WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO AND IQ
Thesis
Submitted to
The College of Arts and Sciences of the
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree
Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology
By
Justine Elizabeth Kelly
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
Dayton, Ohio
May 2014
WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO AND IQ
Name: Kelly, Justine Elizabeth
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________________
Susan T. Davis
Faculty Advisor
______________________________________
Melissa J. Layman-Guadalupe
Committee Member
______________________________________
Carolyn E. Roecker-Phelps
Committee Member
Concurrence:
_______________________________________
Carolyn E. Roecker-Phelps
Chair, Department of Psychology
ii
ABSTRACT
WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO AND IQ
Name: Kelly, Justine Elizabeth
University of Dayton
Advisor: Dr. Melissa Layman-Guadalupe
This study investigated the relationship between waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and
intelligence quotient scores (IQ), and whether this relationship might be affected by
variations in body image, locus of control, or self-efficacy. Female college students
(N=51) completed a brief IQ test and a series of personality measures, and were then
measured at the hips and waist to calculate WHR. The current study did not replicate the
previous findings of a link between WHR and IQ; further investigation is needed to
determine whether there truly is a relationship between WHR and IQ as indicated by
earlier research, and if such a link does exist, whether personality variables would be
useful to include in the examination. In the current study, further analyses indicated
relationships between body image and WHR as well as body mass index (BMI). Social
self-efficacy was found to be related to verbal IQ scores as well as leadership roles.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Melissa Layman-Guadalupe for working with me on
this project throughout the entire process, and for always being at the ready when I
needed her. I would also like to thank Dr. Susan Davis and Dr. Carolyn Roecker-Phelps
for serving on my thesis committee and offering their suggestions and support.
Completion of this project did not come easily to me and their willingness to continue
assisting is deeply appreciated. I also need to thank my husband Matthew, who always
encouraged me to work for a little while longer and made it possible for me to do so.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 1
CHAPTER II: METHOD………………………………………………………………. 12
CHAPTER III: RESULTS...……...……..………………………………………………20
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION ………………………..………………………………...27
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….32
APPENDICES
A. Demographic Survey……….............................................................................40
B. Items Similar to Those of the SB5 ABIQ………….........................................41
C. Body Appreciation Scale (BAS)……………...................................................42
D. Self-Efficacy Scale (SES)……………….........................................................44
E. Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire (ARQ)..........................................46
F. Informed Consent………..................................................................................49
G. Debriefing……………………….……………................................................51
v
LIST OF TABLES
1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Continuous Study Variables………………...22
2. Correlations Between Main Study Variables………………………………………....23
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Intelligence and its correlates have long been the topic of great interest and
rigorous study and debate. Research pertaining to intelligence “has dominated the
psychological literature for decades” (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2006) and has also
piqued the interest of the general public as evidenced by frequent reporting of academic
findings by popular mass media outlets. Indeed, one primary source for the current study
was produced into news segments played on major American news networks, during
January of 2008 (e.g., Fortin, 2008; McGinnis, 2007). Another subject of much intrigue
in both the academic world and popular culture is the concept of sexual attractiveness:
Over $160 billion is spent annually in the global market for cosmetics, fitness, and plastic
surgery (“Pots of Promise,” 2003), and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles spanning
several disciplines investigating human attractiveness can be found with minimal effort.
One well-documented facet of human female sexual attractiveness is that of waist-to-hip
ratio (WHR) (Singh & Randall, 2007). Waist-to-hip ratio is calculated by dividing the
measurement of a person’s waist circumference by the measurement of that person’s hip
circumference, and it refers to the degree to which a woman can be described as “curvy.”
A high WHR indicates a woman with a waist which is roughly the same size as or larger
than her hips, while a low WHR describes a woman whose waist is much smaller than
1
her hips. Women with smaller WHR values are typically judged by others to be more
attractive on average than women with larger WHR values (Singh & Randall, 2007).
Recently, one research finding has indicated that WHR is negatively correlated with
intelligence in women (Lassek & Gaulin, 2008), finding that higher WHR values are
associated with lower measured cognitive ability. The present study sought to replicate
these findings and to determine whether other factors, such as positive body image, selfefficacy, and locus of control could be mediating this finding.
Waist-to-Hip Ratio
Research has demonstrated that women with smaller waist-to-hip ratios (i.e., a
curvier figure) are perceived as more attractive by both men and women in cultures
around the world (Singh, 1993, 2004; Singh & Randall, 2007; Furnham, Moutafi, &
Baguma, 2002). Other studies have argued that body mass index (BMI) is equal to or
better than WHR for predicting ratings of attractiveness (Puhl & Boland, 2001; Swami,
Caprario, Tovée, & Furnham, 2006). However, most researchers agree that the two are in
a practically inseparable covariant relationship for the purposes of predicting or
measuring physical attractiveness. Men and women in Western cultures typically find
women with WHRs of 0.6 to 0.7 and BMIs of 17 to 20 to be most attractive (Singh,
1993). For the purpose of this study, WHR was treated as the primary indicator of female
physical attractiveness because of its apparent relationship (as perceived by men and
women) with other constructs such as fertility, general physical health, and intelligence.
One proposed explanation for the higher ratings of attractiveness for women with
low WHRs is that men perceive women with small waists and large hips as more fertile
than those with high WHRs. One obvious potential explanation for such an evolution is
2
pregnancy. Rebuffe-Scrive (1987, as cited in Singh & Randall, 2007,) reminds us that
high WHR is indicative of pregnancy; if a woman is already pregnant, she is not currently
fertile and will not be favored as a mate (Singh & Randall, 2007). However, more
attention has been given to the fact that women are capable of becoming pregnant after
menarche and before menopause when their estrogen levels are highest; it is also during
this time that they have the lowest WHRs (Bjӧrntorp, 1991). Healthy WHR for a woman
of child-bearing age ranges from 0.67 to 0.80 (National Academy of Sciences, 1991). A
multicultural sample of 200 men and women aged 17 to 26 years rated female figures
with low WHRs as “easy to bear children” and “easy to become pregnant” (Furnham,
McClelland, & Omer, 2003), and the same study found a significant correlation between
ratings of fertility and ratings of sexual attractiveness. Other studies have yielded similar
results (Furnham, Petrides, & Constantinides, 2005; Swami, Miller, Furnham, Penke, &
Tovée, 2005), suggesting that men have evolved to experience sexual attraction to fertile
women. However, Lassek and Gaulin (2008) have refuted this claim on the basis that no
consistent evidence exists to support the link between low WHR and fertility, citing a
slew of studies (e.g. Pall, Stephens, & Azziz, 2006, and van Hooff, Voorhorst, Kaptein,
& Hirasing, 1999) which do not find any difference in WHR between healthy women and
women who are amenorrheic, infertile, or suffering from hormonal imbalances.
A second notion set forth by attractiveness researchers is that men find women
with low WHRs to be more sexually attractive because they are healthier. Ample
evidence exists to support this assertion, today: Adults with higher WHRs are at
increased risk for a variety of metabolic diseases, including elevated blood sugar leading
to Type II diabetes, hypertension, elevated triglycerides and low-density (“bad”)
3
cholesterol, and lowered high-density (“good”) cholesterol (Bertrais et al., 1999; Larsson
et al., 1984). However, Lassek and Gaulin (2008) challenge this theory on an
evolutionary basis because, they argue, complications with obesity such as cardiovascular
disease and metabolic syndrome are a modern problem and would have been unlikely to
exist on any significant scale during previous millennia.
