in the article An Evolutionary Theory of Female Physical Attractiveness, types of Waist-to-Hip Ration (WHR) of females was rated in terms of Attractiveness, Healthiness, Likelihood of Marriage, and Youthfulness by menvarious races and different cultures (White American, African American, African, Azorean (Azore Islands), Indonesian). WHR, despite seeming a rather shallow marker of beauty, is actually an indicator of healthiness in women:
Surprisingly, despite differences in race and culture, there was an almost consensus of what constitutes physical attractiveness in females. Women in the 0.7 WHR range were judged to be the most attractive to men across race and culture. While there are marked differences (African American men overall prefer women with larger bottoms, White Americans prefer women with less lateral fat on the thighs and smaller bottoms, Mexican Americans prefer women with narrow waists (Roberts, 2005), etc.), the 0.7 WHR remains the most ideal throughout.
This does not mean attractiveness is based solely on body weight and WHR. Actually, the majority of physical attractiveness is found in facial features (large eyes, full lips, small chin, etc. are accepted markers of beauty in most Western societies), and even then it could differ from individual to individual.
This is just a brief look at a few interesting tidbits in this article. To read it in full, please go here.
If you’re interested for courses (or just for personal interest, the first book is full of introductory psychology things!), send me a message and we can negotiate prices! PayPal only, please!
In 1973, a group of eight, healthy investigators (including Dr. David Rosenhan) entered several psychiatric institutions separately claiming they were hearing voices (saying words like “hollow” and “empty”). They were all immediately admitted into each hospital and diagnosed as schizophrenics.
After each investigator had been admitted, they all began to act perfectly normal. They acted normally with the staff and generally did not adhere to their “schizophrenia” labeling. Even so, because they had been labeled as “mentally ill”, the staff saw everything they did as being a symptom of their illness, even though they did not actually have an illness. The fake patients stayed for as little as a week to as long as two months, and upon release, all were given the label “Schizophrenic (in remmission)”.
The Rosenhan experiment helped to shed an ugly truth on mental health: Once someone is labeled with a certain illness, that label follows them around everywhere, even after they get better. It becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy: If someone knows you have, say, BPD, then everything you do is seen as being a result of that. Not only this, but being labeled with a certain illness can actually make one act according to the label given to them. The stigma that goes along with being labeled “mentally ill” is one that dominants the lives of many patients, even after release.
You can read more on the Rosenhan experment
Understanding the relation between personality characteristics, psychopathology, and sexual offenses can contribute to developing more effective treatment interventions. Previous research with sex offenders has focused on general personality traits or inconsistently classified sex offenders based on psychopathology. It was hypothesized that combining personality and psychopathological traits can assist in understanding sex offenders. The current study evaluated 88 male sex offenders in a court-mandated outpatient treatment program utilizing the NEO-PI-R and the MMPI-2. Three clusters of child molesters were examined for differences in personality characteristics and number of offenses. A second-order principle axis factor (PAF) analysis of personality and psychopathology traits revealed three factors: Psychological Distress, Excitement-Seeking, and Social Desirability. The potential clinical utility of these dimensions in predicting treatment compliance is examined.
The not-so-fun side of psychology
I would like to know the age range of your sample haha I was confused when it said age wasn’t correlated with height but that’s because I’m into child and adolescent psychology haha
Also, 17 is a pretty small sample size..
I’m such a nerd :) I love the statistics side of psychology
It’s just a personal thing I did for my small class of Exp Psych m students! They were university students so we had an age range if roughly 19-34 years olds (:
The Confirmation bias is the tendency for us to choose or accept information that confirms what we already believe, and reject or ignore any evidence against it.
For example, if you’re writing a paper about the different sides to the euthanasia debate and you’re pro-euthanasia, you’re more likely to seek out articles that are pro-euthanasia than anti-euthanasia. Or, if you’re an pro-evolution theory atheist and you find yourself debating with someone who is pro-intelligent design, you’re less likely to take serious the information or evidence they give you when it’s presented to you. This also manifests itself in uncertain or ambiguos information. If an article has pros for both sides of an argument but says that evidence is “inconclusive”, you’re still more likely to point out that the side which you believe in is more heavily supported in the article.
The way out of this bias to heavily read and consider information that is opposite what your belief is. This lessens chance for overconfidence and helps expand knowledge on subjects.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is probably one of the most notable hallmark unethical experiments you’ll ever encounter. Although it’s been long since condemned for its practice, it gives a great (but depressing) insight into human nature, much like the Milgram experiment before it.
You can read the layout of the experiment here.
Go check out the new group psychology blog I’m in, PsycOps!