investigations, societal measures body size are important considerations (McQueen,
of threat in America have been related to powerful and 2003) and the media is not the only influence on body
charismatic presidential candidate preferences (McCann, image changes (Boynton, 2003). Complex social factors,
1991, 1997; McCann & Stewin, 1987), authoritarian evolutionary forces, and learning are central to determ-
church affiliation, attack dog preference, strong literary ining body shape and size preferences.
character personality, prevalence of violent sporting The results of the current investigation provide addi-
events (Doty et al., 1991; Sales, 1972, 1973), mature facial tional support for the Environmental Security Hypothe-
feature preferences in popular American actresses sis and extend support from facial feature preferences to
(Pettijohn & Tesser, 1999), and even television viewing include body feature preferences. These findings are
preferences for meaningful content (McIntosh, intriguing and suggest our preferences are shaped by
Schwegler, & Terry-Murray, 2000). These outcomes are our environmental perceptions of security. Additional
in line with the current findings involving Playboy Play- work considering how personality preferences are influ-
mates of the Year. Our likes and dislikes are indeed influ- enced by environmental security may be useful. Alterna-
enced by environmental conditions and perceptions of tive replications in various cultures or using different
threat. samples, such as models, beauty contestants, or other
Culture also may influence preferences for attraction highly visible representations of societal preferences of
in female facial and body features. Anderson et al. attraction, would increase reliability of these findings.
(1992) suggest that attitudes toward female fatness But perhaps the most essential line of future research
across cultures are influenced by availability of food, cli- includes experimental manipulations of facial and body
mate, social dominance of women, and women’s value in features presented under varying degrees of environ-
the workplace. The current study investigated American mental threat. Some initial work has been done in this
preferences, and cross-cultural replications would cer- area (Pettijohn & Tesser, 2004), but additional studies are
tainly strengthen our findings. In addition, it should be necessary to determine under what conditions facial and
noted that the Playmates of the Year were predominately body preferences hold true to predictions and how the
of Anglo-American and of European decent. Although mind perceives beauty under different circumstances.
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1195

APPENDIX
Playboy Playmate of the Year Individual Descriptive Statistics 1960-2000

Year Name Age Bust Waist Hips Height Weight

1960 Ellen Stratton 20 35 20 35 64 110

1961 Linda Gamble 21 38 27 37 64 112
1962 Christa Speck 19 38 22 36 65 122
1963 June Cochran 20 36 20 34 62 102
1964 Donna Michelle 18 38 22 37 64 118
1965 Jo Collins 19 36 24 36 64 112
1966 Allison Parks 22 36 24 36 65 117
1967 Lisa Baker 22 35 23 35 68 132
1968 Angela Dorian 23 36 21 35 65 109
1969 Connie Kreski 21 35 23 36 65 118
1970 Claudia Jennings 19 35 23 36 66 115
1971 Sharon Clark 26 35 24 36 66 115
1972 Liv Lindeland 25 36 23 34 67 108
1973 Marilyn Cole 22 36 24 35 68 119
1974 Cyndi Wood 22 34 22 34 65 103
1975 Marilyn Lange 22 39 — — 67 130
1976 Lillian Müller 23 36 24 35 68 125
1977 Patti McGuire 25 35 23 35 65 115
1978 Debra Jo Fondren 22 35 24 36 64 114
1979 Monique St. Pierre 25 36 26 36 67 117
1980 Dorothy Stratten 19 36 24 36 69 123
1981 Terri Welles 24 36 24 36 69 120
1982 Shannon Lee Tweed 24 36 25 36 70 128
1983 Marianne Gravatte 23 34 21 32 68 105
1984 Barbara Edwards 23 35 23 34 65 105
1985 Karen Velez 23 37 23 35 67 118
1986 Kathy Shower 33 35 24 35 69 122
1987 Donna Edmondson 22 36 23 35 70 127
1988 India Allen 22 35 24 34 71 127
1989 Kimberley Conrad 24 36 24 36 69 122
1990 Reneé Tenison 20 36 23 32 66 112
1991 Lisa Matthews 20 37 24 36 69 120
1992 Corinna Harney 19 34 22 34 63 105
1993 Vickie (Anna Nicole) Smith 24 36 26 38 71 140
1994 Jenny McCarthy 20 38 24 34 67 120
1995 Julie Lynn Cialini 23 34 24 35 71 126
1996 Stacy Sanches 21 34 24 36 70 130
1997 Victoria Silvstedt 22 36 25 37 71 139
1998 Karen McDougal 26 34 24 34 68 125
1999 Heather Kozar 21 36 24 35 68 117
2000 Jodi Ann Paterson 24 32 23 34.5 65 112

