Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human body's shape and motion afford social judgments. The body's shape, specifically the waist-to-hip ratio, has been related to perceived attractiveness. Early reports interpreted this effect to be evidence for adaptation, a theory known generally as the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis. Many of the predictions derived from this perspective have been empirically disconfirmed, leaving the issue of natural selection unresolved. Knowing the cognitive mechanisms undergirding the relationship between judgments of attractiveness and body cues is essential to understanding its evolution. Here we show that perceived attractiveness covaries with body shape and motion because they cospecify social percepts that are either compatible or incompatible. The body's shape and motion provoke basic social perceptions, biological sex and gender (i.e., masculinity/femininity), respectively. The compatibility of these basic percepts predicts perceived attractiveness. We report evidence for the importance of cue compatibility in five studies that used diverse stimuli (animations, static line-drawings, and dynamic line-drawings). Our results demonstrate how a proximal cognitive mechanism, itself likely the product of selection pressures, helps to reconcile previous contradictory findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it