Having presented arguments against the fertility and health explanations for
men’s higher attractiveness ratings of women with lower WHRs, Lassek and Gaulin
(2008) proposed and tested a novel hypothesis for this phenomenon: Men are attracted to
women with lower WHRs because women with such figures possess superior cognitive
abilities to women with larger WHRs, and are more likely to produce offspring with
superior cognitive abilities. They begin their argument by citing a number of research
studies (e.g. Phinney et al., 1994) which state that fat stored upon the hips and buttocks of
women is the source of the particular fat (long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids,
particularly omega-3 fatty acids) that is critical to neural development in humans. This,
coupled with earlier observations that women’s WHR tends to increase with the number
of children she bears (Lassek & Gaulin, 2006), indicates that the purpose of sexually
dimorphic fat distribution could be to support cognitive development and ability in
offspring. Men, desiring offspring with strong cognitive abilities and, therefore, increased
chance of survival, are drawn to women with plenty of gluteofemoral fat and thus a low
WHR. In addition to the potential for providing offspring with sufficient instrumental
fatty acids for cognitive development, Lassek and Gaulin (2008) also speculate that the
patterns of heredity and the availability of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in
4
women with low WHRs would create a relationship between low WHR and superior
cognitive performance in the women themselves.
Lassek and Gaulin (2008) tested this hypothesis using a sample of 2,259 adult,
premenopausal women (aged 18-49 years) who were measured for WHR and assessed for
cognitive ability using an average of their scores on two subtests from the
Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (Letz, 1990): the Serial Digit Learning Test and the
Symbol Digit Substitution Test. They controlled for age, number of children borne,
household income, age at first birth, and race using multiple linear regression. The results
of their multiple regression analysis estimated that up to 6% of the variance in scores
could be attributed to WHR.
Although Lassek and Gaulin (2008) were the first to seek evidence of a link
between WHR and cognitive function in women of reproductive age, the notion that
WHR and cognitive function may be related has been explored before. Previous research
has indicated that larger waist circumferences in older adults is correlated with cognitive
decline and dementia (Jagust, Harvey, Mungas, & Haan, 2005; Waldstein & Katzel,
2006). Jagust and colleagues sampled 112 adults and found that there was a significant
negative relationship between WHR and various physical indicators of dementia, such as
smaller hippocampal volume. Waldstein and Katzel concluded that 3 to 13% of the
variance in performance on neuropsychological tasks could be attributed to central
obesity, based on a sample of 90 adults. These researchers attributed the decline in
cognitive function to blood pressure and other vascular disease, which is commonly
associated with higher WHRs, rather than the type of fat stored in the abdomen.
However, in a study of 917 adults of both sexes, Dore, Elias, Robbins, Budge, and Elias
5
(2008) found that inverse relationships between waist circumference and cognitive
function (R2 =-.10, p<.01), and WHR and cognitive function (R2 =-.09, p<.05), exist even
when controlling for cardiovascular disease. Instead, they found that physical activity
was the only factor that mitigated the relationship. The boost in cognitive function
associated with physical fitness is further supported in research which found that
cardiorespiratory fitness was consistently associated with better scores on reading and
math tests in children of both sexes even when controlling for self-esteem (Srikanth et al.,
2012). Interestingly, while physical fitness was the greatest predictor of good
performance on the tests in boys, it was second to body mass index in girls. Despite the
small correlation found by Lassek and Gaulin (2008), this may corroborate their assertion
that female gluteofemoral body fat can be a positive influence on cognitive function.
While there is research that attempts to link WHR to cognitive functioning, there
may be personality factors involved with both of these variables as well. For example, a
woman’s body image, self-efficacy, and locus of control may be impacted by her body
type, and may affect her performance on cognitive tasks. These will be discussed in the
next section.
Personality Variables
Body Image
In present-day American culture, there is ample evidence that “thin is in”; that is,
women with lean, often underweight, figures are considered more attractive than women
who carry average or high amounts of body fat (Puhl & Boland, 2001; Wilson, Tripp, &
Boland, 2005). There have been many studies which have documented a negative
relationship between body mass index (BMI) and body image, particularly in Caucasian
samples (e.g. Breitkopf, Littleton, & Berenson, 2007; Clark & Tiggeman, 2008).
6
Breitkopf and colleagues sampled 1,217 women of various races and ethnic backgrounds
and concluded that shame surrounding appearance increased significantly as BMI
increased for European American and Latina women. Clark and Tiggeman sampled 150
adolescent and preadolescent girls, finding that higher BMI predicted worsening body
image over the course of one year. The reverse has also been demonstrated; lower BMI
predicts greater scores on the Body Appreciation Scale (Avalos, Tylka, & WoodBarcalow, 2005) for men and women. One study of 207 men and women concluded that
people are more likely to have positive body image if they have a low BMI (Swami,
Hadji-Michael, & Furnham, 2008). Fewer studies exist to demonstrate a similar
relationship between positive body image and low WHR, but some do exist. For example,
Wilson’s (2005) study of 181 men and women found that WHR has a role in predicting
body image in conjunction with BMI, and Nickens (2006) found that African-American
women are more likely to have positive body image when they possess a low WHR.
Some research suggests that when a person lacks positive body image, he or she is
more likely to experience difficulty with cognitive and academic tasks (Yanover &
Thompson, 2008; Green & Rogers, 1998). Green and Rogers (1998) suggest that
impaired performance in working memory may be due to mental preoccupation with
thoughts of food, calories, and weight. Dieting and poor body image are also related to
lower scores on tests of reaction time and vigilance (Green, Rogers, Elliman, & Gatenby,
1994). Hypotheses for this observation are that either anxiety surrounding diet and image
interferes with the ability to perform well on such tasks, or that the metabolic effects of
dietary restriction, such as a lack of available glucose in the blood for supplying energy to
the brain, could be directly impacting cognitive performance. Therefore, research
7
suggests that body image may be an important variable to consider in studying the
relationship between WHR and IQ.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a construct proposed by Albert Bandura (1977a), and it is defined
as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the sources of action required
to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1986, p. 87). No known studies exist that
examine self-efficacy in combination with waist-to-hip ratio. However, it is well known
that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of performance outcome on many tasks, such
as motivation to prepare for an examination (Bandura, 1977b), or success at adopting a
new healthy behavior such as weight loss or smoking cessation (Conner & Norman,
2005), or scores on cognitive assessments (Bouffard-Bouchard, 2000; Singh, 1985).
Self-efficacy is a personality variable that may be informative in investigation of the
relationship between WHR and IQ.
Locus of Control
Locus of control refers to a person’s beliefs about the causal factors of events in
his or her life. It describes whether people feel these events are a result of their own
efforts or of the environment in which they find themselves (Rotter, 1966). People
generally have either an “internal” or an “external” locus of control: those who are
internally oriented tend to ascribe achievements and failures to their own behaviors, and
those who are externally oriented are more likely to give credit or blame to other people
or circumstances. Rotter (1975) specified that the designations “internal” and “external”
do not refer to some dichotomous state, but rather to opposite ends of a continuous
spectrum. In the 1975 article, he noted that neither end of the spectrum was generally
8
preferable to the other, although certain tasks may be better suited for people with a
particular orientation. While no research exists linking locus of control to body type or
WHR, Clifford and Cleary (1972) found a positive link between internal locus of control
and academic achievement in middle school children. However, Rotter (1975) warns
against attempting to use locus of control as a serious predictor of achievement
(particularly with older children and adults) because “by the time [a] student is in college,
he knows pretty well what the relationship is for him between effort, studying, etc., and
grades” (p. 60). Despite Rotter’s proposed continuum, his original instrument for
determining locus of control, the Rotter I-E Scale, has been found to have poor internal
consistency due to a multidimensional structure (Marsh & Richards, 1984). It is possible
that locus of control may be a personality variable of interest in the study of WHR and
IQ.
