Table 2.
Descriptive statistics of the rater sample
| Sample | Rated attribute | No. of raters | Raters’ sex | Raters’ age (mean ± SD) | Raters’ weight | Raters’ height |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameroon 2013 | Women attractiveness | 34 | Men | 22.21 ± 3.14 | NA | NA |
| Men attractiveness | 28 | Women | 22.11 ± 3.89 | NA | NA | |
| Masculinity/femininitya | 77 | Men and women | 24.00 ± 4.12 | 66.62 ± 11.23 | 165.10 ± 7.75 | |
| Cameroon 2016 | Women attractiveness | 49 | Men | 22.96 ± 3.23 | 68.84 ± 8.73 | 169.70 ± 8.35 |
| Men attractiveness | 51 | Women | 23.37 ± 4.25 | 65.18 ± 11.39 | 161.10 ± 5.32 | |
| Masculinity/Femininitya | 94 | Men and women | 22.99 ± 3.00 | 64.82 ± 9.53 | 164.50 ± 7.76 | |
| Colombia | Women attractiveness | 432 | Men | 22.01 ± 3.92 | NA | NA |
| Men attractiveness | 565 | Women | 21.85 ± 4.81 | NA | NA | |
| Women femininity | 432 | Men | 22.01 ± 3.92 | NA | NA | |
| Men masculinity | 565 | Women | 21.85 ± 4.81 | NA | NA | |
| Czechia | Women attractiveness | 33 | Men | 28.18 ± 4.21 | NA | 182.50 ± 6.35 |
| Men attractiveness | 89 | Women | 27.56 ± 4.23 | NA | 169.00 ± 5.50 | |
| Women femininity | 44 | Men | 33.00 ± 9.68 | 86.23 ± 12.23 | 182.40 ± 7.67 | |
| Men masculinity | 231 | Women | 32.04 ± 7.59 | 67.74 ± 15.32 | 168.30 ± 6.46 | |
| Iran | Women attractiveness | 46 | Men | 37.30 ± 12.29 | 85.61 ± 15.13 | 178.60 ± 7.93 |
| Men attractiveness | 41 | Women | 34.88 ± 9.91 | 65.73 ± 14.98 | 165.60 ± 6.07 | |
| Women femininity | 33 | Men | 27.73 ± 3.77 | 78.52 ± 12.93 | 178.30 ± 5.99 | |
| Men masculinity | 31 | Women | 29.35 ± 4.54 | 59.68 ± 9.20 | 164.60 ± 6.66 | |
| Turkey | Women attractiveness | 1207b | 862 women; 225 men; 120 unreported | All, 22.09 ± 3.66; women, 21.71 ± 2.80; men, 23.53 ± 5.69 | All, 61.6 ± 12.33; women, 58.02 ± 9.66; men, 75.23 ± 11.90 | All, 167.90 ± 7.79; women, 165.4 ± 7.79; men, 177.70 ± 6.09 |
| Men attractiveness | ||||||
| Masculinity/Femininity |
a
In the Cameroonian and Turkish samples, perceived sex-typicality (masculinity of men, femininity of women) was rated by a combined set of male and female raters.
b
Some Turkish raters did not report their attributes (age, sex, weight and height). For alternative analyses without those raters and split by raters’ sex, see Table S4 and Figure S5 in the online Supplementary Material.