« Paul Krugman summarizes Paul Krugman | Main | Kenneth Arrow gets a sentence »
The Playmate Indicator
The Environmental Security Hypothesis says that in tough times men will prefer women who are good at production, generally older, taller, heavier, less curvaceous women with less body fat. In good times, they will prefer women who are good at reproduction, generally younger, shorter, lighter, more curvaceous women. Pettijohn and and Jungeberg look at the characteristics of playboy playmates from 1960 to 2000 and find:
Consistent with Environmental Security Hypothesis predictions, when social and economic conditions were difficult, older, heavier, taller Playboy Playmates of the Year with larger waists, smaller eyes, larger waist-to-hip ratios, smaller bust-to-waist ratios, and smaller body mass index values were selected. These results suggest that environmental security may influence perceptions and preferences for women with certain body and facial features.
Econometricians who wish to investigate further may download the data here (yes really). The 2008 Playmate of the year, Jayde Nicole. does not seem to fit the hypothesis however.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I can foresee an Ig Noble...
Posted by: Someone from the Other Side at Oct 16, 2008 7:57:43 AM
Alex,
I haven't look at the paper but I'm surprised that you expected Jayde to be a production woman. I expect the 2009 Playmate to be one.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Oct 16, 2008 8:06:46 AM
I am going to run this hypothesis past my wife tonight and try to ask for permission to examine the source data via monthly subscription.
Posted by: Jonny Red at Oct 16, 2008 8:53:39 AM
Maybe the economy is not so bad? and thus the young woman fits the hypothesis?
But Jonny Red is correct. Much, much more study is needed on the vital subject.
I wonder if perhaph my university will spring for an online subscription for facutly development?
Posted by: dave smith at Oct 16, 2008 9:13:17 AM
And yet another good example of spurious regression for my class, once again coming from psychology!
Posted by: Jack at Oct 16, 2008 9:17:02 AM
In other words, older, taller, heavier, less curvaceous women are a counter-cyclical asset.
Also, with appropriate choices, bigamy counts as hedging your bets.
Posted by: Snorri Godhi at Oct 16, 2008 9:28:40 AM
This analysis assumes that Playboy is a perfect mirror of men's taste in women. No doubt it strives to be, but surely it's not successful all of the time.
I would like to see some data on the popularity of the magazine itself during different economic conditions, how the subscription rates and newsstand sales rose and fell, and how Playboy's competitor's fared.
Posted by: Adam at Oct 16, 2008 10:14:59 AM
Adam makes a good point. I'd think you would want to find some way to compile a circulation weighted index of magazines and the women featured in pinup type rolls. However, that would be pretty hard to do. Do celebrities qualify? Their appearance in a magazine is likely to be event driven. What about things like Victoria's Secret? Can you include that? It might be easier to confine it only to regular subscription soft core porn magazines.
Posted by: steve at Oct 16, 2008 10:52:50 AM
You can look forward to slim pickings, but I'm an optimist.
Posted by: 8 at Oct 16, 2008 11:33:03 AM
Haven't we moved away for long enough from an agricultural economy that the "production" look should now should come in the form of nerdy looking women who wear glasses?
Posted by: liberty at Oct 16, 2008 12:20:26 PM
Wow, this is weird. Looking at all the Playmates since the study, it correlates fairly well. The best example is Tiffany Fallon ('05) and Kara Monaco ('06). Fallon, who appeared in the magazine in Dec. '04, is the oldest Playmate of the Year this decade at 31. Monaco, by contrast, was 22. It looks like the Playmate of the Year is a lagging economic indicator.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Oct 16, 2008 12:38:55 PM
If any blog post deserved to be accompanied by graphics ...
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Oct 16, 2008 3:31:17 PM
So right now is the best chance I'm going to get with Jessica Alba?
Posted by: Robert Olson at Oct 16, 2008 4:51:17 PM
"The 2008 Playmate of the year, Jayde Nicole. does not seem to fit the hypothesis however."
Well, we aren't exactly in hard times yet.
Posted by: Jorge Landivar at Oct 16, 2008 4:53:52 PM
I impatiently await research about younger, shorter, lighter, more curvaceous women who prefer older, heavier, balder men.
Posted by: at Oct 16, 2008 8:21:24 PM
Robert,
The bad news is, you have no chance with Jessica Alba. The good news is, you won't mind anymore.
Posted by: at Oct 16, 2008 8:23:39 PM
as times get leaner, so do the girls.
Posted by: kenny at Oct 17, 2008 9:55:50 AM
The whole thing sounds like an excuse for a bunch of geeks to check out a bunch of Playboys and an enourmous waste of money. I mean who really cares what men prefer anyway?
Posted by: Paula at Oct 17, 2008 10:47:57 AM
I wonder why in the data there is no variables on economy, how did they measure good times and what was the lag of changing the preferences, if last year we had a good one, and this year - bad, will most of us start to look for another wife? Also i have an alternative hypnosis, which might as well fit the data: there might be a fashion cycle among men and women, younger males usually find it hard to compete with more mature males for the type the last prefer, so the younger are more eager to invest in relations with somehow different types of females, and younger females knowing that try to look and behave different. That makes the community more stable by easing competition among generations. This hypothesis is not as easy to test because we need to find some combinations of women parameters which change in cycle. But i think it's doable.
Posted by: dmitry at Oct 17, 2008 2:50:22 PM
You think Playmates are being honest about their measurements?
Posted by: skewed at Oct 18, 2008 1:30:09 PM
You think Playmates are being honest about their measurements?
Posted by: skewed at Oct 18, 2008 1:30:28 PM
You think Playmates are being honest about their measurements?
Posted by: skewed at Oct 18, 2008 1:30:44 PM
You think Playmates are being honest about their measurements?
Posted by: skewed at Oct 18, 2008 1:30:58 PM
This must explain my woody when I watch Angela Lindvall make compost on Planet Green.
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/alter-eco/
Posted by: Anonymous For Ron Paul at Oct 18, 2008 7:13:35 PM
"What about things like Victoria's Secret?"
Victoria's Secret models aren't meant to be sexy to men, at least not directly. They are meant to represent what women think is sexy to men, which is likely to be a lagging indicator of what men actually think is sexy.
Victoria's Secret couldn't care less what men think: we represent just a tiny fraction of their sales.
Posted by: xtophr at Oct 18, 2008 9:56:13 PM
