Cited by 210Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness

Nicholson, Stephen P., Coe, Chelsea M., Emory, Jason, Song, Anna V.·2016·Political Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Merced (US)
  • California State University, Stanislaus (US)
Corresponding author
Nicholson, Stephen P.
Venue
Political Behavior
Published
2016-04-05
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
883-898
ISSN
  • 0190-9320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6687
OpenAlex
W2326755378
Cited by
210
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
33.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Political Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
physical attractiveness, partisan bias, in-group favoritism, out-group bias, social identity, gender differences, 2012 presidential election, political competition, interpersonal perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review