Dancing ability
is thought to be influenced by biological and evolutionary factors. Fink,
Seydel, Manning and Kappeler (2007) asked women to rate the freestyle dance
movements of men for dominance, masculinity and attractiveness. They found that
ratings varied as a function of the amount of prenatal testosterone to which
the men had been exposed at an early stage of prenatal development, such that
the freestyle dances of men exposed to high levels of prenatal testosterone
were rated as more dominant, masculine and attractive than the freestyle dances
of men exposed to lower levels of prenatal testosterone. Fink et al. suggest
that prenatal testosterone may have an organising effect on male body movement,
which is perceptible to women. Levels of prenatal testosterone can be estimated
by measuring the ratio of the length of the index finger (the second digit) and
the ring finger (the fourth digit). This is known as the 2D:4D ratio (see
Manning, Scutt, Wilson & Lewis-Jones, 1998). A low 2D:4D ratio suggests high levels of prenatal
testosterone and a high 2D:4D ratio suggests a low level of prenatal
testosterone.
Brown, Cronk,
Grochow, Jacobson, Liu, Popovic and Trivers (2005) observed a relationship
between physical symmetry and perceived dance quality in men and women, such
that people who are more physically symmetrical, in terms of the relative size
of each of their wrists, knees, ankles, feet, fingers, and ears, were rated as
better dancers. Brown et al. found that women rated symmetrical men as better
freestyle dancers than asymmetrical men. Brown et al. draw conclusions based on
a bio-evolutionary perspective and suggest that physical symmetry is an
indicator of quality within a species, such that symmetrical individuals are
higher quality specimens, and that high quality individuals are important and
in high demand for reproductive success, particularly from other high quality
individuals. As perceived dancing ability is related to physical symmetry these
authors suggest that dance movement is an innate transmitter of an individual’s
quality.
In both of these
studies people were asked to dance individually in a laboratory setting and
their dances were filmed and then manipulated so that individual differences in
physical attributes, such as gender, height, frame size, attractiveness,
symmetry and fine motor movements, were not visible. Fink et al. (2007)
manipulated the dance video clips by applying a Gaussian smoothing technique,
which blurred the images, and Brown et al. (2005) converted video recordings
into 3-D animations.
It is clear from both of these studies that
there is a relationship between people’s perception of dance, in terms of its
quality, and perceived masculinity, dominance and attractiveness and the
dancer’s genetic make up, in terms of their indicators of testosterone and
physical symmetry. However, it is not clear whether the same factors would
predict perceptions of attractiveness etc. when people are dancing in a natural environment. It seemed logical to us that if we
dance as part of a mate-selection process then we will dance differently
depending, for example, on who is watching us dance, where we are dancing, what
our motives are for dancing, and who we are dancing with. We therefore set out
to extend the studies of Fink et al. and Brown et al. to examine these factors.
What we did
In January 2009 we took over a nightclub at
the University of Hertfordshire and we filmed people dancing in a naturalistic
setting. However, before we filmed people dancing we asked them to fill in a
series of psychological questionnaires. We asked them about their relationship
status and whether they were looking for a new partner. We asked them questions
about their personality and their mood, we measured their fingers and ears to
work out their prenatal testosterone levels and we asked the women to tell us
about their menstrual cycle status, so that we could work out their “fertility
risk”, that is, the risk of them getting pregnant if they were to have
unprotected sex. When people had provided all of this information they were
“released” into the nightclub, which was full of people enjoying themselves.
We let things get hot and sweaty and at
about 11.30pm started to film people dancing. We did this in two ways. First,
we filmed people dancing in the club as part of a big group of dancers on the
dance floor. Second, when people were dancing on the main dance floor we asked
them to move onto a separate dance floor, which was right next to the main
dance floor, and carry on dancing on their own for 30 seconds while we filmed
them again. The second dance floor was just as lively and noisy as the main
dance floor. We finished filming
in the early hours of the morning.
The next stage of the research was to blur
all of the videos of each dancer, and then ask people to rate them for
attractiveness, dominance, masculinity and quality. We found two things.
Finding 1
When women rated the men’s dancing they
rated the highest testosterone men as the most attractive and the lowest
testosterone men as the least attractive.
Finding 2
When men rated the women’s dancing they
rated the lowest testosterone women as the most attractive and the highest
testosterone women as the least attractive.
Finding 3
High testosterone men dance differently to
low testosterone men. High testosterone men make larger movements and their
movements are more complexly coordinated than low testosterone men. High
testosterone men express more energy in their movements and they take up more
space on the dance floor.
Finding 4
Low testosterone women dance differently to
high testosterone women. Low testosterone women make more subtle and isolated
movements with their hips than high testosterone women. High testosterone women
move more body parts while they are dancing and their movements are less
controlled.
Conclusions
We interpret these findings to suggest that
one function of social freestyle dance is to communicate genetic fitness as
part of the sexual selection process.
For further information contact Dr Peter Lovatt by email: P.J.Lovatt@herts.ac.uk
© Dr Peter Lovatt All rights reserved. 14th
September 2009.