Current Study
The current study attempted to replicate the findings of Lassek and Gaulin (2008),
which concluded that waist-to-hip ratio is negatively correlated with cognitive
performance, using a sample of college-age women. It aimed to extend the findings of
Lassek and Gaulin by investigating whether individual internal factors, specifically body
image, self-efficacy, and locus of control, have a mediating or moderating effect on the
dependent variable of cognitive performance. In this context, “mediating” refers to a
particular type of relationship between two variables which are believed to be related to
one another. However, their apparent relationship is actually caused by each variable’s
relationship with a third variable: according to Baron and Kenny (1986), a mediator
“accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion” (p. 1176). Mediation
should be distinguished from moderation, which is a situation in which a third variable
9
affects the direction or strength of the relationship between the independent variable and
the dependent variable, but is not actually the cause of the relationship.
Although Lassek and Gaulin (2008) presented a convincing argument for the
relationship between WHR and cognitive performance by conducting a large-scale study
with thousands of subjects and controls on many external variables, they did not control
for important internal personality factors such as positive body image, self-efficacy, and
locus of control. With all of the evidence presented to indicate that possession of a low
WHR is likely to have a positive effect on body image, it seems necessary to include this
variable, in addition to self-efficacy and locus of control. In addition, the criteria these
authors used to determine cognitive function were a set of subtests from the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, the Wide-Range Achievement Test, the Serial
Digit Learning Test, and the Serial Digit Substitution Test. These measures do not
constitute an independently normed test and may not have provided the best summary of
participants’ abilities. The present investigation attempted to determine whether positive
body image and other internal factors in women with low WHRs are responsible for the
increased cognitive functioning scores identified by Lassek and Gaulin (2008), and it
utilized a more appropriate measure of intelligence assessment. Based upon these
considerations, the following hypotheses were offered:
Hypothesis 1: There would be a significant negative correlation between WHR
and IQ. As WHR increases, IQ scores were predicted to diminish.
Hypothesis 2: There would be a significant negative correlation between WHR
and scores on the measures of body image, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Women
10
with lower WHR were expected to demonstrate greater levels of these internal factors as
a result of social acceptance of their body type.
Hypothesis 3: The scores for the variables of body image, self-efficacy, and locus
of control would be significant positive predictors of IQ scores independent of WHR.
Hypothesis 4: Body image would mediate the relationship between WHR and IQ,
and this relationship would be lessened or eliminated altogether once the body image
score was controlled for. In addition, it was hypothesized that self-efficacy and locus of
control would act as moderators of the relationship between WHR and IQ, and that the
strength of this relationship would vary depending on the levels of these internal factors.
11
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 57 female undergraduates from a medium-sized, Midwestern
university. Of these 57, 6 were excluded due to invalid scores as a result of limited
English proficiency. All of them volunteered to participate in the current study in
exchange for research credit in their introductory psychology class. None of the
participants indicated that they were currently or had ever been pregnant. The participants
ranged in age from 17 to 22 years old, with an average age of 19.0 years.
Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to fill out a brief survey of demographic
information. The demographics survey contained questions identifying age, height, and
weight, as well as information pertinent to participants’ academic performance such as
current grade point average and past standardized test scores such as SAT and ACT.
Height and weight information were used to calculate the participants’ Body Mass Index
(BMI), which is used to identify adults as underweight, healthy, overweight, or obese.
BMI was computed using these figures in conjunction with the National Institutes of
Health online BMI calculator
(https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm). Participants’ reports of
12
their GPA, SAT scores, and ACT scores were inconsistent and incomplete, and were not
included in further analyses.
IQ. In order to assess IQ, an abbreviated form of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) was administered to all participants. The SB5 is a
widely-used, full-scale IQ assessment instrument which has undergone development and
consistent updates since its introduction in 1916, including a major revision in 2003
(Kaufman & Lichtenbarger, 2006). It is suitable for use with children, adolescents and
adults aged 2 years to 85 years, and it was standardized using a sample of 4,800
participants representative of the American population in terms of age, race/ethnicity,
educational attainment, geographic region, and socioeconomic status (Roid, 2003). The
full scale intelligence score (FSIQ) of the SB5 has excellent reliability with coefficients
of .97-.98, and its individual subtests and indices are also quite reliable with coefficients
ranging from .72 to .96. Validity for the SB5 was tested by comparing SB5 scores to
scores produced by previous Stanford-Binet editions and to the Wechsler scales; these
investigations concluded that the SB5 is a valid measure of IQ (Roid, 2003).
The shortened version of the SB5 is known as the SB5 Abbreviated IQ (ABIQ).
The ABIQ is calculated using the two routing subtests of the SB5: the verbal Vocabulary
subtest and the nonverbal Matrices subtest (Roid, 2003). The ABIQ was examined to
determine how well it correlated with other full-scale intelligence assessments. For
adults, it has a correlational coefficient of .87 with the SB5 FSIQ and a correlational
coefficient of .81 with the full scale Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (Roid, 2003).
Newton, McIntosh, Dixon, Williams, and Youman (2008) also found that the ABIQ was
an acceptable measure for predicting IQ in gifted students. The ABIQ is preferable to the
13
FSIQ for the purpose of this investigation because it takes significantly less time to
administer than the FSIQ. The publisher of the SB5 estimates that each subtest requires
approximately 5 minutes to administer; the ABIQ has only 2 subtests, compared to 10
subtests for the FSIQ. Although saving time is insufficient reason to choose a brief
assessment over a full-scale test for diagnostic or classification purposes, brief
assessments are highly valued for their effectiveness in estimating IQ in research.
Kaufman and Lichtenbarger (2006) state that “brief tests are… ideal for use in research
investigations, when an individual’s precise score is less important than group
performance” (p. 641). An example of an item from the Verbal subtest of the ABIQ is for
the participant to be shown and read a word such as “dime,” and for which points are
awarded based on the quality of the definition given by the participant. In this example, a
two-point response would require that the participant indicate understanding that a dime
is a coin worth 10 cents. Participants would earn one point for describing a coin without
specifying the value, and zero points for no response or an incorrect response. For the
non-verbal subtest, participants will be shown a pattern within a matrix in which the final
cell is blank and asked to indicate the solution from a selection of five possible answers.
Additional examples of questions similar to those of the ABIQ can be found in Appendix
B.
Body Image. The Body Appreciation Scale (BAS; Avalos, Tylka, & WoodBarcalow, 2005) was used to assess participants’ positive feelings toward their bodies. It
consists of 13 self-report items which are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =
Never, 5 = Always). According to the scale’s authors, the BAS was designed to be a
measure of positive, non-pathological attitudes regarding body image (Avalos et al.,
14
2005) and includes items such as, “Despite its flaws, I accept my body for what it is.”
Prior to the development of the BAS, the great majority of assessment tools used to
measure body image was oriented around problematic beliefs and behaviors such as
eating disorders (Cash, 2002). Avalos et al. (2005) argued that the field of psychology is
in need of greater attention paid to positive aspects of body image in order to focus on
prevention of pathologies by becoming familiar with factors which protect against them.
