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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MAXIMS OR MYTHS OF BEAUTY 421 Appendix G (continued) Study Sample size Gender Rater type Attractiveness measure d Kalick, Zebrowitz, Langlois, & Johnson (1998) 127 F I Kleck & Rubenstein (1975) 48 M I Kowner (1996) 122 B N Kowner & Ogawa (1995) 49 M I Kowner & Ogawa (1995) 44 F I Kuhlenschmidt & Conger (1988) 35 F I Larrance & Zuckerman (1981) 60 B I Longo (1990) 243 B I Mandel & Shrauger (1980) 37 M N Martindale, Ross, Hines, & Abrams (1978) 19 B I Martindale, Ross, Hines, & Abrams (1978) 19 B I Mathes & Kahn (1975) 110 M I Mathes & Kahn (1975) 101 F I McGovem, Neale, & Kendler (1996) 1,100 F I L. C. Miller & Cox (1982) 42 F I Mohr (1932) 25 M I Mohr (1932) 25 F I Molar &Lund (1933) 50 M I Mohr &Lund (1933) 50 F I Moisan-Thomas, Conger, Zellinger, & Firth (1985) 60 M I Murphy, Nelson, & Cheap (1981) 41 B I Napoleon, Chassin, & Young (1980) 28 B I Noles, Cash, & Winstead (1985) 77 B I O'Grady (1989) 64 M I O'Grady (1989) 63 F i Pellegrini, Hicks, Meyers-Winton, & Antal (1978) 96 B N Pilkonis (1977) 46 B I Raskin & Terry (1988), Study 2 57 B N Raza & Carpenter (1987) 171 B N Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler (1980) 35 M I Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler (1980) 36 F I Reis et al. (1982) 43 M I Reis et al. (1982)/Reis, Wheeler, Nezlek, Kernis, & Spiegel (1985) 51 F I Romer & Berkson (1980) 176 B N Roszell, Kennedy, & Grabb (1990) 1,141 B N Rowe, Clapp, & Wallis (1987) 28 M I Rowe, Clapp, & Wallis (1987) 22 F I Sarason, Sarason, Hacker, & Basham (1985) 168 B I Shackelford & Larsen (1999) 34 M I Shackelford & Larsen (1999) 66 F I Shapiro, Struening, Shapiro, & Barten (1976) 97 B N Shapiro, Struening, Shapiro, & Barten (1976) 97 B N Singer (1964) 10 F I Singer (1964) 14 F I Singer (1964) 192 F I Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick (1985) 39 M I Sparacino (1980) 549 M I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 1 55 M I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 1 65 F I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 2 50 M I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 2 87 F I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 3 84 M I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 3 83 F I Steffen & Redden (1977) 40 M N Stelzer, Desmond, & Price (1987) 41 F I Stewart (1980) 67 B I Stewart (1984) 60 B I Snssman et al. (1987) 50 B I Sussman & Mueser (1983) 43 F I Turner, Gilliland, & Klein (1981) 99 B I Turner, Gilliland, & Klein (1981) 103 B N Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann (1966) 376 M I Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann (1966) 376 F I Wessberg, Marriotto, Conger, Farrell, & Conger (1979) 45 M I Zakahi & Duran (1988) 20 M I Zakahi & Duran (1988) 27 F I Zebrowitz, Collins, & Dutta (1998) 80 F I Note. M = male; F = female; B = both; I = independent; N = nonindependent; F = facial measure; G = global measure. F 0.20 F 0.94 G 0.72 F 0.43 F -0.314 G -0.06 F 0.97 G -0.04 G 0.34 F 0.02 F 0.31 G -0.08 G 0.49 F -0.02 F 0.57 G 0.59 G 0.61 G 0.10 G 0.51 G 0.38 F 0.26 F 0.20 G -0.16 F -0.56 F 0.58 G -0.69 G 0.62 F -0.20 G 0.79 G 0.24 G 0.20 G 0.20 G -0.10 G 0.18 F 0.16 F 0.38 F 0.50 F 0.14 F 0.28 F 0.22 G 1.41 G 1.18 F 0.20 F 0.63 F 0.38 G 0.07 F -0.20 F 0.26 F 0.18 F -0.64 F -0.04 F 0.02 F -0.45 G 0.83 G 0.55 G 0.67 G 0.53 G 0.94 G 0.26 G 0.47 G 0.47 G 1.77 G 0.98 G 0.60 F 1.23 F 0.27 G 0.38 (Appendixes continue)
