Sex differences in judgments of physical attractiveness: A social relations analysis

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 325-335

  Marcus, David K ^a   Miller, Rowland S ^a  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interpersonal perception; Physical attractiveness; Sex differences

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SELF CONCEPT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; UNITED STATES;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BEAUTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SELF CONCEPT; SEX FACTORS; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037215145     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167202250193     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Albright, L., Kenny, D., & Malloy, T. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387-395.
2. Ashmore, R. D., & Longo, L. C. (1995). Accuracy of stereotypes: What research on physical attractiveness can teach us. In Y. T. Lee, L.J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 63-86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Bazzini, D. G., & Shaffer, D. R. (1999). Resisting temptation revisited: Devaluation versus enhancement of an attractive suitor by exclusive and nonexclusive daters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 162-176.
4. Berry, D. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 273-342). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.
7. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
8. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
9. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.
10. Downs, A. C., & Lyons, P. M. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541-547.
11. Eagly, A. 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, 109-128.
12. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
13. 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, 981-993.
14. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.
15. Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190-195.
16. Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404421.
17. Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143-155.
18. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Shebilske, L.J., & Lundgren, S. R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522-531.
20. Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21. Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: Discrepancies among self-ideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 379-396.
22. Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neotony: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36, 723-748.
23. Kalb, C. (1999, August 9). Our quest to be perfect. Newsweek, 134, 52-59.
24. Kenny, D. (1990). Design and analysis issues in dyadic research. In C. Hendrick & M. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Research methods in personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 164-184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Kenny, D. A. (1993). SOREMO Version V.1. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
26. Kenny, D. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.
27. Kenny, D. A. (1995). BLOCKO Version V. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
28. Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145-161.
29. Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88-97.
30. Kenny, D., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-733.
32. 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, 390-423.
33. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not about attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5, 214-220.
34. Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152-161.
35. Malloy, T. E., Sugarman, D. B., Montvilo, R. K., & Ben-Zeev, T. (1995). Children's interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis of perceiver and target effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 418-426.
36. Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R., & Townsend, G. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 151-158.
37. Owen, P. R., & Laurel-Seller, E. (2000). Weight and shape ideals: Thin is dangerously in. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 979-990.
38. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D.I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39-18.
39. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D.I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., et al. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741-742.
40. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K.J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884-887.
41. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52-58.
42. Shackelford, T. K., &: Larsen, R.J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 456-466.
43. Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R.J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution & Human Behavior, 20, 71-76.
44. Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. F. (1979). Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522-533.
45. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
46. Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089-1101.
47. Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women's attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51-65.
48. Sobal, J. (1995). Social influences on body weight. In K. D. Brownell & C. G. Fairburn (Eds.), Eating disorders and obesity: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 73-78). New York: Guilford.
49. Themanson, J.R. (1997). The effects of gender and perspective on consensus at zero acquaintance. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
50. Udry, J. R., & Eckland, B. K. (1984). Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports, 54, 47-56.
51. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-516.