Attraction and Beauty

By Robert G. Franklin and Leslie Zebrowitz

Brandeis University

More attractive people elicit more positive first impressions. This effect is called the
attractiveness halo, and it is shown when judging those with more attractive faces, bodies, or
voices. Moreover, it yields significant social outcomes, including advantages to attractive people
in domains as far-reaching as romance, friendships, family relations, education, work, and
criminal justice. Physical qualities that increase attractiveness include youthfulness, symmetry,
averageness, masculinity in men, and femininity in women. Positive expressions and behaviors
also raise evaluations of a person’s attractiveness. Cultural, cognitive, evolutionary, and
overgeneralization explanations have been offered to explain why we find certain people
attractive. Whereas the evolutionary explanation predicts that the impressions associated with
the halo effect will be accurate, the other explanations do not. Although the research evidence
does show some accuracy, it is too weak to satisfactorily account for the positive responses

Learning Objectives

• Learn the advantages of attractiveness in social situations.

• Know what features are associated with facial, body, and vocal attractiveness.
• Understand the universality and cultural variation in attractiveness.
• Learn about the mechanisms proposed to explain positive responses to attractiveness.

We are ambivalent about attractiveness. We are enjoined not to “judge a book by its cover,”
and told that “beauty is only skin deep.” Just as these warnings indicate, our natural tendency is
to judge people by their appearance and to prefer those who are beautiful. The attractiveness
of peoples’ faces, as well as their bodies and voices, not only influences our choice of romantic
partners, but also our impressions of people’s traits and important social outcomes in areas
that have nothing to do with romance. This module reviews these effects of attractiveness and
examines what physical qualities increase attractiveness and why.
The Advantages of Attractiveness

Attractiveness is an asset. Although it may be no surprise that attractiveness is important in

romantic settings, its benefits are found in many other social domains. More attractive people
are perceived more positively on a wide variety of traits, being seen as more intelligent,
healthy, trustworthy, and sociable. Although facial attractiveness has received the most
research attention (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991), people higher in body or vocal
attractiveness also create more positive impressions (Riggio, Widaman, Tucker, & Salinas,
1991; Zuckerman & Driver, 1989). This advantage is termed the attractiveness halo effect, and
it is widespread. Not only are attractive adults judged more positively than their less attractive
peers, but even attractive babies are viewed more positively by their own parents, and
strangers consider them more healthy, affectionate, attached to mother, cheerful, responsive,
likeable, and smart (Langlois et al., 2000). Teachers not only like attractive children better but
also perceive them as less likely to misbehave, more intelligent, and even more likely to get
advanced degrees. More positive impressions of those judged facially attractive are shown
across many cultures, even within an isolated indigenous tribe in the Bolivian rainforest
(Zebrowitz et al., 2012).

Attractiveness not only elicits positive trait impressions, but it also provides advantages in a
wide variety of social situations. In a classic study, attractiveness, rather than measures of
personality or intelligence, predicted whether individuals randomly paired on a blind date
wanted to contact their partner again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966).
Although attractiveness has a greater influence on men’s romantic preferences than women’s
(Feingold, 1990), it has significant effects for both sexes. Attractive men and women become
sexually active earlier than their less attractive peers. Also, attractiveness in men is positively
related to the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, whereas the reverse is
true for women (Rhodes, Simmons, & Peters, 2005). These results suggest that attractiveness in
both sexes is associated with greater reproductive success, since success for men depends
more on short-term mating opportunities—more mates increases the probability of offspring—
and success for women depends more on long-term mating opportunities—a committed mate
increases the probability of offspring survival. Of course, not everyone can win the most
attractive mate, and research shows a “matching” effect. More attractive people expect to date
individuals higher in attractiveness than do unattractive people (Montoya, 2008), and actual
romantic couples are similar in attractiveness (Feingold, 1988). The appeal of attractive people
extends to platonic friendships. More attractive people are more popular with their peers, and
this is shown even in early childhood (Langlois et al., 2000).

