Gaze Preferences to Male Contrapposto and Non-Contrapposto Postures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrapposto, an asymmetrical twisting of the hips and shoulders, has historically been associated with beauty and aesthetics in art. While the impact of a female contrapposto posture on perception of attractiveness and visual attention has been studied, its effects on males remain understudied. The current research aims to explore whether contrapposto postures in men influence perceptions of attractiveness, dominance, masculinity, dynamism, and naturalness, as well as visual attention. Two eye-tracking studies were conducted, utilizing images of male models in contrapposto and upright poses. Despite differences in attributions, no significant differences were found in visual attention between the two poses in both initial fixation and prolonged gaze behaviors. Contrapposto was consistently perceived as less dominant, masculine, and natural. These findings suggest a feminizing effect of contrapposto on male body posture, aligning with previous research on female contrapposto. The current research provides insights into the historical and artistic significance of contrapposto while contributing to the understanding of nonverbal communication through body posture.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".