To this end, they developed a scale which purports to measure four constructs which they
deemed key components of comprehensive positive body image, stating the following:
Specifically, items were designed to assess the extent to which women: (a) hold
favorable opinions of their bodies, (b) accept their bodies in spite of their weight,
(c) respect their bodies by attending to their body’s needs and engaging in healthy
behaviors, and (d) protect their body image by rejecting unrealistic images of the
thin-ideal prototype portrayed in the media. (Avalos et al., 2005, p. 287)
Construct validity studies determined that the BAS is able to predict unique variance
which is not predicted by other current measures of body image. Another study crossvalidated the unidimensional structure of the instrument with a different sample of
subjects, and the fourth study tested the test-retest reliability of the scores over a period of
three weeks, finding scores to be stable (r = .90, p < .001).
The authors of the BAS admit to a certain number of shortcomings in the scale as
it currently stands (Avalos et al., 2005). Most of these stem from the problem of finding a
sample representative of the population. The samples used in the evaluations of the BAS
consisted of solely women, most of whom were college undergraduates who identified as
Caucasian and belonging to the middle or upper-middle socioeconomic class. The mean
15
ages range from 18.45 years to 22.34 years. These limitations are unlikely to pose any
significant problem in the present study because the participants are likely to share
similar demographics. Another problem indicated by the authors of the BAS is that the
factors hypothesized to be components of healthy body image are derived from
speculative theories; there is little empirical research to support them. However, such
information must be considered acceptable until more quantitative evidence is available.
The BAS can be found in Appendix C.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured using the Self Efficacy Scale (SES;
Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982). The authors
wrote this instrument with the assumption that “personal expectations of mastery are a
major determinant of behavioral change, and that individual differences in past
experiences and attributions of success lead to different levels of generalized self-efficacy
expectations” (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994, p. 525). The SES contains 30 items, 17 of
which are designed to measure the participant’s confidence in his or her own general
competence. There are 6 items which focus on social competence and seven filler items
which are not scored. All items are self-report and are scored on a 5-point Likert-type
scale (A = Disagree Strongly, E = Agree Strongly); the assessment includes items such
as, “If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.” Higher scores indicate
higher levels of positive self-efficacy. The SES was tested on 376 undergraduate students
and found to have good internal consistency (alpha = .86 for general subscale and alpha =
.71 for social subscale), and its construct validity was verified by comparing results to
scores on other personality measures such as locus of control, social desirability, ego
strength, and self-esteem (Sherer et al., 1982). Further validity investigation was
16
conducted after the initial publication of the SES and found increased support for its
construct validity by comparing its subscales to relevant portions of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, and the Bem SexRole Inventory (Sherer & Adams, 1983). The Self-Efficacy Scale can be found in
Appendix D.
Locus of Control. The Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire (ARQ;
Hakstian & Suedfeld, 1986) was used to assess the orientation of each participant’s locus
of control. The ARQ is a brief instrument which contains 40 items which are scored on a
seven-point Likert-type scale (7 = Agree strongly, 1 = Disagree strongly). The ARQ
contains four subscales each measuring a particular ascription of responsibility. The
Traditional Focused subscale (TF) contains 10 items and measures the degree to which
the individual places responsibility for action on “traditional” authority figures such as
higher powers, parents, and schools (i.e., “Schools should punish children for
misbehavior”). The Diffuse Responsibility subscale (DR) contains 12 items and is
concerned with how much responsibility the individual believes should be in the hands of
social groups such as students and government agencies (i.e., “As a student, I would feel
that what I study should be completely up to me”). The Exercised Responsibility subscale
contains 7 items and (ER) measures how much the individual has taken leadership
positions (i.e., “I enjoy taking charge of things”), and the Individual Focused
Responsibility subscale (IFR) contains 11 items and measures how much individualistic,
internal responsibility the person places upon themselves (i.e., “Your personality is what
you make it”). The subscales TF and DR are similar in concept to Rotter’s (1966)
17
description of external locus of control, while the subscale IFR is similar to Rotter’s
internal locus of control.
The ARQ was examined using a sample of 654 male and female college students.
No difference was found between the genders. The subscales’ internal consistency was
deemed “modest” (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994), with alpha coefficients ranging from .56
to .76. Reliability over time, is stable, with an average test-retest reliability coefficient of
.84. The Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire can be found in Appendix E.
Waist-to-Hip Ratio. Participants were measured by the experimenter using a
standard tailoring measuring tape. Measurements were taken in centimeters at the natural
waist, which is located between the upper edge of the pelvic bone and the lowest rib at
approximately the same position as the belly button, and at the widest point of the hips.
The waist-hip ratio was calculated by dividing the waist measurement by the hip
measurement.
Procedure
Participants for this study were recruited from introductory psychology courses
and volunteered to participate in exchange for research credit. Prior to beginning
participation in the study, all participants read and signed an informed consent form
(found in Appendix F) and were reminded that participation in and results of the study
would be kept confidential. All participants were administered the intelligence
assessment first, to avoid any potential effects of the personality variables on intelligence.
Following the intelligence assessment, participants completed the personality measures.
Within the packet of brief personality measures, the BAS, SES, and ARQ were ordered
randomly as indicated by a Latin square to eliminate any variation due to the sequence of
18
these assessments. All participants were then measured and completed the demographics
survey at the end of the experiment in order to prevent any possible negative emotions or
associations regarding weight or figure from affecting participants’ responses to measures
of personality and IQ. At the conclusion of the trial, each participant was given a
debriefing form which included contact information for researchers involved in the study
as well as information and resources regarding issues raised in the study (Appendix G).
19
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
The means, standard deviations, and ranges of the variables in this study are
summarized in Table 1. Correlations between all of the variables in the study are
presented in Table 2. To account for performing multiple correlations at once, a
Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in a p value of .04. A one way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was conducted in order to determine whether the order of the
personality assessments had any effect on the results; these results indicated that there
was no effect of order between groups.
With regard to the means for each of the personality measure and on the IQ
assessment, the current sample appears to be generally in line with the large sample used
in the development of these instruments. The ABIQ is designed to have a mean score of
100 across the general population; this sample’s mean of 103 is close to that score, and
the slightly elevated mean is not surprising since the sample is comprised of students at
an institution of higher education. The sample’s mean scores on both subscales of the
SES are nearly identical to those reported by Sherer and Adams (1983). The sample also
reflected similar means to those of the developers on 3 of the 4 subscales on the ARQ,
with the exception of the traditional focused (TF) scale. The current study’s mean on the
20
TF subscale was 54.41, compared to the mean of only 45.65 reported by the scale’s
authors (Hakstian & Suedfeld, 1986). The TF subscale is indicative of an individual’s
accordance with authority figures including God, and includes several items which ask
about higher powers. Since the data for the current study was collected at a religiously
affiliated institution, it is possible that the sample is more oriented toward a higher TF
score. The current sample also exhibits a higher body image than any of the 4 samples
analyzed by Avalos, and colleagues (2005). They reported means of 3.48, 3.45, 3.44, and
3.47 with corresponding standard deviations of .79, .68, 2.35, and .67 from their samples.
The sample from the current study had a mean of 3.80 with a standard deviation of .58.
This seems to indicate that the participants in this study have greater positive feelings
toward their bodies on average than the larger population. However, it should be noted
that the sample did have a much lower rate of overweight and obese participants than
would be expected of the general population. Of the 51 participants included in the study,
68.6% were normal weight for their height, 19.6% were overweight, and 7.8% were
obese based on their self-reported figures for height and weight. The National Center for
Health Statistics (2013) reports that the adult population of the United States had a
combined rate of overweight and obesity of 68.8% in 2012, about 2.5 times the rate of the
current sample. It would be expected that a sample with fewer overweight and obese
participants would have greater body appreciation, as demonstrated by the significant
correlation between BMI and BAS score.
