From 2013... Resource Security Impacts Men’s Female Breast Size Preferences: Men from low & medium socioeconomic contexts rated larger breasts as more attractive than did men from higher socioeconomic levels

From 2013... Swami V, Tovée MJ (2013) Resource Security Impacts Men’s Female Breast Size Preferences. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57623; Mar 6 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057623

Abstract: It has been suggested human female breast size may act as signal of fat reserves, which in turn indicates access to resources. Based on this perspective, two studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that men experiencing relative resource insecurity should perceive larger breast size as more physically attractive than men experiencing resource security. In Study 1, 266 men from three sites in Malaysia varying in relative socioeconomic status (high to low) rated a series of animated figures varying in breast size for physical attractiveness. Results showed that men from the low socioeconomic context rated larger breasts as more attractive than did men from the medium socioeconomic context, who in turn perceived larger breasts as attractive than men from a high socioeconomic context. Study 2 compared the breast size judgements of 66 hungry versus 58 satiated men within the same environmental context in Britain. Results showed that hungry men rated larger breasts as significantly more attractive than satiated men. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that resource security impacts upon men’s attractiveness ratings based on women’s breast size.

General Discussion

It has been suggested that one function of female breast size is to act as an indicator of adipose tissue reserves in non-lactating women [15], [34]–[35]. This hypothesis is based on the fact that adipose tissue plays a central role in the storage of calories, which in turn leads to the suggestion that breast size may reliably predict food availability or access to resources. In situations marked by relative resource insecurity, then, men should idealise larger female breast size, as large size would indicate that a woman has access to resources. In two studies, we found evidence for this hypothesis: men who were experiencing relative resource insecurity (operationalised either as environmental socioeconomic context or proprioceptive hunger) rated women with larger breast sizes as more physically attractive than did men experiencing resource security.

Based on the present set of findings, it might be argued that temporary affective states produce individual variation in breast size judgements. Men experiencing immediate resource insecurity may perceive women with larger breasts as more attractive because large breast size indicates access to resources [57]–[59] or, more broadly, traits associated with maturity that may be more valued during periods of insecurity [60]–[65]. In short, the subjective experience of resource deprivation in the form of hunger appears to drive men to place greater value on female cues that indicate access to resources. Moreover, it is apparent that these temporary affective states mirror patterns of cross-environmental differences, with men from contexts of low socioeconomic status rating larger breast sizes as more attractive than men from contexts of high socioeconomic status. It is possible the cumulative temporal effect of resource insecurity among the former group is what drives their idealisation of a larger breast size [57], [59].

Of course, this is not to suggest that adipose tissue reserves are the only thing indicated by larger breast size. If this were the case, then larger breast size should be no more important than fat stored in any other part of a woman’s body [17]. Rather, breast size may also act as a cue of nulliparity, age, sexual maturity, or fertility [14]–[17] and, furthermore, there may be other more important cues of fat storage compared to the breasts, such as overall body size [57], [59]. This may help to explain the small-to-moderate effect sizes uncovered in both studies reported here: all things being equal breast size may indicate fat reserves, but in reality breast size is likely correlated with body mass [72], which may act as a more reliable indicator of such reserves. Determining the relative importance of breast size and body size, respectively, as cues of fat reserves will require further research.

Nor do our findings deny a role for sociocultural factors in shaping breast size judgements. It has been argued, for example, that breasts are one of the most important sites of objectification of the female body in socioeconomically developed settings [4], [72]–[73] and media targeted at some men appear to fetishise large breasts [74]–[75]. As an aside, this should not be used to suggest that the importance of breasts varies across cultures and that our methodology artificially inflates the importance of breast size: earlier ethnographic research indicates that breasts are eroticised in many different cultures [76]. In addition, judgements of breast size appear to be shaped by individual psychological differences [28], [30], as well as motivational states [77], which may help account for some of the discrepant findings in earlier studies. In future work, it will be important to take into account the different theoretical perspectives highlighted here in order to arrive at a fuller picture of the forces shaping breast size preferences across cultures.

There are a number of limitations of the present work, which should be recognised. First, it is possible that there were differences in mean breast size across our research sites (particularly in Study 1), which impacted on our respondents’ breast size preferences. For example, some scholars have suggested that attractiveness judgements are calibrated to local conditions [78]; this being the case, it is possible that local variations in mean breast size may have impacted upon men’s breast size judgements independent of socioeconomic status. Obtaining population-based anthropometric and tailoring stimuli according to local variation may help to expand on our findings. Second, it is possible that figures with larger breast size were perceived as heavier overall. If so, it is possible that our findings were driven by body size preferences in general, rather than breast size per se. Although variation in breast size in our stimuli is unlikely to have resulted in major in perceptions of body weight or size, this is an issue that warrants further investigation.

Third, our focus on breast size comes at the expense of other breast-related variables that may have impacted upon participants’ ratings, such as symmetry, shape, and areola size [7]. Although these traits were held constant in our study, future work may wish to concurrently consider the effects of manipulations to different breast-related variables, as well as other morphological traits, such as body size and waist-to-hip ratio. In a similar vein, because the faces of our stimuli were identical for each figure, participants may have focused more on the figures’ bodies as a result [7]. One way in which this limitation could be overcome would be to utilise a between-groups design in which participants are asked to rate only one figure, rather than being presented with all figures simultaneously.

These limitations notwithstanding, the present set of results provides evidence that breast size may play a role in men’s assessments of female access to resources. All things being equal, men from relatively low socioeconomic contexts and who experience temporary hunger rate women with larger breast size as more attractive than men from high socioeconomic contexts or are experiencing satiety. These results add to the findings of recent empirical work demonstrating the malleability of physical attractiveness ratings [65] and highlight the importance of considering the context in which attractiveness judgements are made. What remains is for scholars to begin the task of theorising how the many different factors that are known to impact upon physical attractiveness preferences (e.g., social, economic, evolutionary, individual differences) might fit together [79].