“Just another pretty face”: A multidimensional scaling approach to face attractiveness and variability (original) (raw)

References

• Blok, S. V., &Markman, A. B. (2005). Fluency in similarity judgements. In B. G. Bara, L. W. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.),Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 280–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  Google Scholar
• Busey, T. A. (1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing.Psychological Science,9, 476–483.
  Article Google Scholar
• Corneille, O., Monin, B., &Pleyers, G. (2005). Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs. evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41, 431–437.
  Article Google Scholar
• Kleider, H. M., &Goldinger, S. D. (2004). Illusions of face memory: Clarity breeds familiarity.Journal of Memory & Language,50, 196–211.
  Article Google Scholar
• Lee, K., Byatt, G., &Rhodes, G. (2000). Caricature effects, distinctiveness, and identification: Testing the face-space framework.Psychological Science,11, 379–385.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. B. (2004). Face-space-R: Towards a unified account of face recognition.Visual Cognition,11, 29–69.
  Article Google Scholar
• Light, L. L., Hollander, S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,7, 269–276.
  Article Google Scholar
• Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 212–228.
  Article Google Scholar
• Martens, W. L., & Zacharov, N. (2000, September).Multidimensional perceptual unfolding of spatially processed speech I: Deriving stimulus space using INDSCAL. Paper presented at the 109th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, Los Angeles.
• Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,85, 1035–1048.
  Article Google Scholar
• Mueller, J. H., Heesacker, M., &Ross, M. J. (1984). Likability of targets and distractors in facial recognition.American Journal of Psychology,97, 235–247.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.Annual Review of Psychology,57, 199–226.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Rhodes, G., &Zebrowitz, L. A. (Eds.) (2002).Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex.
  Google Scholar
• Ruys, K. I., Dijksterhuis, A., & Corneille, O. (in press). On the (mis)categorization of unattractive brides and attractive prostitutes: Extending evaluative congruency effects to social category activation.Experimental Psychology.
• Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 161–204.
  Google Scholar
• Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.
  Article Google Scholar
• Yzerbyt, V. Y., Muller, D., &Judd, C. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40, 424–431.
  Article Google Scholar

Download references