Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings.

Previous studies have shown that male attractiveness can be enhanced by manipulation of status through, for example, the medium of costume. The present study experimentally manipulated status by seating the same target model (male and female matched for attractiveness) expressing identical facial expressions and posture in either a 'high status' (Silver Bentley Continental GT) or a 'neutral status' (Red Ford Fiesta ST) motor-car. A between-subjects design was used whereby the above photographic images were presented to male and female participants for attractiveness rating. Results showed that the male target model was rated as significantly more attractive on a rating scale of 1-10 when presented to female participants in the high compared to the neutral status context. Males were not influenced by status manipulation, as there was no significant difference between attractiveness ratings for the female seated in the high compared to the neutral condition. It would appear that despite a noticeable increase in female ownership of prestige/luxury cars over recent years males, unlike females remain oblivious to such cues in matters pertaining to opposite-sex attraction. These findings support the results of previous status enhancement of attractiveness studies especially those espousing sex differences in mate preferences are due to sex-specific adaptations.

[1]  D. Buss,et al.  A Half Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values , 2001 .

[2]  L. Rosenfeld,et al.  Sex Differences in Desired Characteristics of Short-Term and Long-Term Relationship Partners , 2000 .

[3]  Todd K. Shackelford,et al.  Universal dimensions of human mate preferences , 2005 .

[4]  J. Townsend.  What Women Want--What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and Commitment So Differently , 1998 .

[5]  J. Townsend,et al.  Sexual Attractiveness: Sex Differences in Assessment and Criteria , 1998 .

[6]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  La Cerra,et al.  Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man's willingness to invest in offspring. , 1995 .

[8]  Vladas Griskevicius,et al.  Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: when romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Karl Grammer,et al.  Human courtship behaviour: biological basis and cognitive processing , 1998 .

[10]  John B. Nezlek,et al.  Physical attractiveness in social interaction. , 1980 .

[11]  J. Townsend,et al.  Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students , 1993 .

[12]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Revisited : Do People Know What They Initially Desire in a Romantic Partner ? , 2008 .

[13]  N. Glenn,et al.  The Utility of Education and Attractiveness for Females' Status Attainment Through Marriage. , 1976 .

[14]  M. Hassebrauck.  THE VISUAL PROCESS METHOD : A NEW METHOD TO STUDY PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS , 1998 .

[15]  B. Todosijević,et al.  Mate Selection Criteria: A Trait Desirability Assessment Study of Sex Differences in Serbia , 2003 .

[16]  D. Singh,et al.  Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  A. Little,et al.  Social transmission of face preferences among humans , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Self-assessments and Mating Decisions How Self-assessments Can Guide Human Mating Decisions , 2022 .

[19]  G. Fletcher,et al.  Ideals in intimate relationships. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  B. A. Gladue,et al.  Gender Differences in Perception of Attractiveness of Men and Women in Bars , 1990 .

[21]  M. Gailliot,et al.  Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias , 2007 .

[22]  D. Ariely,et al.  Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value fMRI and Behavioral Evidence , 2001, Neuron.

[23]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  William G. Graziano,et al.  Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. , 1993 .

[25]  Gad Saad,et al.  The evolutionary bases of consumption , 2007 .

[26]  Glenn Geher,et al.  Mating Intelligence : Sex, Relationships, and the Mind's Reproductive System , 2007 .

[27]  J. Townsend,et al.  Mate selection criteria. A pilot study , 1989 .

[28]  R. Meldola.  Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.

[29]  E. Hickling,et al.  Attractiveness and Occupational Status , 1979 .

[30]  J. Townsend,et al.  Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection , 1990, Archives of sexual behavior.

[31]  Gary D. Levy,et al.  Effects of Potential Partners' Costume and Physical Attractiveness on Sexuality and Partner Selection , 1990 .

[32]  M. Wiederman.  Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements , 1993 .

[33]  E. Sadalla,et al.  Dominance and heterosexual attraction , 1987 .

[34]  E. Hill,et al.  Physical attractiveness: Manipulation by physique and status displays , 1987 .

[35]  M. Wiederman,et al.  Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation?☆ , 1992 .

[36]  D. Kruger.  Male Financial Consumption is Associated with Higher Mating Intentions and Mating Success , 2008 .

[37]  S. Kozieł,et al.  The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates , 2002 .

[38]  Justin H. Park,et al.  Sex-specific relationship between digit ratio (2D:4D) and romantic jealousy , 2008 .

[39]  D. Buss,et al.  Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[40]  D. Buss.  Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. , 1992 .

[41]  D. Buss,et al.  Distress about mating rivals , 2000 .

[42]  W. McGrew,et al.  Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. , 1994 .

[43]  E. Ardener,et al.  Plantation and Village in the Cameroons , 1962 .

[44]  G. Fletcher,et al.  Accuracy and bias in romantic relationships: An evolutionary and social psychological analysis: Frontiers of social psychology , 2006 .

[45]  D. Symons,et al.  Précis of The evolution of human sexuality , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[46]  L. Betzig.  Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History , 1986 .