The attractiveness halo is also found in situations where one would not expect it to make such a
difference. For example, research has shown that strangers are more likely to help an attractive
than an unattractive person by mailing a lost letter containing a graduate school application
with an attached photograph (Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976). More attractive job
applicants are preferred in hiring decisions for a variety of jobs, and attractive people receive
higher salaries (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977; Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994; Hosoda, Stone-
Romero, & Coats, 2003). Facial attractiveness also affects political and judicial outcomes. More
attractive congressional candidates are more likely to be elected, and more attractive
defendants convicted of crimes receive lighter sentences (Stewart, 1980; Verhulst, Lodge, &
Lavine, 2010). Body attractiveness also contributes to social outcomes. A smaller percentage of
overweight than normal-weight college applicants are admitted despite similar high school
records (Canning & Mayer, 1966), parents are less likely to pay for the education of their
heavier weight children (Crandall, 1991), and overweight people are less highly recommended
for jobs despite equal qualifications (Larkin & Pines, 1979). Voice qualities also have social
outcomes. College undergraduates express a greater desire to affiliate with other students who
have more attractive voices (Miyake & Zuckerman, 1993), and politicians with more attractive
voices are more likely to win elections (Gregory & Gallagher, 2002; Tigue, Borak, O’Connor,
Schandl, & Feinberg, 2012). These are but a few of the research findings clearly demonstrating
that we are unable to adhere to the conventional wisdom not to judge a book by its cover.

What Makes a Person Attractive?

Most research investigating what makes a person attractive has focused on sexual attraction.
However, attraction is a multifaceted phenomenon. We are attracted to infants (nurturant
attraction), to friends (communal attraction), and to leaders (respectful attraction). Although
some facial qualities may be universally attractive, others depend on the individual being
judged as well as the “eye of the beholder.” For example, babyish facial qualities are essential
to the facial attractiveness of infants, but detract from the charisma of male leaders
(Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979; Sternglanz, Gray, & Murakami, 1977; Mueller & Mazur, 1996),
and the sexual attractiveness of particular facial qualities depends on whether the viewer is
evaluating someone as a short-term or a long-term mate (Little, Jones, Penton-Voak, Burt, &
Perrett, 2002). The fact that attractiveness is multifaceted is highlighted in research suggesting
that attraction is a dual process, combining sexual and aesthetic preferences. More specifically,
women’s overall ratings of men’s attractiveness are explained both by their ratings of how
appealing a man is for a sexual situation, such as a potential date, and also by their ratings of
how appealing he is for a nonsexual situation, such as a potential lab partner (Franklin &
Adams, 2009). The dual process is further revealed in the finding that different brain regions are
involved in judging sexual versus nonsexual attractiveness (Franklin & Adams, 2010).

More attractive facial features include youthfulness, unblemished skin, symmetry, a facial
configuration that is close to the population average, and femininity in women or masculinity in
men, with smaller chins, higher eyebrows, and smaller noses being some of the features that
are more feminine/less masculine. Similarly, more feminine, higher-pitched voices are more
attractive in women and more masculine, lower-pitched voices are more attractive in men
(Collins, 2000; Puts, Barndt, Welling, Dawood, & Burriss, 2011). In the case of bodies, features
that increase attractiveness include a more sex-typical waist-to-hip ratio—narrower waist than
hips for women but not for men—as well as a physique that is not emaciated or grossly obese.
Negative reactions to obesity are present from a young age. For example, a classic study found
that when children were asked to rank-order their preferences for children with various
disabilities who were depicted in pictures, the overweight child was ranked the lowest, even
lower than a child who was missing a hand, one who was seated in a wheelchair, and one with
a facial scar (Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf, & Dornbusch, 1961).

Although there are many physical qualities that influence attractiveness, no single quality
seems to be a necessary or sufficient condition for high attractiveness. A person with a
perfectly symmetrical face may not be attractive if the eyes are too close together or too far
apart. One can also imagine a woman with beautiful skin or a man with a masculine facial
features who is not attractive. Even a person with a perfectly average face may not be
attractive if the face is the average of a population of 90-year-olds. These examples suggest
that a combination of features are required for high attractiveness. In the case of men’s
attraction to women, a desirable combination appears to include perceived youthfulness,
sexual maturity, and approachability (Cunningham, 1986). In contrast, a single quality, like
extreme distance from the average face, is sufficient for low attractiveness. Although certain
physical qualities are generally viewed as more attractive, anatomy is not destiny.
Attractiveness is positively related to smiling and facial expressivity (Riggio & Friedman, 1986),
and there also is some truth to the maxim “pretty is as pretty does.” Research has shown that
students are more likely to judge an instructor’s physical appearance as appealing when his
behavior is warm and friendly than when it is cold and distant (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), and
people rate a woman as more physically attractive when they have a favorable description of
her personality (Gross & Crofton, 1977).

