Assessing Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Somatic Traits among Men and Women from Eight Populations across Russia

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess preferences for sexual dimorphism in four somatic traits (height, muscle development, physical strength, and fat deposition) among males and females across eight populations differing in origin, culture, socio-economic and ecological conditions.

Materials and Methods. The sample consisted of 1501 individuals (610 males and 891 females) aged 17 to 39 years (mean age: 20.8 ± 4.3), representing eight populations residing in Russia: Buryats, Yakuts, Kalmyks, Tuvans, Kabardians, Balkars, and Russians (from Moscow and Tula). Data were collected from 2022 to 2024. To assess preferences for sexually dimorphic traits an author’s questionnaire was utilized.

Results and Discussion. In all samples, both men and women found pronounced sexual dimorphism in height, following generally accepted “male-taller norm”, to be attractive. The majority of men preferred slender women with low muscle development and physical strength, while women favored physically strong men with well-developed musculature. Population differences in anthropoaesthetic preferences were revealed. Kalmyks, Kabardians, and Balkars considered pronounced sexual dimorphism in height, musculature, and physical strength to be more attractive, whereas Yakuts and Russians from Moscow expressed less definitive preferences. In nearly all male groups, consistent associations were found between preferences for sexual dimorphism in height and physical strength, as well as muscle development and fat deposition. The most robust associations in female groups pertained to preferences for sexual dimorphism in height and physical strength, as well as muscle development and physical strength.

Conclusion. The identified anthropoaesthetic preferences related to the expression of sexually dimorphic traits across various somatic criteria reflect universal and culturally specific ideas about physical attractiveness, shaped by evolutionary and sociocultural factors.

Funding. The study has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), project No. 23-18-00277.

References

Bovet J. Evolutionary theories and men’s preferences for women’s waist-to-hip ratio: Which hypotheses remain? A systematic review. Front. Psychol., 2019, 10, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01221

Burkova V., Butovskaya M., Semenova O., Amirgalina G., Galimkhanov A., Egorova A., Zinurova R. Male and Female Roles among Modern Youth of Turkic-­ Speaking Populations (Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Tatars, and Yakuts). Etnografia, 2025, 2 (28), pp. 90–121. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31250/2618-8600-2025-2(28)-90-121

Butovskaya M.L. Body Language: Nature and Culture. Moscow, Nauchnui Mir Publ., 2004. 437 p. (In Russ.).

Butovskaya M.L. Anthropology of Sex. Friazino, Vek – 2 Publ., 2013. 256 p. (In Russ).

Coy A.E., Green J.D., Price M.E. Why is low waist-to-chest ratio attractive in males? The mediating roles of perceived dominance, fitness, and protection ability. Body Image, 2014, 11 (3), pp. 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.04.003

Davis A.C., Arnocky S. An Evolutionary Perspective on Appearance Enhancement Behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav., 2022, 51 (1), pp. 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01745-4

Dixson B.J., Dixson A.F., Morgan B., Anderson M.J. Human physique and sexual attractiveness: Sexual preferences of men and women in Bakossiland, Cameroon. Arch. Sex. Behav., 2007, 36 (3), pp. 369–375. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-006-9093-8.

Dixson B.J., Dixson A.F., Bishop P.J., Parish A. Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: A New Zealand–U.S. comparative study. Arch. Sex. Behav., 2010, 39 (3), pp. 798–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9441-y

Donovan C.L., Uhlmann L.R., Loxton N.J. Strong is the New Skinny, but is it Ideal?: A Test of the Tripartite Influence Model using a new Measure of Fit-Ideal Internalisation. Body Image, 2020, 35, pp. 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.09.002

Dronova D.A., Butovskaya M.L. Assortative mating and its relationship with sexual dimorphism in Indians: Experimental data using stimulus images. Siberian Historical Research, 2020, 1., pp. 230–246. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/27/12

Durkee P.K., Polo P., Muñoz-Reyes J.A., Rodríguez-Ruiz C., Losada-Pérez M. et al. Men’s Bodily Attractiveness: Muscles as Fitness Indicators. Evol. Psychol., 2019, 17 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919852918

Faries M.D., Bartholomew J.B. The role of body fat in female attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav., 2012, 33 (6), pp. 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.002

Frederick D.A., Haselton M.G. Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 2007, 33 (8), pp. 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303022

Frederick D.A., Reynolds T.A. The Value of Integrating Evolutionary and Sociocultural Perspectives on Body Image. Arch. Sex. Behav., 2022, 51 (1), pp. 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01745-4

Gallup A.C., Fink B. Handgrip strength as a Darwinian fitness indicator in men. Front. Psychol., 2018, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00439

Klimenko L.V. Gender disposition in a modern family of the Northern Caucasus: modernization and archaization. Woman in Russian Society, 2013, 1, pp. 20–31. (In Russ.).

