↓ Skip to main content

“What Women Like”: Influence of Motion and Form on Esthetic Body Perception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“What Women Like”: Influence of Motion and Form on Esthetic Body Perception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Cazzato, Serena Siega, Cosimo Urgesi

Abstract

Several studies have shown the distinct contribution of motion and form to the esthetic evaluation of female bodies. Here, we investigated how variations of implied motion and body size interact in the esthetic evaluation of female and male bodies in a sample of young healthy women. Participants provided attractiveness, beauty, and liking ratings for the shape and posture of virtual renderings of human bodies with variable body size and implied motion. The esthetic judgments for both shape and posture of human models were influenced by body size and implied motion, with a preference for thinner and more dynamic stimuli. Implied motion, however, attenuated the impact of extreme body size on the esthetic evaluation of body postures, while body size variations did not affect the preference for more dynamic stimuli. Results show that body form and action cues interact in esthetic perception, but the final esthetic appreciation of human bodies is predicted by a mixture of perceptual and affective evaluative components.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 54%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2014.
All research outputs
#12,858,389
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,885
of 29,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,883
of 244,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#215
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.