Hubbry Logo
Cheerleader effectCheerleader effectMain
Open search
Cheerleader effect
Community hub
Cheerleader effect
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cheerleader effect
Cheerleader effect
Cheerleader effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Brown University cheerleaders

The cheerleader effect, also known as the group attractiveness effect or the friend effect,[1] is a proposed cognitive bias which causes people to perceive individuals as 1.5–2.0% more attractive in a group than when seen alone.[2] The first paper to report this effect was written by Drew Walker and Edward Vul, in 2013.[3]

Physical attractiveness implies individuals' preferences in a sexual selection based on the evolutionary psychology. In 1979, Donald Symons first proposed this evolutionary explanation, suggesting that the evolving physical attractiveness results from mate assessment favoring partners who exhibited signs of good health and fertility, including face averageness.[4] This preference was proved to be shared across cultures.[5] Two parts constitute physical attractiveness, and most former studies investigated underlying mechanisms leading to cheerleader effect specifically in its subset, facial attractiveness.[1][2][5] Nevertheless, a study has recognized this effect in another physical appearance indicator, human body perceptions.[6]

The effect size of the cheerleader effect is not modulated by the presentation time,[2] the number of individuals surrounding the target,[3] spatial arrangement of the faces in the group.[7] However, another study argued that the arrangement of faces in the group might influence this effect since people's central viewing tendency might affect observers to focus more on the perceived attractiveness of the middle face in the group.[8]

Findings of this effect are interdisciplinary in applications. Based on them, mate choice,[9] marketing,[10] and social media[11] tactics are designed to increase the attractiveness of a target individual or item via the help of the group.

Origin

[edit]

The phrase was coined by the fictional character Barney Stinson (Neil Patrick Harris) in "Not a Father's Day", an episode of the television series How I Met Your Mother, first aired on November 10, 2008. Barney points out to his friends a group of women that initially seem attractive, but who are all unattractive when examined individually. This point is made again by two other characters, Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor) and Robin Scherbatsky (Cobie Smulders), later in the episode, who note that some of Barney's friends also only seem attractive in a group. This occurrence may be explained by the processing of Barney's visual system, in which his brain automatically calculated a combined beauty level of that group of ladies. This overall impression then impacts his assessment of the specific female within that group, leading him to believe she is similar to the previously established better average attractiveness.[6]

Conditions for the effect to occur

[edit]
  • Bias in recalling. The cheerleader effect occurred only when participants were asked to rate the attractiveness after images were removed from their vision, suggesting that an initial perceptual encoding with the existence of photos while rated could not lead to the effect.[6]
  • Contrast effect. It was found that the cheerleader effect occurred when the target face was the most attractive face compared to other members in the group but not when it was the least attractive so that the comparison among faces is required.[1]

Studies and proposed explanations

[edit]

First study

[edit]

In 2013, the first research was reported by Drew Walker and Edward Vul.[3] Across five studies, participants rated the attractiveness of male and female faces when shown in a group photo, and an individual photo, with the order of the photographs randomised. The cheerleader effect was quantified as the difference between the attractiveness ratings assigned in the experimental condition (in a group photo) and the control (in an isolated image) condition. It was found that participants consistently rated the person as more appealing in the group photograph compared to the individual picture.

This effect occurs with male-only, female-only and mixed gender groups, and both small and large groups. In addition, the effect occurs to the same extent with various group sizes of four and 16 people. Participants in studies looked more at the attractive people than the unattractive people in the group.

Drew Walker and Edward Vul proposed that this effect arises due to the interplay of three cognitive phenomena:[3]

  1. The human visual system takes "ensemble representations" of faces in a group. This explanation was backed up by Timothy F. Brady and George A. Alvarez's findings in 2011.[12] In the study, participants were displayed with 30 sets of circles, and circles of various sizes surrounded a tested circle. When asked to determine the tested circle's size, observers' memory of its size is biased by the mean size of all circles shown to them to estimate, showing that people do not encode visual images in memory independently.
  2. Perception of individuals is biased towards this average. People's visual systems subconsciously and automatically calculate the average facial impression so that any extreme is ruled out.[13]
  3. "Attractive faces are only average."[14] Results showed that composited faces were rated as more attractive and typical without extreme features. Humans develop this preference for "prototype" face from early life since they are easily identified, and individuals could extract social information from these most facelike stimuli to aid social interaction.[15]