tor of body, face, and age preferences for female models in the current
NOTES investigation.
2. Results of the Annual Playboy Playmate of the Year contest and
1. As noted in the Introduction, previous investigations of beauty photographs of the models were found at www.playboy.com, The Play-
across time have considered all 12 Playboy Playmates of the Month mate Book: Five Decades of Centerfolds (1996), The Playboy Book: The Com-
within each year as their sample, not only the Playboy Playmate of the plete Pictorial History (1994), and various issues of Playboy magazine.
Year. We decided to focus on the results of the Playmate of the Year 3. There is the possibility that reported measurements were not
competition in which a single model is determined to represent public entirely accurate, but these values were most likely distorted in the
preference more so than any of the other individual models within a direction of the body ideal of the times.
year and more than the combined measurements of all models within a 4. Waist and hip measurements were not provided for Marilyn
given year. Using a combination of all Playmate of the Month measure- Lange (Playmate of the Year 1975). Metric body measurement data was
ments within a year suggests that all models are preferred to the same originally published for Victoria Silvstedt (Playmate of the Year 1997),
extent, but the Playmate of the Year competition and other indicators but centimeters and kilograms were converted to inches and pounds to
would suggest otherwise. In addition, a single representation for each maintain consistency in the current investigation.
year allows for the consideration of a tangible example as opposed to a 5. Eye height was the distance from the top to bottom of the visible
vague collection of averaged statistics. Therefore, the results of the eye at pupil center divided by the length of the face. Eye width was the
Playmate of the Year competition was determined to be the best indica- distance between corners of the visible eye divided by the width of the
1196 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