Kościński K. Attractiveness of women’s body: body mass index, waist–hip ratio, and their relative importance. Behav. Ecol., 2013, 24 (4), pp. 914–925. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art016

Lassek W.D., Gaulin S.J.C. Do the Low WHRs and BMIs Judged Most Attractive Indicate Better Health? Evol. Psychol., 2018, 16 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049188000

Lassek W.D., Gaulin S.J.C. Substantial but Misunderstood Human Sexual Dimorphism Results Mainly from Sexual Selection on Males and Natural Selection on Females. Front. Psychol., 2022, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859931

Leopold L. Social body weight norms: a population-based profile in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. BMC Public Health, 2025, 25 (1), 876. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21449-5

McComb S.E., Mills J.S. Eating and body image characteristics of those who aspire to the slim-thick, thin, or fit ideal and their impact on state body image. Body Image, 2022, 42, pp. 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.07.017

NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD RisC). A century of trends in adult human height. Elife, 2016, 5, e13410. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13410

Pisanski K., Fernandez-Alonso M., Díaz-Simón N., Oleszkiewicz A., Sardinas A. et al. Assortative mate preferences for height across short-term and long-term relationship contexts in a cross-cultural sample. Front. Psychol., 2022, 13, 937146. https://doi.org/.3389/fpsyg.2022.937146

Rostovtseva V.V., Butovskaya M.L., Mezentseva A.A. Preferences for male and female body parameters and characteristics of sexual dimorphism in Russians and Buryats. Siberian Historical Research, 2024a, 1, pp. 185–209. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/43/12

Rostovtseva V.V., Butovskaya M.L., Mezentseva A.A., Dashieva N.B., Struchkova N.A. Population and sex differences in the constitutional parameters of modern young Buryats, Yakuts and Tuvans. In Baikal Meetings – XIII. Steppe Eurasia: Cultural Unity and Diversity: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (September 20–21, 2024, Republic of Buryatia, Ulan-Ude), Ulan-Ude, Publishing and Printing Complex of the federal state budgetary educational institution of higher education «East-Siberian State Institute of Culture (VSGIK), 2024b, pp. 34–42. (In Russ.).

Sell A., Lukazsweski A.W., Townsley M. Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men’s bodily attractiveness. Proc. R. Soc. B., 2017, 284 (1869), 20171819. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

Sidari M.J., Lee A.J., Murphy S.C., Sherlock J.M., Dixson B.J. et al. Preferences for Sexually Dimorphic Body Characteristics Revealed in a Large Sample of Speed Daters. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci., 2021, 12 (2), pp. 225–236. https://doi.org/.1177/1948550619882925

Singh D., Dixson B.J., Jessop T.S., Morgan B., Dixson A.F. Cross-cultural consensus for waist-hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav., 2010, 31 (3), pp. 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.001

Sorokowski P., Szmajke A., Sorokowska A., Cunen M.B., Fabrykant M. et al. Attractiveness of leg length: Report from 27 nations. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol., 2011, 42 (1), pp. 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110392229

Sorokowski P., Kościński K., Sorokowska A., Huanca T. Preference for women’s body mass and waist-to-hip ratio in tsimane’ men of the Bolivian Amazon: Biological and cultural determinants. PLoS One, 2014, 9 (8), e105468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105468

Sorokowski P., Oleszkiewicz A., Sorokowska A., Pisanski K. Human height preferences as a function of population size in the Cook Islands and Norway. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2020, 32 (3), e23367. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23367

Sorokowski P., Butovskaya M.L. Height preferences in humans may not be universal: Evidence from the Datoga people of Tanzania. Body Image, 2012, 9 (4), pp. 510–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.07.002

Sorokowski P., Sorokowska A. Judgments of Sexual Attractiveness: A Study of the Yali Tribe in Papua. Arch. Sex. Behav., 2012, 41, pp. 1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9906-x

Stulp G., Barrett L. Evolutionary perspectives on human height variation. Biol. Rev., 2016, 91 (1), pp. 206–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12165

Stulp G., Simons M.J., Grasman S., Pollet T.V. Assortative mating for human height: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2017, 29 (1), e22917. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.22917

Swami V., Tovée M. J. Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2005, 2 (2), pp. 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.02.002

Swami V., Caprario C., Tovée M.J., Furnham A. Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan: a cross‐cultural study. Eur. J. Person., 2006, 20 (1), pp. 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.568

Swami V., Tovée M. J. Differences in attractiveness preferences between observers in low-and high-resource environments in Thailand. J. Evol. Psychol., 2007, 5 (1), pp. 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.2007.1005

Swami V., Furnham A., Balakumar N., Williams C., Canaway et al. Factors influencing preferences for height: A replication and extension. Pers. Individ. Dif., 2008, 45 (5), pp. 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.012

Swami V., Frederick D.A., Aavik T., Alcalay L.,
Allik J. et al. The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the International Body Project I. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 2010, 36 (3), pp. 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359702

Tiggemann M. Sociocultural perspectives on body image. In Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance, 2012, pp. 758–765.

Tiggemann M., Anderberg I. The effect of Influencers’ fashion and fitspiration images on men’s body image. Body Image, 2020, 35, pp. 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.10.001

Tovée M.J., Reinhardt S., Emery J.L., Cornelissen P.L. Optimum body-mass index and maximum sexual attractiveness. The Lancet, 1998, 352 (9127), pp. 548.

Tovée M.J., Swami V., Furnham A., Mangalparsad R. Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture. Evol. Hum. Behav., 2006, 27 (6), pp. 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.004

Wang G., Djafarian K., Egedigwe C.A., El Hamdouchi A., Ojiambo R. et al. The relationship of female physical attractiveness to body fatness. Peer J., 2015, 3, e1155 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1155

Watkins C. D. Mate assessment based on physical characteristics: a review and reflection. Biol. Rev., 2025, 100 (1), pp. 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13131

Wells J.C.K. Sexual dimorphism in body composition across human populations: Associations with climate and proxies for short- and long-term energy supply. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2012, 24 (4), pp. 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.22223