When all three of these phenomena are taken together, researchers proposed that the cheerleader effect results from a "hierarchical encoding" and that the hierarchical structure of visual working memory makes observers summarize the group into an ensemble average. Specifically, the individual faces will seem more attractive in a group, as they appear more similar to the average group face, which is more attractive than members' faces.[3]

Follow-up studies

[edit]

However, this causation proposal of "hierarchical encoding" was doubted by Carragher et al. in 2019, who found that this effect also occurred in contexts that "were incompatible with hierarchical encoding."[16] They then proposed another explanation: "Social inference mechanism." It implies that the social context of being surrounded by friends may elicit observers' positive inferences on the target's trait, like "friendly or likable, which causes an increase to their perceived attractiveness.[17] However, a recent study in 2021 tested this hypothesis in trustworthiness judgments. It is found that the trait inferences on one's facial trustworthiness did not experience the cheerleader effect.[18]

A 2015 study conducted by van Osch et al. confirmed the existence of the cheerleader effect obtained by Walker and Vul.[19] Based on the effect, the research team offered two other potential explanations for it:[19]

  • Selective attention to attractive group members. "People selectively attending to" and have longer fixation time on the most appealing members within a group so that they tend to make group rating based on "an average of the ratings of the most attractive group members"instead of taking every member's attractiveness within the group into account.[20]
  • The Gestalt principle of similarity. It suggests that an initial perception of people's attractiveness is towards a group with a similar attractiveness degree as a whole, followed by the perception of its individual member's.

They claim that selective attention fits with the gathered data better.[19] The explanation based on the Gestalt psychology was objected to in this study since researchers found that the effect only occur in the group with large variation in attractiveness. This finding thus was inconsistent with this principle of perceiving similar attractive people as a group to evaluate.

Replication failure

[edit]

A 2015 replication of Walker and Vul's study failed to show any significant results for the group attractiveness effect. The research team hypothesized potential reasons for this. Firstly, this may be due to cultural differences, since the replication study was performed in Japan.[21] Secondly, the effect size was affected by the variation in the composition of members in a group. Researchers suggested that the cheerleader effect was less likely to occur for people with the similar attractiveness level in a group since the selection attention would not happen to bias participants' memory towards a higher attractiveness average.[19]

Applications

[edit]
  • Marketing strategy. This effect was also found in non-human group images[16] so its application in consumer behaviors was investigated. For example, many firms employ product bundling by utilizing customers' psychology of integrating assessments of individual products within a package to create an overall evaluation of the entire package to strengthen the competitiveness of their target products in the market.[10]
  • Dating strategy. Having friends to accompany with or displaying profile photos in a crowd, particularly "being surrounded by unattractive friends may help" to improve perceived attractiveness due to this effect.[1]

Criticisms and prospects

[edit]

It is argued that the perception of facial attractiveness may be influenced by the race information in the stimulus face.[22] The future study could display participants with diverse races of faces like mixed-raced composites to test this race effect.

In addition, repeated exposure to moderately attractive faces is found to reward the emotional system, and it is positively correlated to the perceived attractiveness.[23] Therefore, watching the target faces twice in a repeated measures design may contribute to observers' ratings of better attractiveness, regardless of the contribution of the cheerleader effect.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cheerleader effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The cheerleader effect, also known as the group attractiveness effect, is a in whereby individuals are rated as more physically attractive when observed as part of a group than when viewed in isolation. This phenomenon gained popular attention through the character in the television series , who coined the term in a 2008 episode to describe how women in groups appear more appealing due to an averaging of features. Empirical validation came from a study by psychologists Drew Walker and Edward Vul, published in Psychological Science, which conducted experiments showing that participants consistently rated both real and morphed faces as more attractive in group settings, attributing the effect to hierarchical encoding in visual processing where individual faces are mentally averaged toward a group prototype that aligns with attractiveness preferences. Subsequent has refined the underlying mechanisms, with a study extending the effect to bodily attractiveness and concluding it stems from a in representation rather than initial perceptual encoding. For instance, a 2021 investigation in demonstrated that switching from individual to group evaluation modes enhances perceived attractiveness by promoting ensemble averaging of facial features. More recent work, including a 2024 study in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology that found no moderating role for face familiarity on the effect, and a 2025 study in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology that showed the effect is modulated by pre-cue durations of 772.78–1077.18 ms with perceptual overestimation occurring before cue appearance, reinforcing its robustness across viewing contexts. These findings highlight the cheerleader effect's implications for , particularly in how influence interpersonal judgments of appeal.