Why Are Certain People Attractive?

Cultural, cognitive, evolutionary, and overgeneralization explanations have been offered to

account for why certain people are deemed attractive. Early explanations suggested that
attractiveness was based on what a culture preferred. This is supported by the many variations
in ornamentation, jewelry, and body modification that different cultures use to convey
attractiveness.

For example, the long neck on the woman shown in Figure 1 is unlikely to be judged attractive
by Westerners. Yet, long necks have been preferred in a traditional Myanmar tribe, because
they are thought to resemble a mythological dragon who spawned them. Despite cultural
variations like this, research has provided strong evidence against the claim that attractiveness
is only due to social learning. Indeed, young infants prefer to look at faces that adults have
judged to be highly attractive rather than those judged to be less attractive (Kramer, Zebrowitz,
San Giovanni, & Sherak, 1995; Langlois et al., 1987). Moreover, 12-month-olds are less likely to
smile at or play with a stranger who is wearing a lifelike mask judged unattractive by adults
than a mask judged as attractive (Langlois, Roggman, & Rieser-Danner, 1990). In addition,
people across many cultures, including individuals in the Amazon rainforest who are isolated
from Western culture, view the same faces as attractive (Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen,
& Wu, 1995; Zebrowitz et al. 2012). On the other hand, there are more cultural variations in
body attractiveness. In particular, whereas people from diverse cultures agree that very thin,
emaciated-looking bodies are unattractive, they differ more in their appraisal of heavier bodies.
Larger bodies are viewed more negatively in Western European cultures than other countries,
especially those with lower socioeconomic statuses (Swami et al., 2010). There also is evidence
that African Americans judge overweight women less harshly than do European Americans
(Hebl & Heatherton, 1997).

Although cultural learning makes some contribution to who we find attractive, the universal
elements of attractiveness require a culturally universal explanation. One suggestion is that
attractiveness is a by-product of a more general cognitive mechanism that leads us to recognize
and prefer familiar stimuli. People prefer category members that are closer to a
category prototype, or the average member of the category, over those that are at the
extremes of a category. Thus, people find average stimuli more attractive whether they are
human faces, cars, or animals (Halberstadt, 2006). Indeed, a face morph that is the average of
many individuals’ faces is more attractive than the individual faces used to create it (Langlois &
Roggman, 1990). Also, individual faces that have been morphed toward an average face are
more attractive than those that have been morphed away from average (see Figure 2; face
from Martinez & Benevente, 1998). The preference for stimuli closer to a category prototype is
also consistent with the fact that we prefer men with more masculine physical qualities and
women with more feminine ones. This preference would further predict that the people who
are most attractive depend on our learning experiences, since what is average or prototypical in
a face, voice, or body will depend on the people we have seen. Consistent with an effect of
learning experiences, young infants prefer face morphs that are an average of faces they have
previously seen over morphs that are an average of novel faces (Rubenstein, Kalakanis, &
Langlois, 1999). Short-term perceptual experiences can influence judgments of attractiveness
even in adults. Brief exposure to a series of faces with the same distortion increases the rated
attractiveness of new faces with that distortion (Rhodes, Jeffery, Watson, Clifford, & Nakayama,
2003), and exposure to morphs of human and chimpanzee faces increases the rated
attractiveness of new human faces morphed with a small degree of chimpanzee face (Principe
& Langlois, 2012).

Figure 2.
Top. An averaged face created from 32 individual faces.
Bottom left. Original face from Martinez & Benevente (1998).
Bottom middle. Original face morphed toward the average face.
Bottom right. Original face morphed away from the average face.

