Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review

MAXIMS OR MYTHS OF BEAUTY
Appendix F
Studies Included in Meta-Analysis of Treatment of Attractive and Unattractive Children
Physical
Sample Target Perceiver Target attractiveness
Study size gender gender age Familiarity measure
Barocas & Black (1974) 54 M F NR 3
Barocas & Black (1974) 46 F F NR 3
Berkowitz & Frodi (1979), Study 1 56 F F 10 1
Berkowitz & Frodi (1979), Study 2 40 M F 10 1
Dalley, Allen, Chinsky, & Veit (1974) 37 B B 9.3 3
Dion (1974), Study 1 20 M F 8 1
Dion (1974), Study 2 20 F F 8 1
Dion (1977) 58 B B NR 1
Elder, Van Nguyen, & Caspi (1985) 55 F M NR 3
Felson & Bohrnstedt (1979)/Felson (1980) 209 M NR NR 3
Felson & Bohrnstedt (1979)/Felson (1980) 204 F NR NR 3
Hildebrandt & Carman (1985) 31 B B NR 3
Karraker (1986) 45 B F .007 2
Kcnealy, Frude, & Shaw (1987) 504 M B NR 3
Kenealy, Frude, & Shaw (1987) 504 F B NR 3
Langlois, Ritter, Casey, & Sawin (1995) 173 B F 0 3
Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn (1991), Study 3 39 B B .25 1
Leinbach & Fagot (1991) 17 M B 1.9 3
Leinbach & Fagot (1991) 19 F B 1.7 3
Lemer, Delaney, Hess, Jovanovic, &von Eye (1990) 101 B F 11.6 3
Lemer & Lemer (1977) 104 B F 10.4 3
Salvia, Algozzine, & Sheare (1977) 84 B B NR 3
G. J. Smith (1985) 18 F B 4.2 3
Vaughn & Langlois (1983) 34 M B NR 3
Vaughn & Langlois (1983) 23 F B NR 3
Zahr (1985) 190 B NR NR 3
Physical
attractiveness
range
419
F C 0.67
F C 0.42
G D 0.89
G D 0.96
F C 0.22
G D 0.65
G D -0.52
F D 0.58
G C 0.58
F C 0.54
F C 0.28
F C -0.06
F C -0.64
F C 0.92
F C 1.10
F C 0.36
F D 0.71
F C O.27
F C 0.21
F C 0.58
F C 0.54
F C 0.67
G D 1.22
F C 0.57
F C 0.16
F C 1.09
Note. M = male; F = female; B = both; 1 = less; 3 = more; F = facial measure; G = global measure; C = continuous; D = dichotomous.
(Appendixes continue)