Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T22:55:32.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the physical attractiveness literature: Qualitative reviews versus meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Alan Feingold
Alan Feingold*
Affiliation:
Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR 97401 alanf@oslc.org http://www.oslc.org/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article is a qualitative review of selected findings in the physical attractiveness literature. This commentary explains why the meta-analytic approach, frequently used by other attractiveness reviewers, is preferable for drawing unbiased conclusions about the effects of attractiveness. The article's main contribution is affording a foundation for subsequent meta-analysis of the studies discussed in a subjective fashion.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e28
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974) Physical attractiveness. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 7, ed. Berkowilz, L., pp. 157–216. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. (2013) Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dion, K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1972) What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(3):285–90.Google Scholar
Eagly, H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. (1991) What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110:109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. (1988) Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin 104:226–35.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1990) Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:981–93.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992a) Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin 111:304–41.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (2015) Confidence interval estimation for standardized effect sizes in multilevel and latent growth modeling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 83:157–68.Google Scholar
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F. & Coats, G. (2003) The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology 56:431–62.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. & Hodge, C. (1995) Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly 58:108–22.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M. & Smoot, M. (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 126(3):390–423.Google Scholar
Mazzella, R. & Feingold, A. (1994) The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:1315–44.Google Scholar