422 LANGLOIS ET AL. Appendix H Studies Included in Meta-Analysis of Child Behavior/Trait Differences Study Sample size Gender Age Rater type Atlxactiveness measure d L. K. Anderson (1991) 20 B 10.74 I Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal (1982) 150 B 16 N N. Cavior & Dokecki (1973) 14 M 16.5 I N. Cavior & Dokecki (1973) 18 M 10.5 I N. Cavior & Dokecki (1973) 14 F 16.5 I N. Cavior & Dokecki (1973) 12 F 10.5 I N. Cavior & Howard (1973), Study 1 104 M 18 I N. Cavior & Howard (1973), Study 2 99 M 18 I N. Cavior, Miller, & Cohen (1975) 24 M 17.5 N N. Cavior, Miller, & Cohen (1975) 23 F 15.5 N Clark & Ayers (1988) 136 B 12.7 N Cole (1991) 712 M 9.29 I Cole (1991) 710 F 9.29 I Cole, Martin, & Powers (1997) 617 B 9.8 N P. S. Cooper (1993) 55 B 10.4 I Dailey, Allen, Chinsky, & Veit (1974) 37 B 9.3 N Dion & Berscheid (1974) 39 M 5 I Dion & Berscheid (1974) 18 F 5 I Felson (1980), Study 1 53 M 12.5 I Felson (1980), Study 1 84 F 12.5 I Felson (1980), Study 2 2,201 M 15.5 N Fridell, Zucker, Bradley, & Maing (1996) 22 F 6.6 I Hollingworth (1935) 40 B 14.5 I Hughes, Howell, & Hall (1983) 23 M 11.5 I Hughes, Howell, & Hall (1983) 28 F 11.5 I Jovanovic, Lemer, & Lemer (1989) 139 B 11.6 I Kenealy, Gleeson, Frude, & Shaw (1991) 801 B 11.5 I Kleck, Richardson, & Ronald (1974), Study 2 30 M 11.5 I Krantz, Friedberg, & Andrews (1984) 107 B 9.2 I Leinbach & Fagot (1991) 26 M 1.9 I Leinbach & Fagot (1991) 24 F 1.7 I Lemer, Delaney, Hess, Jovanovic, & yon Eye (1990) 101 B 11.6 I Lerner & Lemer (1977) 104 B 10.6 I Lemer et al. (1991) 153 B 11.6 I Lippitt (1941) 15 B 4.1 N Lippitt (1941) 21 B 3.6 N Lippitt (1941) 9 B 5 N Moran & McCullers (1984) 34 B 17.5 I Murphy, Nelson, & Cheap (1981) 41 B 17.5 I Salvia, Algozzine, & Sheare (1977) 84 B 9.5 I Serketich & Dumas (1997) 12 B NR I J. Smith & Krantz (1986) 11 M 8.5 I J. Smith & Krantz (1986) 12 F 8.5 I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 3 84 M 15.5 I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 3 83 F 15.5 I Sparacino & Hansell (1979), Study 3 83 F 15.5 I Vanghn & Langlois (1983) 34 M 4 I Vaughn & Langlois (1983) 25 F 4 I Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 50 M 16.5 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 25 M 11.6 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 25 M 11.6 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 24 F 11.5 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 24 F 11.5 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 8 F 8 N Weisfeld, Weisfeld, & Callaghan (1984) 8 F 8 N Zucker, Wild, Bradley, & Lowry (1993) 17 M 8.1 I Note. M = male; F = female; B = both; I = independent; N = nonindependent; F = facial measure; G = global measure. F 1.08 G 0.54 G 1.79 G 4.82 G 2.00 G 2.98 F 0.47 F 0.26 G 1.15 G 1.45 G 0.41 G 0.49 G 0.43 G 0.28 F 1.14 F 1.29 F 0.55 F -0.88 G 0.40 G 0.04 G 0.45 F 0.45 F 0.70 G 0.19 G~ 0.04 G 0.12 F 0.11 F 0.46 F 0.58 F 0.02 F 0.23 F 0.65 F 0.47 F 0.02 G 0.00 G 0.63 G 1.08 F -0.96 F 0.26 F 0.38 G 1.67 F 0.90 F 0.81 F 0.02 F - 0.45 F -0.45 F 0.20 F 0.72 G 1.40 G 1.03 G 2.88 G 1.38 G 1.84 G 0.41 G 0.19 F 0.62
Page 1 and 2: Psychological Bulletin Copyright 20
Page 3 and 4: 392 LANGLOIS ET AL. Barber, 1995; B
Page 5 and 6: 394 LANGLOIS ET AL. behaviors and t
Page 7 and 8: 396 LANGLOIS ET AL. Subcategories w
Page 9 and 10: 398 LANGLOIS ET AL. Effect Sizes Da
Page 11 and 12: 400 LANGLOIS ET AL. coefficients fr
Page 13 and 14: 402 LANGLOIS ET AL. Table 7 Meta-An
Page 15 and 16: 404 LANGLOIS ET AL. found in other
Page 17 and 18: 406 Table 11 Correspondence Between
Page 19 and 20: 408 LANGLOIS ET AL. is required. Fi
Page 21 and 22: 410 LANGLOIS ET AL. model of child
Page 23 and 24: 412 LANGLOIS ET AL. Kirkpatfick, M.
Page 25 and 26: 414 LANGLOIS ET AL. interpersonal b
Page 27 and 28: 416 LANGLOIS El" AL. Appendix B Stu
Page 29 and 30: 418 LANGLOIS ET AL. Appendix E Stud
Page 31: 420 LANGLOIS ET AL. Appendix G Stud

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?