Overview

Definition

The cheerleader effect is a perceptual phenomenon in which individuals, particularly their faces, are judged as more attractive when presented as part of a group compared to when viewed in isolation. This effect arises from the visual system's tendency to facial features across group members, leading to an ensemble representation that enhances perceived appeal for each individual. The term "cheerleader effect" was coined in 2013 by psychologists Drew Walker and Edward Vul to describe this bias, drawing inspiration from a concept popularized in the television series , where it was first referenced in a 2008 episode as a humorous observation about group attractiveness. In basic demonstrations, ratings of an individual's attractiveness typically increase by about 1.5–2% when the face is embedded in a group of similarly attractive others, compared to solo presentation. This group-based enhancement distinguishes the cheerleader effect from related psychological biases, such as the (which involves increased liking through repeated viewing) or the (where one positive trait influences overall perception), as it specifically depends on the simultaneous presentation within a collective.

Origin

The cheerleader effect first entered through a comedic explanation in the television How I Met Your Mother. In season 4, episode 7, titled "Not a Father's Day" and aired on November 17, 2008, the character , played by , describes the effect to his friends, noting that individuals in a group—such as cheerleaders—appear more attractive collectively than when viewed alone, attributing this to a perceptual bias rather than individual merits. Before its scientific formalization, informal observations of related attractiveness biases appeared in social psychology literature as early as the 1970s, often in the context of how physical appearance influences group perceptions and social s. Seminal work, such as Dion, Berscheid, and Walster's 1972 study on the "what is beautiful is good" , demonstrated that attractive individuals are attributed more positive traits, providing a foundational understanding of attractiveness heuristics in social settings, though without explicit emphasis on . This line of inquiry evolved in the with research showing that averaged facial composites are rated as more attractive than individual faces, suggesting perceptual mechanisms that could underpin group-based enhancements in perceived appeal. The phenomenon received its first rigorous empirical investigation and official naming in 2013 by psychologists Drew Walker and Edward Vul at the . Their study, published in Psychological Science, confirmed the effect through controlled experiments and proposed a cognitive explanation rooted in the visual system's tendency to encode group averages, which individual perceptions toward greater attractiveness. This progression—from a lighthearted television trope in 2008 to a documented psychological in peer-reviewed research by 2013—highlights the cheerleader effect's rapid shift from cultural to established scientific concept.

Empirical Research

Initial Studies

The initial empirical evidence for the cheerleader effect came from five experiments conducted by Drew Walker and Edward Vul in , involving a total of 139 participants who rated the attractiveness of real photographs of faces presented either individually or embedded within groups. In Experiments 1 and 2, the researchers used group photographs of three same-gender individuals, cropping faces to create isolated portraits (female faces in Experiment 1, male in Experiment 2). Participants viewed these alone or in their original groups of three, rating each on a continuous scale from unattractive to attractive. The results showed a consistent increase in perceived attractiveness when faces were presented in groups compared to isolation, with the effect holding regardless of whether raters evaluated same-sex or opposite-sex faces. Faces were rated approximately 5-6% of a standard deviation more attractive in groups (e.g., t(24)=2.53, p=.018 in Experiment 1; t(17)=2.52, p=.022 in Experiment 2), demonstrating a small but statistically significant enhancement. Experiment 3 replicated this with the same stimuli but adjusted presentation timing (1.33 seconds per face), yielding a similar 6.8% SD increase (t(19)=2.50, p=.022). Experiment 4 tested generalizability with 77 unique faces presented alone or in arranged groups of 4, 9, or 16, confirming across group sizes (ts > 3.23, ps < .001), with no significant variation beyond groups of four. Experiment 5 examined robustness to image quality using blurred () and unblurred group photos of three faces, finding persisted (F(1,152)=9.0, p<.01) without interaction with blurring (F(1,152)=0.106, p=.75). Overall, these studies established the cheerleader effect as a replicable perceptual , with effect sizes indicating moderate shifts (Cohen's d ≈ 0.5).