21
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for the Continuous Study Variables
Measure
N
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Age
51
17
22
19.00
Standard
Deviation
1.09
BMI
51
16.7
37.2
23.53
3.97
WHR
51
.73
.97
0.81
0.06
NV Scale
51
4
16
10.22
2.69
V Scale
51
8
16
10.80
1.84
ABIQ
51
76
133
103.00
10.68
BAS
51
2.61
4.77
3.80
0.58
ARQ-TF
51
3.50
6.60
5.44
0.76
ARQ-DR
51
2.58
6.67
4.49
0.68
ARQ-ER
51
3.00
7.00
5.42
0.86
ARQ-IFR
51
3.45
6.09
4.81
0.52
SES-Gen
51
2.35
4.88
3.80
0.54
SES-Soc
51
2.00
4.67
3.51
0.60
Note. BMI=Body Mass Index. WHR=Waist-to-Hip Ratio. NV Scale=Stanford Binet
Intelligence Scale non-verbal scaled score. V Scale=Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale
verbal scaled score. ABIQ=Abbreviated form of the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale.
BAS=Body Appreciation Scale. ARQ-TF=Ascription of Responsibility QuestionnaireTraditional Focused. ARQ-DR= Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire- Diffuse
Responsibility. ARQ-ER= Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire-Exercised
Responsibility. ARQ-IFR= Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire-Individual
Focused Responsibility. SES-Gen=Self Efficacy Scale-General Competence. SES-Soc=
Self Efficacy Scale-Social Competence.
22
23
Primary Analyses
The first hypothesis, which was that there would be a negative correlation
between WHR and IQ, was tested using a basic bivariate correlational analysis. In order
to examine Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, such a relationship was required to exist. However,
the bivariate correlational analysis did not reflect any significant relationship between
WHR and IQ. Therefore, the planned multiple regression analyses to determine whether
body image, self-efficacy, or locus of control served as moderators or mediators to that
relationship were not conducted. A regression analysis was conducted to determine the
amount of variance in IQ scores attributable to the study variables as a group was not
statistically significant.
The body of literature reviewed for this study was primarily focused on WHR and
its relationship with various other constructs. However, based on the current sample,
there was no meaningful relationship between WHR and any of the other variables
examined. The only significant correlations with WHR that exist in the sample are BMI
and BAS. While a positive correlation between WHR and BMI is assumed, the negative
correlation between WHR and BAS was initially interesting to note. A multiple
regression analysis was run with BAS as the criterion variable and WHR and BMI as
predictors. WHR and BMI together were found to account for 16.5% of the variance in
BAS scores (R2 =.165, p<.05). However, further examination revealed that BMI (β= .357, p<.05) has far more influence than WHR (β= -.077, p=.637). Therefore WHR does
not appear to hold any significant influence on the variables in this study.
24
Additional Analyses
Although the data set did not yield the results originally predicted, there were
some correlations made apparent in the analysis which are worthy of further review and
discussion. A Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple comparisons
between variables.
One notable correlation to be recorded from the data set is that between general
self-efficacy (SES gen) and demonstrated leadership initiative (ARQ-ER) (r= .446,
p<.01). It does not come as any great surprise that people with high confidence in
themselves tend to thrive in positions of leadership and authority, but to have this
conception illustrated by the data is useful. There is a weaker relationship in the same
direction for social self-efficacy (SES soc) and ARQ-ER (r= .299, p<.05) to further
support this notion.
Another correlation worth mentioning is a strong negative relationship between
knowledge of vocabulary (V scale) and social self-efficacy (SES soc) (r= -.479, p<.001).
This relationship seems counterintuitive, as better verbal ability would seem to facilitate
communication and social skills.
Although it did not reach statistical significance using the Bonferroni correction,
one final interesting relationship was that between age and ARQ-DR (r= -.337, p<.05).
ARQ-DR indicates the degree to which a person relies on groups to accomplish tasks and
make decisions. This correlation was notable because the age range included in the study
was relatively small; participants ranged in age only from 17 to 22. This would indicate
that the drop in reliance upon groups occurs rapidly as participants transition from very
young adults recently leaving high school to a more independent lifestyle in a college
setting. There was also a corresponding positive relationship between age and general
25
self-efficacy (r= .361, p<.05) showing that these young women report more confidence in
their ability to accomplish tasks as they get older. This increase in independence is
noteworthy for the field of developmental psychology.
26
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This study was intended to examine the relationship between waist-hip ratio and
IQ score as described by Lassek and Gaulin (2008) and to determine whether certain
personality factors such as body image, self-efficacy, and locus of control had any effect
on that relationship. However, the data obtained in the course of the study did not reveal
any correlation between WHR and IQ. In fact, WHR was not determined to be
responsible for the variance in any of the constructs included in the study. Therefore, the
current study was unable to lend any support for the conclusions made by Lassek and
Gaulin in 2008, and no further analyses were performed to determine whether other
variables could have been fully or partially responsible for the relationship they
described.
One explanation for the failure of this study to find a correlation between WHR
and IQ is the size of the data set. The size of the sample in this experiment may have been
too small, and contained too little variability, to reflect such a relationship. In the original
Lassek and Gaulin paper, the sample size was extremely large, with several thousands of
participants. Even so, the correlation was still quite modest. In the current study, the
relationship may simply not have been detectable with only 51 participants.
Alternatively, the sample used by Lassek and Gaulin may have been too large, resulting
27
in increased power that can cause even very small correlations to be statistically
significant. Further, the relatively restricted range of some of the variables may have
prevented statistical significance as well. There was only a small amount of variation in
factors such as WHR, which would make it difficult to detect any resultant change in
other variables that could be attributed to that factor.
Another possible reason for the lack of a correlation to be found at present is that
such a relationship may not actually exist between WHR and IQ. There is always a risk
that a sample may contain characteristics that do not represent the population as a whole.
There is not a wide body of published evidence to show a relationship between WHR and
IQ; the cited Lassek and Gaulin article is the primary source and has been repeated many
times in popular media but has not been replicated in peer-reviewed literature. It is
possible that other studies, such as this one, have been executed only to find no
relationship between WHR and IQ, but have never been published because the results are
seemingly not of much interest compared to the one study that does show a significant
result. One strength of the current study compared to the Lassek and Gaulin study is that
the current study used a true measure of intelligence which is widely accepted as an
accurate instrument; Lassek and Gaulin used a selection of unrelated subtests from
various sources which have not been demonstrated to accurately assess intelligence.
Perhaps this issue contributed to the finding of a result that may not truly be present.
The relationships that were found between age and diffuse responsibility (ARQDR) and age and general self-efficacy (SES gen) were not surprising but do hold some
clinical significance. The results of the current study may remind clinicians that when
working in a clinical setting with college-age adults, there is a pronounced difference
28
between a person who has just entered the university setting and one who is nearing
graduation in terms of how much they are likely to value or rely on peers for making
decisions and accomplishing tasks. Younger students may have less confidence in their
own abilities to effectuate change in their lives, therefore requiring more guidance and
encouragement from the counselor. They may also believe that peers such as roommates,
classmates, family, and friends have more influence over their well-being than they
actually do, and this perception might be necessary to address during the clinical work.
With regard to the positive correlation between general self-efficacy (SES gen)
and leadership initiative (ARQ-ER), there is nothing too surprising about this
information. However, awareness of the relationship could be helpful for those wishing to
improve their leadership skills or self-confidence. Although the existence of the
correlation does not tell us whether one factor causes the other, it is possible that
improvement of one may lead to better success in the other domain. People who make an
extra effort to make suggestions, volunteer for leadership positions, or take on additional
responsibilities might find that these are effective strategies for boosting self-confidence
and improving self-esteem.