One reason average stimuli, including faces, may be preferred is that they are easy to
categorize, and when a stimulus is easy to categorize, it elicits positive emotion (Winkielman,
Halberstadt, Fazendeiro, & Catty, 2006). Another possible reason average stimuli may be
preferred is that we may be less apprehensive about familiar-looking stimuli (Zajonc, 2001). All
other things equal, we prefer stimuli we have seen before over novel ones, a mere-exposure
effect, and we also prefer stimuli that are similar to those we have seen before, a generalized
mere-exposure effect. Consistent with a reduced apprehensiveness mechanism, exposure to
other-race faces reduced neural activation in a region that responds to negatively valenced
stimuli, not only for the faces the participants saw, but also new faces from the familiarized
other-race category (Zebrowitz & Zhang, 2012). Such a generalized mere-exposure effect also
could explain the preference for average stimuli, which look more familiar, although the effect
may be more reliable for judgments of likeability than attractiveness (Rhodes, Halberstadt, &
Brajkovich, 2001; Rhodes, Halberstadt, Jeffery, & Palermo, 2005). Whether due to ease of
categorization or less apprehensiveness, the cognitive explanation holds that certain people are
more attractive because perceptual learning has rendered them more familiar.

In contrast to the cognitive explanation for why we find particular people attractive, the
evolutionary explanation argues that preferences developed because it was adaptive to prefer
those individuals. More specifically, the good genes hypothesis proposes that people with
physical qualities like averageness, symmetry, sex prototypicality, and youthfulness are more
attractive because they are better-quality mates. Mate quality may reflect better health,
greater fertility, or better genetic traits that lead to better offspring and hence greater
reproductive success (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). Theoretically, averageness and symmetry
provide evidence of genetic fitness because they show the ability to develop normally despite
environmental stressors (Scheib, Gangestad, & Thornhill, 1999). Averageness also signals
genetic diversity (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999), which is associated with a strong immune
system (Penn, Damjanovich, & Potts, 2002). High masculinity in male faces may indicate fitness
because it shows an ability to withstand the stress that testosterone places on the immune
system (Folstad & Karter, 1992). High femininity in female faces may signal fitness by indicating
sexual maturity and fertility. The evolutionary account also can explain the attractiveness of
youthfulness, since aging is often associated with declines in cognitive and physical functioning
and decreased fertility.

Some researchers have investigated whether attractiveness actually does signal mate quality by
examining the relationship between facial attractiveness and health (see Rhodes, 2006, for a
review). Support for such a relationship is weak. In particular, people rated very low in
attractiveness, averageness, or masculinity (in the case of men) tend to have poorer health
than those who are average in these qualities. However, people rated high in attractiveness,
averageness, or masculinity do not differ from those who are average (Zebrowitz & Rhodes,
2004). Low body attractiveness, as indexed by overweight or a sex-atypical waist-to-hip ratio,
also may be associated with poorer health or lower fertility in women (Singh & Singh, 2011).
Others have assessed whether attractiveness signals mate quality by examining the relationship
with intelligence, since more intelligent mates may increase reproductive success. In particular,
more intelligent mates may provide better parental care. Also, since intelligence is heritable,
more intelligent mates may yield more intelligent offspring, who have a better chance of
passing genes on to the next generation (Miller & Todd, 1998). The evidence indicates that
attractiveness is positively correlated with intelligence. However, as in the case of health, the
relationship is weak, and it appears to be largely due to lower-than-average intelligence among
those who are very low in attractiveness rather than higher-than-average intelligence among
those who are highly attractive (Zebrowitz & Rhodes, 2004). These results are consistent with
the fact that subtle negative deviations from average attractiveness can signal low fitness. For
example, minor facial anomalies that are too subtle for the layperson to recognize as a genetic
anomaly are associated with lower intelligence (Foroud et al., 2012). Although the level of
attractiveness provides a valid cue to low, but not high, intelligence or health, it is important to
bear in mind that attractiveness is only a weak predictor of these traits, even in the range
where it has some validity.