Replication and Follow-up

Following the initial 2013 study by Walker and Vul, several attempts to replicate and extend the cheerleader effect emerged between 2014 and 2020, yielding mixed results that highlighted both robustness and boundary conditions. In 2015, Ojiro et al. conducted two direct replications of Experiment 4 from the original study using static facial images, confirming a small cheerleader effect in the second experiment (η_p² = 0.017) but failing to find a significant effect in the first (η_p² = 0.001), suggesting variability depending on stimulus familiarity and participant demographics. This partial success indicated smaller effect sizes than the original (η_p² = 0.197), potentially due to cultural differences in face processing among Japanese participants. A study by and Niedopytalski extended to temporal contexts, examining how attractiveness judgments change when target faces are surrounded by varying levels of attractive or unattractive faces over time rather than simultaneously. The results showed that temporal grouping produced an opposite pattern to static groups, with targets rated less attractive when following less attractive faces, implying that allocation during sequential processing modulates rather than holistic ensemble averaging. This follow-up underscored the role of attentional dynamics in group , challenging the purely perceptual basis proposed originally. In 2018, Yao and Kingstone tested whether visuospatial biases—such as leftward —altered the effect in groups of three faces arranged horizontally, using a sample of 110 participants rating real photographs. The cheerleader effect persisted across arrangements (average d ≈ 0.5), but was not modulated by spatial position, demonstrating robustness to layout variations while suggesting the phenomenon operates independently of low-level visual asymmetries. A 2019 study by McDowell and Starratt, involving 63 participants rating attractiveness and romantic value, confirmed the effect primarily for female targets (with boosts in ratings when groups included highly attractive members and targets exceeded a moderate baseline attractiveness threshold) and mixed-gender partner evaluations. These findings pointed to conditional dependencies on group composition, limiting the effect's generality. Challenges arose in studies probing perceptual versus memorial stages, as in the 2019 work by Carragher et al., which used immediate versus delayed ratings of faces in lab settings. The cheerleader effect emerged in both immediate perceptual judgments and memory-based ratings (d ≈ 0.45-0.89 across conditions), with no significant difference between timing conditions, indicating robustness across encoding stages. Across these mid-decade studies, the average attractiveness boost hovered around 1.5%, with high variability (Cohen's d from 0.2 to 0.9) tied to stimulus type—stronger for static images than dynamic or temporal sequences—and rater-target matches.

Recent Developments

In 2021, researchers demonstrated that a shift in evaluation mode from individual assessment to group averaging can produce the cheerleader effect, even in the absence of contrast between target and flanking faces. In an experiment with 586 participants rating low-attractiveness faces, those presented alone were rated lower (M = 39.10, SD = 4.69) than when embedded in a group of similarly low-attractiveness faces (M = 45.48, SD = 4.84), with a significant difference, t(22) = 9.64, p < 0.001. A study examined whether face familiarity moderates the cheerleader effect, using two experiments with a total of 141 participants who rated attractiveness of familiar (self-generated) and novel faces presented alone or in groups. Results confirmed the effect across conditions—increased attractiveness in groups—but familiarity enhanced overall ratings without altering the effect's magnitude, as interaction terms were near zero (Experiment 1: b = 0.02, SE = 0.04; Experiment 2: b = -0.01, SE = 0.04). Research in 2025 explored the temporal dynamics of the cheerleader effect, revealing that it peaks during brief pre-cue observation periods of 500-1000 ms in group presentations, after which the effect diminishes with longer exposure. This pattern, observed across manipulated timing conditions, aligns with ensemble processing models where rapid averaging of group features occurs before detailed . The effect remained stable post-cue, unaffected by extended viewing.

Explanations and Mechanisms

Cognitive Theories

The ensemble coding theory posits that the rapidly extracts from groups of similar objects, including faces, by averaging their features into a holistic representation. This process, demonstrated in studies on facial emotions, allows observers to perceive the emotionality of a set of 4 to 16 faces more accurately than individual details, even under brief exposure. Applied to the cheerleader effect, ensemble coding pulls the perceived features of an individual face toward the group's prototype, which tends to be more attractive due to the averaging out of idiosyncratic traits. Building on this, group context biases individual attractiveness ratings through hierarchical encoding in visual working memory, where ensemble representations form automatically and influence recall of individuals, making them appear more prototypical—and thus more attractive—than when viewed alone. Supporting experiments show this bias persists across genders and group sizes of 3–5 faces, with effect sizes around 5.6% of a standard deviation in attractiveness ratings. Subsequent research identifies dual mechanisms underlying the effect: perceptual ensemble averaging, where faces are biased toward the group mean during encoding, and a memory bias where individuals are recalled as more similar to the attractive group average. The cheerleader effect is not primarily driven by contrast with less attractive group members, as initial proposals might suggest, but by this holistic . Tests controlling for group composition reveal the effect even when the average group attractiveness matches the target's standalone rating, indicating a perceptual averaging rather than relative comparison. Additionally, diffusion contributes, as brief glances at groups (e.g., 250 ms exposures) result in shallower processing of individuals compared to isolated scrutiny, further inflating group-context ratings by reducing critical evaluation.

