ReviewBiology letters2015
Faces and fitness: attractive evolutionary relationship or ugly hypothesis?
Review in Biology letters, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why we should not dismiss a relationship between attractiveness and performance: a comment on Smoliga & Zavorsky (2015).Biology letters · 2016Article
- Exercise physiology and sports science must be considered in evolutionary theories regarding human performance: a reply to Postma (2016).Biology letters · 2016Article
- Facial Attractiveness as a Function of Athletic Prowess.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, various studies have attempted to understand human evolution by examining relationships between athletic performance or physical fitness and facial attractiveness. Over a wide range of five homogeneous groups (n = 327), there is an approximate 3% shared variance between facial attractiveness and athletic performance or physical fitness (95% CI = 0.5-8%, p = 0.002). Further, studies relating human performance and attractiveness often have major methodological limitations that limit their generalizability. Thus, despite statistical significance, the association between facial attractiveness and human performance has questionable biological importance. Here, we present a critique of these studies and provide recommendations to improve the quality of future research in this realm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.