face at the cheekbones. Eye area was calculated as the product of the Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. L. (1986). Preferences in human mate selec-
eye height ratio and the eye width ratio. Chin length was the distance tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
from the top of the lower lip to the bottom of the chin divided by the Cherulnik, P. D., Turns, L. C., & Wilderman, S. K. (1990). Physical
length of the face. Chin width was the width of the face at the jaw mea- appearance and leadership: Exploring the role of appearance-
sured at the middle of the chin height, divided by the length of the based attribution in leader emergence. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
face. Chin area was calculated as the product of the chin length ratio chology, 20, 1530-1539.
and the chin width ratio. Cheek thinness was the inner corner where Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attrac-
the lips meet to the outer edge of the cheek divided by the length of the tiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial
face. Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, and Wu (1995) provide beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
options for additional facial measurements, but these other areas of Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do
the face were not the focus of the current investigation. Please see women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the
Cunningham’s previous research for additional information regarding perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Person-
facialmetric assessment. ality and Social Psychology, 56, 61-72.
6. Unemployment rate was recorded as the percentage of the Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu,
workforce unemployed. Disposable personal income was recorded as C. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as
the annual percentage change in the per capita dollar amount of dis- ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception
posable personal income. Consumer price index was recorded as the of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
annual percentage change in consumer price index, or inflation.
Psychology, 68, 261-279.
Death rate was recorded as the number of deaths per 1,000 of the popu-
Doty, R. M., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1991). Threat and
lation. Birth rate was recorded as the number of births per 1,000 of the
authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987. Journal of Person-
population. Marriage rate was recorded as the number of marriages
ality and Social Psychology, 61, 629-640.
per 1,000 of the population. Divorce rate was recorded as the number
Enquist, M., & Ghirlanda, S. (1998). The secrets of faces. Nature, 394,
of divorces per 1,000 of the population. Suicide rate was recorded as
the number of suicides per 100,000 of the population. Homicide rate 826-827.
was recorded as the number of homicides per 100,000 of the popula- Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial
tion. Data were taken from Statistical Abstract of the United States (U.S. attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154-
Bureau of Census, 1977-2001), Historical Statistics of the United States: 158.
Colonial Times to 1970 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1975), International His- Furnham, A., Hester, C., & Weir, C. (1990). Sex differences in the
torical Statistics: The Americas 1750-1988 (Mitchell, 1993), Information preferences for specific female body shapes. Sex Roles, 22, 743-754.
Please Almanac (1993-1996), the World Almanac and Book of Facts (1993- Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980).
1996), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Cen- Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychological Reports,
ters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health 47, 483-491.
Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs). Henss, R. (1991). Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photo-
graphs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 933-946.
Information Please Almanac. (1993-1996). New York: Doubleday.
REFERENCES Jackson, L. A., & McGill, O. D. (1996). Body type and body character-
istics associated with attractive and unattractive bodies by African
Adams, G. R. (1980). Social psychology of beauty: Effects of age, Americans and Anglo Americans. Sex Roles, 35, 295-307.
height, and weight on self-reported personality traits and social Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 287-293. neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthro-
Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). pology, 36, 723-748.
Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance
socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology & and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 61-70.
Sociobiology, 13, 197-227. Keating, C. F., & Doyle, J. (2002). The faces of desirable mates and
Barber, N. (1998a). Secular changes in standards of bodily attractive- dates contain mixed social status cues. Journal of Experimental Social
ness in American women: Different masculine and feminine ide- Psychology, 38, 414-424.
als. Journal of Psychology, 132, 87-94. Keating, C. F., Mazur, A., & Segall, M. H. (1981). A cross-cultural
Barber, N. (1998b). The slender ideal and eating disorders: An inter- exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness.
disciplinary “telescope” model. International Journal of Eating Disor-
Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 41-48.
ders, 23, 294-307.
Mabry, M. A. (1971). The relationship between fluctuations in hemlines and
Barber, N. (1999). Women’s dress fashions as a function of reproduc-
stock market average from 1921-1971. Unpublished master’s thesis,
tive strategy. Sex Roles, 40, 459-471.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and conse-
Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation.
quences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
48, 312-323. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 281-303.
Boynton, P. M. (2003). “Shapely centerfolds? Temporal change in McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory
body measures: Trend analysis”: Comment. BMJ: British Medical of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.
Journal, 326, 823. McCann, S. J. (1991). Threat, authoritarianism, and the power of
Boyson, A. R., Pryor, B., & Butler, J. (1999). Height as power in U.S.: New threat and power measures. Journal of Psychology, 125,
women. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 109-114. 237-240.
Broadstock, M., Borland, R., & Gason, R. (1992). Effects of suntan on McCann, S. J. (1997). Threatening times and the election of charis-
judgements of healthiness and attractiveness by adolescents. Jour- matic U.S. Presidents: With and without FDR. Journal of Psychology,
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 157-172. 131, 393-400.
Brownlow, S. (1992). Seeing is believing: Facial appearance, credibil- McCann, S. J., & Stewin, L. L. (1987). Threat, authoritarianism, and
ity, and attitude change. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 101-115. the power of U.S. presidents. Journal of Psychology, 121, 149-157.
Brownlow, S., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Facial appearance, gender, McIntosh, W. D., Schwegler, A. F., & Terry-Murray, R. M. (2000).
and credibility in television commercials. Journal of Nonverbal Threat and television viewing in the United States, 1960-1990.
Behavior, 14, 51-60. Media Psychology, 2, 35-46.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evo- McQueen, D. (2003). “Shapely centerfolds? Temporal change in
lutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavior and Brain Sci- body measures: Trend analysis”: Comment. BMJ: British Medical
ences, 12, 1-49. Journal, 326, 823.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Melamed, T. (1992). Personality correlated of physical height. Person-
New York: Basic Books. ality and Individual Differences, 13, 1349-1350.
 Pettijohn, Jungeberg / PLAYBOY PLAYMATE CURVES 1197