The relationship which did at first seem surprising was also the strongest one that
existed within the data set. This was the clear negative correlation between verbal ability
as measured by vocabulary knowledge (V scale) and social self-efficacy. It would seem
that people with strong verbal understanding would have better communication skills and
be able to perform in social situations more comfortably that those with weaker skills.
This was obviously not the case as demonstrated by the strength of the negative
relationship; rather, people who scored lower on the verbal portion of the IQ test reported
29
greater confidence in social situations. Perhaps there were not enough people in the
sample whose verbal abilities were poor enough to affect social ability. Or, it is possible
that people who do very well on verbal tasks have achieved this knowledge by solitary
pursuits such as reading and studying, at the expense of frequent socializing. Additional
research on this topic would be interesting to perform and would add to the body of
literature. A cursory review of articles on the topic did not yield any research with a
similar result in a neurotypical population.
If further research were to be done to discover more about the possibility of a
relationship between WHR and IQ, a larger and more diverse population for the sample
would be the most urgent improvement. This study utilized a sample which was quite
small and unlikely to represent the population as a whole. As mentioned before, there was
a much lower rate of overweight and obesity in the current sample, and the strong
relationships between BMI and other variables would indicate that this may be of some
import. A greater range of ages and social backgrounds might also contribute to the
usefulness of the data. Also, the current study only had one examiner performing all of
the assessment; future research should involve more than one rater to reduce the
possibility of measurement error.
Another possibility for future research might be to choose different types of tests
to measure cognitive ability. The test used in the current study, the ABIQ, was chosen
because of its good representation of overall IQ and ease of administration for research
purposes. However, this does not mean that it is necessarily the best measure of total
cognitive function. For example, one of the two subtests on the ABIQ is vocabulary.
Vocabulary, while a strong predictor of full-scale IQ scores, is usually contingent upon
30
education and can easily overlook other important facets of cognitive function such as
processing speed and problem solving. It would be a good extension of the research to
perform additional subtests which might better estimate overall cognition rather than just
IQ.
In conclusion, this study attempted to examine and understand the reported
relationship between WHR and IQ which has woven its way into popular culture via a
widely reported academic study. However, the current study was unable to replicate these
results to even show that this relationship does exist. This indicates that more research is
needed with varying samples to determine whether “curvy” women actually do have
some IQ advantage. The results may serve as a reminder that studies often get a great
deal of attention from outside forces, but consumers should always be aware of the
credibility of the sources from which information is presented.
31
REFERENCES
Avalos, L., Tylka, T.L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale:
Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2, 285-297.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bertrais, S., Balkau, B., Vol, S., Forhan, A., Calvet, C., Marre, M., Eschwége, E., & The
D.E.S.I.R. Study Group (1999). Relationships between abdominal body fat
distribution and cardiovascular risk factors: an explanation for women’s healthier
cardiovascular risk profile. The D.E.S.I.R. Study. International Journal of
Obesity, 23, 1085-1094.
Bjӧrntorp, P. (1991). Adipose tissue distribution and function. International Journal of
Obesity, 15, 67-81.
32
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2000). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive
task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.
Breitkopf, C.R., Littleton, H., & Berenson, A. (2007). Body image: A study in a tri-ethnic
sample of low income women. Sex Roles, 56(5-6), 373-380.
Cash, T.F. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body image. In T.F. Cash & T.
Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical
practice (pp. 38-46). New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, L., & Tiggeman, M. (2008). Sociocultural and individual psychological predictors
of body image in young girls: A prospective study. Developmental Psychology,
44(4), 1124-1134.
Clifford, M.M., & Cleary, T.A. (1972). The relationship between children’s academic
performance and achievement accountability. Child Development, 43(2), 647-655.
Conner , M. & P. Norman (2005) (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour: Research and
practice with social cognition models (2nd ed.) Maidenhead, England: Open
University Press.
Dore, G. A., Elias, M. F., Robbins, M. A., Budge, M. M., & Elias, P. K. (2008). Relation
between central adiposity and cognitive function in the Maine–Syracuse Study:
Attenuation by physical activity. Annals Of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 341-350.
Fischer, J. & Corcoran, K.J. (1994). Measures for Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook (Vol.
2, 2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
33
Fortin, J. (Correspondent). (2008, January 4). Are curvier women smarter? [Television
broadcast]. Atlanta: Cable News Network.
Furnham, A., McClelland, A., & Omer, L. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of ratings
of perceived fecundity and sexual attractiveness as a function of body weight and
waist-to-hip ratio. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 8(2), 221-230.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Baguma, P. (2002). A cross-cultural study on the role of
weight and waist-to-hip ratio on female attractiveness. Personality and Individual
Differences 32, 729-745.
Furnham, A., Petrides, K.V., & Constantinides, A. (2005). The effects of body mass
index and waist-to-hip ratio on ratings of female attractiveness, fecundity, and
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1823-1834.
Green, M.W., & Rogers, P.J. (1998). Impairments in working memory associated with
spontaneous dieting behaviour. Psychological Medicine, 28(5), 1063-1070.
Green, M.W., Rogers, P.J., Elliman, N.A., & Gatenby, S.J. (1994). Impairment of
cognitive performance associated with dieting and high levels of dietary restraint.
Physiology & Behavior, 55(3), 447-452.
Hakstian, A.R., Suedfeld, P., Ballard, E.J., & Rank, D.S. (1986). The Ascription of
Responsibility Questionnaire: Development and empirical extensions. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 50, 229-247.
Jagust, W., Harvey, D., Mungas, D., & Haan, M. (2005). Central obesity and the aging
brain. Archives of Neurology, 62, 1545-1548.
34
Larsson, B., Svärdsudd, K., Welin, L., Wilhelmson, L., Bjӧrntorp, P., & Tibblin, G.
(1984). Abdominal adipose tissue distribution, obesity, and risk of cardiovascular
disease and death: 13 year follow up of participants in the study of men born in
1913. British Medical Journal, 288, 1401-1404.
Lassek, W.D., & Gaulin, S.J.C. (2006). Changes in body fat distribution in relation to
parity in American women: A covert form of maternal depletion. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 131, 295-302.
Lassek, W.D., & Gaulin, S.J.C. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: is
gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? Evolution
and Human Behavior, 29, 26-24.
Letz, R. (1990). The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (NES): An international effort.
In B.L. Johnson, W.K. Anger, A. Durao, & C. Xintaras (Eds.), Advances in
neurobehavioral toxicology: Applications in environmental and occupational
health. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
McGinnis, S. (Correspondent). (2007, November 13). The Early Show [Television
broadcast]. New York: Columbia Broadcasting System.
National Academy of Sciences. (1991). Diet and health. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences Press.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2013). Health, United States, 2012: With special
feature on emergency care. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
35
Newton, J.H., McIntosh, D.E., Dixon, F., Williams, T., & Youman, E. (2008). Assessing
giftedness in children: Comparing the accuracy of three shortened measures of
intelligence to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.). Psychology in
Schools, 45(6), 523-536.
Nickens, S.D. (2006). Exploration of ideal body image among African-American women.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences and Engineering,
66(9-B), 5100. (Publication No.AAI3189100.)
Pall, M., Stephens, K., & Azziz, R. (2006). Family size in women with polycystic ovary
syndrome. Fertility and Sterility, 85, 1837-1839.
Phinney, S.D., Stern, J.S., Burke, K.E., Tang, A.B., Miller, G., & Holman, R. (1994).
Human subcutaneous adipose tissue shows site-specific differences in fatty acid
composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 725-729.