Influencing Factors

The cheerleader effect varies in strength depending on group composition, with the phenomenon being most pronounced when the group features faces of homogeneous attractiveness levels. For instance, less attractive faces rated higher when presented with similarly low-attractiveness companions compared to isolation, demonstrating a robust boost in perceived appeal under matched conditions. However, the effect diminishes or shifts when the group includes highly unattractive faces, as this contrast primarily benefits attractive targets while potentially undercutting the overall group averaging process. Observer characteristics influence the magnitude of the effect. Contextual factors further shape the effect, including observation duration, which peaks around 500 ms per a 2025 investigation into temporal dynamics, as shorter exposures enhance reliance on group statistics before detailed individual processing dominates. Group size contributes as well, with the effect emerging reliably in small groups of 3–5 members. Boundary conditions highlight limitations, as face familiarity does not moderate the effect according to a 2024 study, where recognition does not override group-based averaging. Similarly, the reduces in high-attention tasks that direct focus to specific targets, minimizing holistic ensemble encoding.

Applications

Psychological Contexts

In , the cheerleader effect contributes to understanding in scenarios, where it enhances perceived group cohesion by making individual members appear more attractive within a collective context. has shown that this influences mate selection biases, as individuals are rated higher in terms of romantic partner value when presented in groups compared to isolation. For example, both men and women were perceived as more desirable romantic partners in group settings, suggesting the effect promotes social bonding and preferential attention to group-affiliated individuals during initial attraction phases. The effect also intersects with self-perception, where individuals tend to evaluate their own attractiveness more favorably when embedded in group photos rather than solo images, which can positively influence levels. This dynamic has been noted in extensions of foundational research on group attractiveness, highlighting how contextual presentation alters personal self-assessments and potentially mitigates negative self-views in social situations.

Marketing and Social Contexts

In marketing, the cheerleader effect has been applied to product presentation strategies, where items displayed in groups are perceived as more appealing than when shown individually. For instance, e-commerce platforms leverage this by bundling or skincare products in "frequently bought together" sections, enhancing overall desirability through associative enhancement and reducing buyer . This approach draws from cognitive biases observed in human attractiveness studies, where grouping leads to higher perceived value, as seen in examples like Nykaa's skincare routines or Apple's accessory bundles with iPhones. On , the effect influences profile picture choices, with users appearing more attractive in group photos compared to solo shots, particularly when flanked by others of equal or lesser attractiveness. A 2021 analysis highlighted its relevance for platforms like or , where such images create positive first impressions and signal sociability. This is especially optimal for dating apps like , where including labeled group photos can boost perceived appeal without confusing viewers. While direct engagement metrics vary, the underlying attractiveness increase aligns with empirical findings in group contexts. In event planning, organizers encourage group photos at parties or social gatherings to capitalize on , making attendees appear more attractive in shared images that circulate afterward. Studies suggest optimal group sizes of around four for maximum impact, as larger ensembles promote ensemble averaging that smooths individual features. This tactic not only enhances personal perceptions but also fosters a more vibrant event atmosphere through collective appeal. Broader , such as those in bars and nightclubs, illustrate in real-time crowds, where individuals seem more attractive amid groups due to contextual averaging and social signaling. This phenomenon explains why people in bustling venues often receive heightened positive compared to isolated settings, reinforcing group-based perceptions of allure.