The finding that low, but not high, attractiveness can be diagnostic of actual traits is consistent
with another explanation for why we find particular people attractive. This has been
dubbed anomalous face overgeneralization, but it could equally apply to anomalous voices or
bodies. The evolutionary account has typically assumed that as attractiveness increases, so
does fitness, and it has emphasized the greater fitness of highly attractive individuals, a good
genes effect (Buss, 1989). In contrast, the overgeneralization hypothesis argues that the level of
attractiveness provides an accurate index only of low fitness. On this account,
the attractiveness halo effect is a by-product of reactions to low fitness. More specifically, we
overgeneralize the adaptive tendency to use low attractiveness as an indication of lower-than-
average health and intelligence, and we mistakenly use higher-than-average attractiveness as
an indication of higher-than-average health and intelligence (Zebrowitz & Rhodes, 2004). The
overgeneralization hypothesis differs from the evolutionary hypothesis in another important
respect. It is concerned with the importance of detecting low fitness not only when choosing a
mate, but also in other social interactions. This is consistent with the fact that the
attractiveness halo effect is present in many domains.

Whereas the cultural, cognitive, and overgeneralization accounts of attractiveness do not

necessarily predict that the halo effect in impressions will be accurate, the evolutionary “good
genes” account does. As we have seen, there is some support for this prediction, but the effects
are too weak and circumscribed to fully explain the strong halo effect in response to highly
attractive people. In addition, it is important to recognize that whatever accuracy there is does
not necessarily imply a genetic link between attractiveness and adaptive traits, such as health
or intelligence. One non-genetic mechanism is an influence of environmental factors. For
example, the quality of nutrition and that a person receives may have an impact on the
development of both attractiveness and health (Whitehead, Ozakinci, Stephen, & Perrett,
2012). Another non-genetic explanation is a self-fulfilling prophecy effect (Snyder, Tanke, &
Berscheid, 1977). For example, the higher expectations that teachers have for more attractive
students may nurture higher intelligence, an effect that has been shown when teachers have
high expectations for reasons other than appearance (Rosenthal, 2003).
Conclusions

Although it may seem unfair, attractiveness confers many advantages. More attractive people
are favored not only as romantic partners but, more surprisingly, by their parents, peers,
teachers, employers, and even judges and voters. Moreover, there is substantial agreement
about who is attractive, with infants and perceivers from diverse cultures showing similar
responses. Although this suggests that cultural influences cannot completely explain
attractiveness, experience does have an influence. There is controversy about why certain
people are attractive to us. The cognitive account attributes higher attractiveness to the ease of
processing prototypes or the safety associated with familiar stimuli. The evolutionary account
attributes higher attractiveness to the adaptive value of preferring physical qualities that signal
better health or genetic fitness when choosing mates. The overgeneralization account
attributes higher attractiveness to the overgeneralization of an adaptive avoidance of physical
qualities that signal poor health or low genetic fitness. Although there is debate as to which
explanation is best, it is important to realize that all of the proposed mechanisms may have
some validity.

Outside Resources

Article: For Couples, Time Can Upend the Laws of Attraction - This is an accessible New York
Times article, summarizing research findings that show romantic couples’ level of attractiveness
is correlated if they started dating soon after meeting (predicted by the matching hypothesis).
However, if they knew each other or were friends for a while before dating, they were less
likely to match on physical attractiveness. This research highlights that while attractiveness is
important, other factors such as acquaintanceship length can also be important.

http://nyti.ms/1HtIkFt

Article: Is Faceism Spoiling Your Life? - This is an accessible article that describes faceism, as
well as how our expectations of people (based on their facial features) influence our reactions
to them. It presents the findings from a few studies, such as how participants making snap
judgments of political candidates’ faces predicted who won the election with almost 70%
accuracy. It includes example photos of faces we would consider more or less competent,
dominant, extroverted, or trustworthy.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150707-is-faceism-spoiling-your-life

Video: Is Your Face Attractive? - This is a short video. The researcher in the video discusses and
shows examples of face morphs, and then manipulates pictures of faces, making them more or
less masculine or feminine. We tend to prefer women with more feminized faces and men with
more masculine faces, and the video briefly correlates these characteristics to good health.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-is-your-face-
attractive/
Video: Multiple videos realted to the science of beauty

http://dsc.discovery.com/search.htm?terms=science+of+beauty

Video: Multiple videos related to the science of sex appeal

http://dsc.discovery.com/search.htm?terms=science+of+sex+appeal

Video: The Beauty of Symmetry - A short video about facial symmetry. It describes facial
symmetry, and explains why our faces aren’t always symmetrical. The video shows a
demonstration of a researcher photographing a man and a woman and then manipulating the
photos.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-the-beauty-of-
symmetry/

Video: The Economic Benefits of Being Beautiful - Less than 2-minute video with cited statistics
about the advantages of being beautiful. The video starts with information about how babies
are treated differently, and it quickly cites 14 facts about the advantages of being attractive,
including the halo effect.

Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think the attractiveness halo exists even though there is very little evidence
that attractive people are more intelligent or healthy?
2. What cultural influences affect whom you perceive as attractive? Why?
3. How do you think evolutionary theories of why faces are attractive apply in a modern
world, where people are much more likely to survive and reproduce, regardless of how
intelligent or healthy they are?
4. Which of the theories do you think provides the most compelling explanation for why
we find certain people attractive?

Vocabulary

Anomalous face overgeneralization hypothesis

Proposes that the attractiveness halo effect is a by-product of reactions to low fitness. People
overgeneralize the adaptive tendency to use low attractiveness as an indicator of negative
traits, like low health or intelligence, and mistakenly use higher-than-average attractiveness as
an indicator of high health or intelligence.

Attractiveness halo effect

The tendency to associate attractiveness with a variety of positive traits, such as being more
sociable, intelligent, competent, and healthy.

Good genes hypothesis

Proposes that certain physical qualities, like averageness, are attractive because they advertise
mate quality—either greater fertility or better genetic traits that lead to better offspring and
hence greater reproductive success.

Mere-exposure effect

The tendency to prefer stimuli that have been seen before over novel ones. There also is a
generalized mere-exposure effect shown in a preference for stimuli that are similar to those
that have been seen before.

Morph

A face or other image that has been transformed by a computer program so that it is a mixture
of multiple images.

Prototype

A typical, or average, member of a category. Averageness increases attractiveness.