Mitchell, B. R. (1993). International historical statistics: The Americas Tassinary, L. G., & Hansen, K. A. (1998). A critical test of the waist-to-
1750-1988. New York: Stockton Press. hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness. Psychological
Owen, P. R., & Laurel-Seller, E. (2000). Weight and shape ideals: Thin Science, 9, 150-155.
is dangerously in. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 979-990. Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman:
Pettijohn II, T. F., & Tesser, A. (1999). Popularity in environmental One ornament that signals quality? Evolution & Human Behavior,
context: Facial feature assessment of American movie actresses. 20, 105-120.
Media Psychology, 1, 229-247. U.S. Bureau of Census. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States:
Pettijohn II, T. F., & Tesser, A. (2003). History and facial features: The Colonial times to 1970. Washington, DC: Government Printing
eyes have it for actresses but not for actors. North American Journal Office.
of Psychology, 5(3), 335-344. U.S. Bureau of Census. (1977-2001). Statistical abstract of the United
Pettijohn II, T. F., & Tesser, A. (2004). Threat and social choice: When eye States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
size matters. Manuscript submitted for publication. Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. L. (2002). Shapely centerfolds? Temporal
PhotoMagic 1.0. (1993). Richardson, TX: Micrografx, Inc. change in body measures: Trend analysis. BMJ: British Medical Jour-
The Playboy book: The complete pictorial history. (1994). Santa Monica, nal, 325, 1447-1448.
CA: General Publishing Group, Inc. Wiseman, C. V., Gray, J. J., Mosimann, J. E., & Ahrens, A. H. (1992).
The Playmate book: Five decades of centerfolds. (1996). Santa Monica, CA: Cultural expectations of thinness in women: An update. Interna-
General Publishing Group, Inc. tional Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 85-89.
Puhl, R. M., & Boland, F. J. (2001). Predicting female attractiveness: World almanac and book of facts. (1993-1996). New York: Newspaper
Waist-to-hip ratio versus thinness. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3, Enterprise Associates.
27-46. Young, T. J., & French, L. A. (1998). Heights of U.S. presidents: A
Rosenfeld, L. B., Stewart, S. C., Stinnett, H. J., & Jackson, L. A. (1999). trend analysis for 1948- 1996. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 321-
Preferences for body type and body characteristics associated with 322.
attractive and unattractive bodies: Jackson and McGill revisited. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: A window to the soul? Boulder,
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 459-470. CO: Westview.
Sales, S. M. (1972). Economic threat as a determinate of conversion Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J., Mignault, A., & Andreoletti, C. (2003).
rates in authoritarian and nonauthoritarian churches. Journal of Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively sig-
Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 420-428. nificant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling.
Sales, S. M. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: An analysis Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 194-215.
of archival data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’
44-57. babyfacedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims
Silverstein, B., Peterson, B., & Perdue, L. (1986). Some correlates of courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623.
the thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. International Zebrowtitz, L. A., Tenenbaum, D. R., & Goldstein, L. H. (1991). The
Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 895-905. impact of job applicants’ facial maturity, sex, and academic
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractive- achievement on hiring recommendations. Journal of Applied Social
ness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Psychology, 21, 525-548.
chology, 65, 293-307.
Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, Received August 22, 2003
breasts, and hips: Roles in judgments of female attractiveness and Revision accepted December 2, 2003
desirability for relationships. Ethology & Sociobiology, 16, 483-507.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford
University Press.