Pots of promise: The beauty business. (2003, May 24). Economist, 367, 69-71.
Puhl, R.M. & Boland, F.J. (2001). Predicting female physical attractiveness: Waist-to-hip
ratio versus thinness. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 3(1), 27-46.
Roid, G.H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.): Technical manual. Itasca,
IL: Riverside Publishing.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
36
Rotter, J.B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of
internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 56-67.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C.H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale.
Psychological Reports, 53(3, Pt1), 899-902.
Sherer, M., Maddox, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers,
R.W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 51, 663-671.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waistto-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293-307.
Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. The
Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 43-54.
Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip
ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences,
43(2), 329-340
Singh, S. (1985). Perceived self-efficacy and intellectual performance of socially
disadvantaged students. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(2), 267-268.
Srikanth, S., Petrie, T.A., Greenleaf, C., & Martin, S. (2012, August). Physical fitness
and academic performance: A longitudinal investigation. Poster session presented
at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.
37
Swami, V., Caprario, C., Tovée, M.J., & Furnham, A. (2006). Female physical
attractiveness in Britain and Japan: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of
Personality, 20(1), 69-81.
Swami, V., Hadji-Michael, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and individual
difference correlates of positive body image. Body Image, 5(3), 322-325.
Swami, V., Miller, R., Furnham, A., Penke, L., & Tovée, M.J. (2008). The influence of
men’s sexual strategies on perceptions of women’s bodily attractiveness, health,
and fertility. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 98-107.
van Hooff, M.H.A., Voorhoorst, F.J., Kaptein, M.B.H., & Hirasing, R.A. (1999).
Endocrine features of polycystic ovary syndrome in a random population sample
of 14-16 year old adolescents. Human Reproduction, 14, 2223-2229.
Waldstein, S.R., & Katzel, L.I. (2006). Interactive relations of central versus total obesity
and blood pressure to cognitive function. International Journal of Obesity, 30,
201-207.
Wilson, J.M.B. (2005). Determinants of female physical attractiveness and body image:
The role of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: the Sciences and Engineering, 66(2-B), 1189.
(Publication No.AAINR00007.)
Wilson, J.M.B., Tripp, D.A., & Boland, F.J. (2005). The relative contributions of waistto-hip ratio and body mass index to judgements of attractiveness. Sexualities,
Evolution and Gender, 7(3), 245-267.
38
Yanover, T., & Thompson, J.K. (2008). Eating problems, body image disturbances, and
academic achievement: Preliminary evaluation of the Eating and Body Image
Disturbances Academic Interference Scale. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 41(2), 184-187.
39
APPENDIX A
Demographic Survey
Please provide the following information as accurately as you are able. Your name will not be
recorded with your responses, and your responses will be kept confidential.
Age: ______________________________________
Race or Ethnicity: _____________________________
Height: ____________________________________
Weight (in pounds): ___________________________
GPA: ______________________________________
Composite ACT Score: _________________________
SAT Score: __________________________________
Participant ID: __________
40
APPENDIX B
Items Similar to Those of the SB5 ABIQ
Verbal Subtest: Vocabulary
The task is to independently define given words, which are provided orally for the age
group being examined in this study. Words become more challenging as the subtest
progresses. Words similar to those that appear in the subtest are shown below.
train
dime
taut
cryptography
Nonverbal Subtest: Matrices
The task is to select the object or design that best completes the matrix. Subjects may
point to their selection or they may verbally state the letter which corresponds to their
selection. Patterns become more challenging as the subtest progresses. Matrices similar to
those that appear in the subtest are shown below.
A
B
C
D
A
E
41
B
C
D
E
APPENDIX C
Body Appreciation Scale*
1. I respect my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
2. I feel good about my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
3. On the whole, I am satisfied with my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
4. Despite its flaws, I accept my body for what it is.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
5. I feel that my body has at least some good qualities.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
6. I take a positive attitude towards my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
7. I am attentive to my body’s needs.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
8. My self worth is independent of my body shape or weight.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
9. I do not focus a lot of energy being concerned with my weight or body shape.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
42
10. My feelings toward my body are positive, for the most part.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
11. I engage in healthy behaviors to take care of my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
12. I do not allow unrealistically thin images of women presented in the media to
affect my attitudes toward my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
13. Despite its imperfections, I still like my body.
1
2
3
4
5
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
* Avalos, L., Tylka, T.L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale: Development
and psychometric evaluation. Body Image 2, 285-297.
43
APPENDIX D
Self Efficacy Scale*
This questionnaire is a series of statements about your personal attitudes and traits. Each
statement represents a commonly held belief. Read each statement and decide to what extent
it describes you. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some
statements and disagree with others. Please indicate your own personal feelings about each
statement below by marking the letter that best describes your attitude or feeling. Please be
very truthful and describe yourself as you really are, not as you would like to be.
A = Disagree strongly
B= Disagree moderately
C = Neither agree nor disagree
D = Agree moderately
E = Agree strongly
_____ 1. I like to grow house plants.
_____ 2. When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work.
_____ 3. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should.
_____ 4. If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.
_____ 5. Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.
_____ 6. It is difficult for me to make new friends.
_____ 7. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them.
_____ 8. I give up on things before completing them.
_____ 9. I like to cook.
_____ 10. If I see someone I would like to meet, I go to that person instead of waiting for him or
her to come to me.
_____ 11. I avoid facing difficulties.
_____ 12. If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try it.
44
_____ 13. There is some good in everybody.
_____ 14. If I meet someone interesting who is very hard to make friends with, I’ll soon stop
trying to make friends with that person.
_____ 15. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick with it until I finish it.
_____ 16. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it.
_____ 17. I like science.
_____ 18. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful.
_____ 19. When I’m trying to become friends with someone who seems uninterested at first, I
don’t give up very easily.
_____ 20. When unexpected problems occur, I don’t handle them well.
_____ 21. If I were an artist, I would like to draw children.
_____ 22. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me.
_____ 23. Failure just makes me try harder.
_____ 24. I do not handle myself well in social gatherings.
_____ 25. I very much like to ride horses.
_____ 26. I feel insecure about my ability to do things.
_____ 27. I am a self-reliant person.
_____ 28. I have acquired my friends through my personal abilities at making friends.
_____ 29. I give up easily.
_____ 30. I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in my life.
*Sherer, M., Maddox, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W. (1982).
The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.
45
APPENDIX E
Ascription of Responsibility Questionnaire*
Indicate the extent to which you are in agreement with each item by putting one number next
to the item.
7 = Agree strongly
6 = Agree somewhat
5 = Agree slightly
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
3 = Disagree slightly
2 = Disagree somewhat
1 = Disagree strongly
_____ 1. I have always respected my parents highly.
_____ 2. Fate plays an important role in our lives.
_____ 3. I have a lot of responsibility in my present job and extracurricular activities.
_____ 4. Most people on welfare are lazy.
_____ 5. I attended church often as a child.
_____ 6. All old people should get a pension.
_____ 7. Ability should be rewarded.
_____ 8. The state is responsible for the well-being of its citizens.
_____ 9. I enjoy taking charge of things.
_____ 10. Good behavior should be rewarded, bad behavior punished.
_____ 11. As a student, I would feel students should have a say in which professors receive
tenure.
_____ 12. I prefer following rather than leading.
46
_____ 13. Every sane individual is responsible for his every action.
_____ 14. My family and I are very close.
_____ 15. Our country should take the first step toward world disarmament.
_____ 16. I often make suggestions.
_____ 17. Robbery with violence should be severely punished.
_____ 18. My parents were always willing to give me advice on things that were important to
me.