References

• Benson, P. L., Karabenick, S. A., & Lerner, R. M. (1976). Pretty pleases: The effects of
physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 12, 409–415.
• Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
• Canning, H., & Mayer, J. (1966). Obesity—its possible effect on college acceptance. New
England Journal of Medicine, 275, 1172–1174.
• Collins, S. A. (2000). Men's voices and women's choices. Animal Behaviour, 60, 773–780.
• Crandall, C. S. (1991). Do heavy-weight students have more difficulty paying for
college? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 606–611.
• 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.
• 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.
• Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of
raters and applicants as determinants of résumé evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62, 288–294.
• 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.
• 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.
• Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex
friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.
• Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence
handicap. American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.
• Foroud, T. W., Wetherill, L., Vinci-Booher, S., Moore, E. S., Ward, R. E., Hoyme, H. E….
Jacobson, S. W. (2012). Relation over time between facial measurements and cognitive
outcomes in fetal alcohol-exposed children. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 36, 1634–1646.
• Franklin, R. G., Jr., & Adams, R. B., Jr. (2010). The two halves of beauty: Laterality and
the duality of facial attractiveness. Brain and Cognition, 72, 300–305.
• Franklin, R. G., Jr., & Adams, R. B., Jr. (2009). A dual-process account of female facial
attractiveness preferences: Sexual and nonsexual routes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 1156–1159.
• Gregory, S. W., & Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Spectral analysis of candidates' nonverbal vocal
communication: Predicting U.S. presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 65, 298–308.
• Gross, A. E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40, 85–90.
• Halberstadt, J. B. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of
prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183.
• Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. American
Economic Review, 84, 1174–1194.
• Hebl, M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1997). The stigma of obesity: The differences are black
and white. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417–426.
• Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1979). Facial feature determinants of perceived
infant attractiveness. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 329–339.
• 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, 431-462.
• Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L. A., San Giovanni, J. P., & Sherak, B. (1995). Infants' preferences
for attractiveness and babyfaceness. In B. G. Bardy, R. J. Bootsma, & Y. Guiard
(Eds.), Studies in Perception and Action III (pp. 389–392). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
• Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological
Science, 1, 115–121.
• 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.
• Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Rieser-Danner, L. A. (1990). Infants’ differential social
responses to attractive and unattractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 153–
159.
• Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins,
V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a
stereotype? Developmental Psychology, 23, 363–369.
• Larkin, J. C., & Pines, H. A. (1979). No fat persons need apply: Experimental studies of
the overweight stereotype and hiring preference. Work and Occupations, 6, 312–327.
• Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002).
Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female
preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B, 269, 1095–1100.
• Martinez, A. M., & Benavente, R. (1998). The AR face database, CVC Tech. Report #24.
• Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2, 190–198.
• Miyake, K., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Beyond personality impressions: Effects of physical
and vocal attractiveness on false consensus, social comparison, affiliation, and assumed
and perceived similarity. Journal of Personality, 61, 411–437.
• Montoya, R. M. (2008). I'm hot, so I'd say you're not: The influence of objective physical
attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315–
1331.
• Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as a predictor of
later military rank. Social Forces, 74, 823–850.
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on
mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
• Penn, D. J., Damjanovich, K., & Potts, W. K. (2002). MHC heterozygosity confers a
selective advantage against multiple-strain infections. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 99, 11260–11264.
• Principe, C. P., & Langlois, J. H. (2012). Shifting the prototype: Experience with faces
influences affective and attractiveness preferences. Social Cognition, 30, 109–120.
• Puts, D. A., Barndt, J. L., Welling, L. L., Dawood, K., & Burriss, R. P. (2011). Intrasexual
competition among women: Vocal femininity affects perceptions of attractiveness and
flirtatiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 111–115.
• Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 199–226.
• Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001) Generalization of mere-exposure
effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cognition, 19, 57–70.
• Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., Jeffery, L., & Palermo, R. (2005). The attractiveness of
average faces is not a generalized mere-exposure effect. Social Cognition, 23, 205–217.
• Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G., & Nakayama, K. (2003) Fitting the
mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychological
Science, 14, 558–566.
• Rhodes, G. Simmons, L. W. Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does
attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201
• Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1961). Cultural
uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociology Review, 26, 241–247.
• Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: The role of expressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 421–427.
• Riggio, R. E., Widaman, K. F., Tucker, J. S., & Salinas, C. (1991). Beauty is more than skin
deep: Components of attractiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 423–439.
• Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert communication in laboratories, classrooms, and the truly
real world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 151–154.
• Rubenstein, A. J., Kalakanis, L., & Langlois, J. H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive
faces: A cognitive explanation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 848–855.
• Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry,
and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological
Sciences, 266, 1913–1917.
• Singh, D., & Singh, D. (2011). Shape and significance of feminine beauty: An evolutionary
perspective. Sex Roles, 64, 723–731.
• Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal
behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 655–666.
• Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J. L., & Murakami, M. (1977). Adult preferences for infantile facial
features: An ethological approach. Animal Behaviour, 25, 108–115.
• Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal
trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348–361.
• Swami, V., Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Akbar, K., Gordon, N., Harris, T., . . .
Tovée, M. J. (2010). More than just skin deep? Personality information influences men's
ratings of the attractiveness of women's body sizes. The Journal of Social Psychology,
150, 628–647.
• Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 3, 452–460.
• Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O'Connor, J. J. M., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Voice
pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 210–216.
• Verhulst, B., Lodge, M., & Lavine, H. (2010). The attractiveness halo: Why some
candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34,
111–117.
• 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.
• Whitehead, R. D., Ozakinci, G., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2012). Appealing to vanity:
Could potential appearance improvement motivate fruit and vegetable
consumption? American Journal of Public Health, 102, 207–211.
• Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are
attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799–806.
• Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.
• Zebrowitz, L. A., & Zhang, E., (2012). Neural evidence for reduced apprehensiveness of
familiarized stimuli in a mere exposure paradigm. Social Neuroscience, 7, 347–358.
• Zebrowitz, L. A. & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face
overgeneralization effect: Accuracy, cue validity, and cue utilization in judging
intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 28, 167–185.
• Zebrowitz, L. A., Wang, R., Bronstad, P. M., Eisenberg, D., Undurraga, E., Reyes-García,
V., & Godoy, R., (2012). First impressions from faces among U.S. and culturally isolated
Tsimane’ people in the Bolivian rainforest. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 119–
134.
• Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal
attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 67–82.