Criticisms and Future Directions

Key Criticisms

The cheerleader effect has encountered mixed results in replication efforts within the broader context of the in , with some studies supporting the original findings reported by Walker and Vul in 2013 while others failing to reproduce them. A direct replication attempt in by Ojiro et al. (2015) yielded null results. Van Osch et al. (2015) provided evidence for a related group attractiveness effect, where groups are rated more attractive than the average of their members, but did not directly test individual attractiveness ratings in group versus isolation contexts. In contrast, studies such as McDowell and Starratt (2019) successfully replicated the effect and extended it to romantic partner value ratings. These inconsistencies are often attributed to the phenomenon's small , typically a 1.5–2.0% increase in attractiveness ratings, which can be difficult to detect in underpowered samples, alongside potential that favors significant positive results over null findings. Methodological critiques highlight the overreliance on artificial laboratory stimuli, such as static photographs of faces presented on screens, which limits the of results in naturalistic social environments involving movement, context, and prolonged interactions. For instance, experiments typically involve brief exposures to isolated or grouped images without capturing real-world variables like or environmental cues, potentially inflating the effect in controlled settings while underestimating its absence in everyday scenarios. The research base exhibits a , with the vast majority of studies drawing from Western, predominantly participant samples, raising questions about generalizability. A direct replication attempt in by Ojiro et al. (2015) yielded null results, possibly due to cultural differences in group perception or attractiveness standards, an area that remained largely unexplored until investigations in non-Western contexts, such as a 2020 study in . Popular media coverage has overhyped the cheerleader effect, often framing the modest perceptual boost—popularized through references in shows like —as a profound transformation in social attractiveness, while overlooking null findings, including a 2024 study showing no modulation by face familiarity. This exaggeration can mislead public understanding of the effect's limited magnitude. Ethical concerns also arise from its potential exploitation in manipulative , where grouping products or endorsers artificially enhances appeal to influence consumer decisions without transparent disclosure.

Prospects for Research

Research on the cheerleader effect continues to identify opportunities for deeper investigation into its underlying mechanisms and broader implications. One promising avenue involves techniques, such as fMRI, to precisely localize ensemble coding processes in the , where prior studies have demonstrated neural representations of facial ensemble statistics in occipital and temporal regions. Such work could elucidate how group contexts modulate attractiveness perceptions at a neural level, with initial applications anticipated in studies post-2025. Expanding examinations represents a critical priority, particularly in non-Western samples, to evaluate the effect's universality beyond predominantly Western datasets. A confirmative study in has replicated the phenomenon, indicating its presence in East Asian contexts, yet further testing in diverse cultural settings is needed to determine if social norms or perceptual biases vary globally. Technological integrations offer scalable methods for probing the effect in more naturalistic scenarios. (VR) and (AR) environments could simulate immersive group interactions, enhancing over static image presentations, while AI-generated faces enable large-scale parametric testing of group compositions and attractiveness gradients. These approaches build on ensemble coding research, potentially revealing dynamic influences like temporal processing gaps identified in recent developments. Interdisciplinary connections are emerging, linking the cheerleader effect to challenges in AI systems for facial recognition and social robotics. Understanding group-based attractiveness biases could inform algorithms to mitigate errors in ensemble-like processing of faces, ensuring fairer evaluations in machine learning models trained on human perceptual data. A 2025 study further extended the effect beyond attractiveness to personality judgments, finding that less attractive background faces enhance positive perceptions of target faces' traits such as trustworthiness and intelligence. Longitudinal studies remain underexplored, particularly regarding repeated group exposure and potential effects on attractiveness judgments. Such designs could track how sustained social contexts alter perceptions over time, addressing real-world implications for interpersonal dynamics and extending beyond cross-sectional paradigms.

References

  1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797613497969
  2. https://theconversation.com/yes-the-cheerleader-effect-is-real-and-you-can-make-it-work-in-your-favour-92501
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33174508/
  4. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607448/full
  5. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506285.2024.2405700
  6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104758
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45789-6
  8. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256189/
  9. http://www.evullab.org/pdf/WalkerVul-PS-2013.pdf
  10. https://www.tqmp.org/ReplicationStudies/vol11-2/r008/r008.pdf
  11. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zx573f9
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20784-5
  13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.004
  14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2405700
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103125000393
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2696629/
  17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613497969
  18. https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2142960
  19. https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2700317
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919302831
  21. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stretching-theory/202001/harness-the-cheerleader-effect-to-boost-self-esteem
  22. https://www.renascence.io/journal/cheerleader-effect-objects-appearing-more-attractive-in-groups
  23. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cheerleader-effect-marketing-why-grouped-eohbe
  24. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychology-and-marketing/202110/using-the-cheerleader-effect-shine-social-media
  25. https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/nov/05/cheerleader-effect-group-attractive
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8107816/
  27. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/8/3/344
  28. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-cheerleader-effect/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811921009538
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7551192/
  31. https://www.psypost.org/ugly-bystanders-boost-beauty-study-finds-background-faces-shape-personality-judgments/
  32. https://scispace.com/pdf/the-cheerleader-effect-is-robust-to-experimental-n16rbph5by.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.