These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22558830)

  • 1. Are preferences for legs length universal? Data from a semi-nomadic Himba population from Namibia.
    Sorokowski P; Sorokowska A; Mberira M
    J Soc Psychol; 2012; 152(3):370-8. PubMed ID: 22558830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Height preferences in humans may not be universal: evidence from the Datoga people of Tanzania.
    Sorokowski P; Butovskaya ML
    Body Image; 2012 Sep; 9(4):510-6. PubMed ID: 22871368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of Leg-to-Body Ratio on Body Shape Attractiveness.
    Kiire S
    Arch Sex Behav; 2016 May; 45(4):901-10. PubMed ID: 26474977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Developmental Study on Leg-to-Body Ratio Preferences.
    Sabiniewicz A; Sorokowska A; Oleszkiewicz A; Sorokowski P
    Coll Antropol; 2015 Sep; 39(3):529-34. PubMed ID: 26898046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The influence of leg-to-body ratio (LBR) on judgments of female physical attractiveness: assessments of computer-generated images varying in LBR.
    Frederick DA; Hadji-Michael M; Furnham A; Swami V
    Body Image; 2010 Jan; 7(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 19822462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Color preferences are not universal.
    Taylor C; Clifford A; Franklin A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2013 Nov; 142(4):1015-27. PubMed ID: 23148465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Males prefer a larger bust size in women than females themselves: an experimental study on female bodily attractiveness with varying weight, bust size, waist width, hip width, and leg length independently.
    Prantl L; Gründl M
    Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2011 Oct; 35(5):693-702. PubMed ID: 21359983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion.
    Swami V; Einon D; Furnham A
    Body Image; 2006 Dec; 3(4):317-23. PubMed ID: 18089235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of partner beauty on opposite-sex attractiveness judgments.
    Little AC; Caldwell CA; Jones BC; DeBruine LM
    Arch Sex Behav; 2011 Dec; 40(6):1119-27. PubMed ID: 21901646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens).
    Penton-Voak IS; Little AC; Jones BC; Burt DM; Tiddeman BP; Perrett DI
    J Comp Psychol; 2003 Sep; 117(3):264-71. PubMed ID: 14498802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: an examination of biological and cultural influences.
    Lippa RA
    Arch Sex Behav; 2007 Apr; 36(2):193-208. PubMed ID: 17380374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Human physique and sexual attractiveness: sexual preferences of men and women in Bakossiland, Cameroon.
    Dixson BJ; Dixson AF; Morgan B; Anderson MJ
    Arch Sex Behav; 2007 Jun; 36(3):369-75. PubMed ID: 17136587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Local and global processing: observations from a remote culture.
    Davidoff J; Fonteneau E; Fagot J
    Cognition; 2008 Sep; 108(3):702-9. PubMed ID: 18662813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: a New Zealand-U.S. comparative study.
    Dixson BJ; Dixson AF; Bishop PJ; Parish A
    Arch Sex Behav; 2010 Jun; 39(3):798-806. PubMed ID: 19139985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Urbanization decreases attentional engagement.
    Linnell KJ; Caparos S; de Fockert JW; Davidoff J
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2013 Oct; 39(5):1232-47. PubMed ID: 23339348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evolutionary-derived anatomical characteristics and universal attractiveness.
    Magro AM
    Percept Mot Skills; 1999 Feb; 88(1):147-66. PubMed ID: 10214640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meeting your match: how attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads.
    van Straaten I; Engels RC; Finkenauer C; Holland RW
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2009 Jun; 35(6):685-97. PubMed ID: 19336540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of attractiveness and gender on the perception of achievement-related variables.
    Chia RC; Allred LJ; Grossnickle WF; Lee GW
    J Soc Psychol; 1998 Aug; 138(4):471-7. PubMed ID: 9664863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Men's preferences for women's breast morphology in New Zealand, Samoa, and Papua New Guinea.
    Dixson BJ; Vasey PL; Sagata K; Sibanda N; Linklater WL; Dixson AF
    Arch Sex Behav; 2011 Dec; 40(6):1271-9. PubMed ID: 20862533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The cultural grounding of personal relationship: the importance of attractiveness in everyday life.
    Anderson SL; Adams G; Plaut VC
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2008 Aug; 95(2):352-68. PubMed ID: 18665707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.