_____ 19. Students should decide how they want their teachers to evaluate their knowledge of
the course.
_____ 20. I was given a lot of responsibility as a child.
_____ 21. Your personality is what you make it.
_____ 22. Pornography should be censored to protect the innocent.
_____ 23. As a student, I would feel that what I study should be left completely up to me.
_____ 24. I have often been a group leader.
_____ 25. Society should reward only merit.
_____ 26. Human destiny is ordained by a Supreme Being.
_____ 27. When a country has done its utmost, but does not have the resources to maintain
itself, it is the responsibility of other countries to come to its aid.
_____ 28. Justice is better than mercy.
_____ 29. People can be controlled by supernatural forces.
_____ 30. As a teacher I would feel it is my job to make sure none of my students fails my
course.
_____ 31. I enjoyed going to church.
_____ 32. If a child insists on having a pet, he should be responsible for its care.
_____ 33. Heaven is the reward for those who have followed the precepts of their belief.
_____ 34. All decisions should be made by groups.
47
_____ 35. Parents should not financially support offspring who could make a living for
themselves.
_____ 36. Students should have equal representation at all levels of school administration
concerning any policy.
_____ 37. Society does not owe you a living.
_____ 38. Students should be responsible for the evaluation and firing of teachers.
_____ 39. My parents attended church often when I was a child.
_____ 40. I have held many positions of responsibility in the past in my job(s) and
extracurricular activities.
*Hakstian, A.R., Suedfeld, P., Ballard, E.J., & Rank, D.S. (1986). The Ascription of Responsibility
Questionnaire: Development and empirical extensions. Journal of Personality
Assessment 50, 229-247.
48
APPENDIX F
Informed Consent for Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Cognitive Ability
Project Title:
Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Cognitive Ability
Investigator(s):
Justine Kelly, B.A. and Melissa Layman-Guadalupe, Ph.D.
Description of Study:
Participants will complete questionnaires about body image and self-efficacy.
They will be administered a brief form of a cognitive assessment and measured
at the hips and at the waist to calculate waist-to-hip ratio.
Adverse Effects/Risks:
Minimal adverse effects are expected. Some people may feel some discomfort
from being measured by an experimenter or answering questions about body
image concerns and weight. Others may experience discomfort related to
cognitive assessment. If you feel distress as a result of participation in this
study, you are encouraged to schedule an appointment at the University of
Dayton Counseling Center. Appointments are free of charge for students and
always confidential. The Counseling Center can be reached at 937-229-3141.
Duration of Study:
Your participation in this study is expected to take 30-60 minutes.
Confidentiality of Data:
All responses will remain confidential. Your name will never appear in
conjunction with any data or results, and your name will never be attached to
the data you provide. Both your name and your answers will be stored
separately in a locked filing cabinet to which only the researchers involved in
this study have access. All raw data will be destroyed at the conclusion of the
investigation.
Contact Person:
If you have questions or concerns regarding this study, you may contact Justine
Kelly at 937-380-9505 or [email protected]. You may also choose to
contact Melissa Layman-Guadalupe, Ph.D. at 937-229-2713 or
[email protected]. If you have general questions or concerns about
research ethics or your rights as a research participant, you may contact the
chair of the Psychology Department Research Review and Ethics Committee,
Dr. Greg Elvers, at 937-229-2171 or [email protected].
49
Consent to Participate:
I have voluntarily decided to participate in this study. The investigator named
above has adequately answered any and all questions I have about this study,
the procedures involved, and my participation. I understand that the
investigator name above will be available to answer any questions about
research procedures throughout this study. I also understand that I may
voluntarily terminate my participation in this study at any time and still receive
full credit. I also understand that the investigator named above may terminate
my participation in this study if s/he feels this to be in my best interest. In
addition, I certify that I am 18 (eighteen) years of age or older.
Signature of Student
Printed Name of Student
Signature of Witness
Date
Date
50
APPENDIX G
Debriefing for Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Cognitive Ability
Current Study
This study was designed to be a follow-up to an investigation published early in 2008 which
found a relationship between women’s waist-to-hip ratios and their performance on IQ tests. That study
reported that women who have low waist-to-hip ratios (i.e., a small waist and large hips) tended to score
higher on IQ tests than women with larger waists and smaller hips. This study also incorporated several
individual personality factors, such as body image, self-efficacy, and locus of control. The purpose of
including these factors was to determine whether these aspects of one’s personality is partially
responsible for the relationship between waist-to-hip ratio and IQ.
You completed a written questionnaire for each of the personality factors described above: one
measured positive body image, one measured self-efficacy, and another measured locus of control. You
also participated in a shortened form of a common IQ test, the Stanford-Binet 5 Abbreviated IQ scale. This
test is designed to capture an approximation of your verbal and nonverbal cognitive abilities. A researcher
measured you at the waist and hips to determine your waist-to-hip ratio so that it could be compared to
your scores on the other questionnaires and tests, and you filled out a demographic survey in order to
help us better understand and control for differences between individuals.
References
If you are interested in learning more about the basis for this study, you may consult these
sources or contact the researchers for a comprehensive list of references:
Furnham, A., Petrides, K.V., & Constantinides, A. (2005). The effects of body mass index and waist-to-hip
ratio on ratings of female attractiveness, fecundity, and health. Personality and Individual
Differences 38, 1823-1834.
Lassek, W.D., & Gaulin, S.J.C. (2008). Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: is gluteofemoral fat a
privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? Evolution and Human Behavior 29, 26-24.
Waldstein, S.R., & Katzel, L.I. (2006). Interactive relations of central versus total obesity and blood
pressure to cognitive function. International Journal of Obesity 30, 201-207.
In addition to the peer-reviewed articles above, information about this topic as covered by major
news networks can be found online at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/earlyshow/health/main3493928.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/01/04/fortin.hfh.curvy.women.cnn?iref=videosearch
Privacy & Confidentiality
By conducting this study, we are simply trying to add to the body of scientific research with
regard to body type, self-esteem, and cognitive performance on an aggregate level. We are not
attempting to evaluate you personally or make determinations about you in particular. All of the
51
information you provide us with will be maintained with careful consideration for your privacy. Your name
will not be recorded with any of your responses, and your consent form will be separated from your data.
All responses, including all measures and consent forms, will be stored in a locked filing cabinet, and only
those named as researchers in this study will have access to them. At the conclusion of this study, all
information will be shredded and disposed of. Your name and participation in this study will never be
revealed in this research.
University of Dayton Counseling Center
If your participation in this study causes you to experience an increase in potentially problematic
thoughts, such as concern about your body or a decrease in self esteem, please contact the University of
Dayton Counseling Center to schedule an appointment with a therapist. The Counseling Center provides
services free of charge year-round for all undergraduate students. Appointments are confidential and
your attendance will never be reported to your professors, parents, roommates, or other persons. The
Counseling Center is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and can be reached at 937229-3141. It is located on the second floor of Gosiger Hall.
Contact Information
Participants may contact the primary investigator (Justine E. Kelly) by telephone (937-380-9505)
or e-mail ([email protected]), and they may also contact the faculty sponsor (Dr. Melissa LaymanGuadalupe) by telephone (937-229-2657) or email ([email protected]) if they have questions or
problems regarding the study. Participants may also contact the Chair of the Research Review and Ethics
Committee (Greg C Elvers, Ph.D.) by telephone (937-229-2171) or e-mail ([email protected]) if they
have questions regarding their rights as participants in psychological research. Dr. Elvers’ office is also
located in St. Joseph’s Hall (Room 312).
Thank you for your participation!
52