EVP653968 1..14


Article

On the Borders of Harmful and Helpful
Beauty Biases: The Biasing Effects
of Physical Attractiveness Depend
on Sex and Ethnicity

Maria Agthe
1
, Maria Strobel

2
, Matthias Spörrle

3
, Michaela Pfundmair

4
,

and Jon K. Maner
5

Abstract
Research with European Caucasian samples demonstrates that attractiveness-based biases in social evaluation depend on the
constellation of the sex of the evaluator and the sex of the target: Whereas people generally show positive biases toward
attractive opposite-sex persons, they show less positive or even negative biases toward attractive same-sex persons. By
examining these biases both within and between different ethnicities, the current studies provide new evidence for both the
generalizability and the specificity of these attractiveness-based social perception biases. Examining within-ethnicity effects, Study
1 is the first to demonstrate that samples from diverse ethnic backgrounds parallel the finding of European Caucasian samples: The
advantageous or adverse effects of attractiveness depend on the gender constellation of the evaluator and the evaluated person.
Examining between-ethnicity effects, Study 2 found that these attractiveness-based biases emerge almost exclusively toward
targets of the evaluator’s own ethnic background; these biases were reduced or eliminated for cross-ethnicity evaluations and
interaction intentions. We discuss these findings in light of evolutionary principles and reflect on potential interactions between
culture and evolved cognitive mechanisms.

Keywords
physical attractiveness, cognitive bias, biological sex, ethnicity, social evaluation

Date received: November 15, 2015; Accepted: May 6, 2016

Imagine a manager evaluating a very attractive job applicant.

Would the candidate’s attractiveness give him or her an advan-

tage in the job selection process? Most of the extant literature

provides a clear answer to this question: Yes, it would. Attrac-

tiveness has been shown to exert powerful positive effects on

social evaluation and decision-making (Langlois et al., 2000;

Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010).

However, recent research suggests that the manager’s reac-

tion to the candidate’s attractiveness might depend on whether

or not the manager and candidate are of the same sex. Although

people tend to positively evaluate attractive members of the

opposite sex, the same does not always hold true for evalua-

tions of the same sex. Indeed, people often see attractive mem-

bers of their own sex as a threat—both to their self-esteem and

to their relationships and reproductive success (Gutierres, Ken-

rick, & Partch, 1999). From an evolutionary perspective,

attractive same-sex persons may be perceived as rivals (Bleske

& Shackelford, 2001; Buss, 1988, 1992, 1998; Maner, Gailliot,

Rouby, & Miller, 2007), so that people might sometimes react

negatively to them (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Buss, Shackelford,

1
Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich,

Germany
2 Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
3

University Seeburg Castle (USC), Seekirchen, Austria
4

Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany
5 Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Maria Agthe, Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians University of

Munich, Munich 80802, Germany.

Email: mariaagthe@lmu.de

Evolutionary Psychology
April-June 2016: 1–14
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474704916653968
evp.sagepub.com

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

mailto:mariaagthe@lmu.de
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://evp.sagepub.com


Choe, Buunk, & Dijksta, 2000; Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Vail-

lancourt, 2013). Consequently, the manager might be inclined

to derogate an attractive same-sex applicant (Agthe, Spörrle, &

Maner, 2011).

But now imagine that the attractive same-sex candidate and

the manager are of different ethnic groups. Would the manager

still derogate the attractive same-sex applicant? Or, instead,

might differences in their ethnicities change their social

schema such that the applicant is no longer perceived as a

threat? In the current article, we demonstrate that whether

someone is evaluating an individual of the same versus a dif-

ferent ethnicity plays a critical role in whether attractiveness

affects social judgment and decision-making. Examining the

moderating effects of ethnicity provides a fruitful opportunity

to investigate both the generalizability and the specificity of

attractiveness-based social evaluation biases.

Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness
on Social Evaluation

Across cultures, attractive persons receive favorable interper-

sonal evaluations (Chen, Shaffer, & Wu, 1997; Shaffer, Cre-

paz, & Sun, 2000; Wheeler & Kim, 1997). Such evaluations

reflect people’s desire to interact with good-looking persons

because they represent social opportunities (e.g., as romantic

partners; Lemay et al., 2010). From an evolutionary perspec-

tive, physical attractiveness is highly valued because it serves

as a cue to the health, level of genetic fitness, and fertility of

potential partners (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Kenrick &

Keefe, 1992; Pflüger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, &

Grammer, 2012; Rhodes, 2006). When mating goals are active,

people tend to categorize opposite-sex persons on their level of

physical attractiveness (Li & Kenrick, 2006) and react favor-

ably to good-looking persons of the other sex (Maner & Acker-

man, 2015; Maner et al., 2003).

Despite the generally positive effects of attractiveness, stud-

ies with European Caucasian samples also indicate negative

effects of being attractive. People’s preference for attractive

mates may lead them to perceive attractive same-sex persons

as intrasexual rivals, and the perception of such rivals is linked

with the activation of mate-guarding motives (Maner & Acker-

man, 2015; Maner, Miller, Moss, Leo, & Plant, 2012; Maner,

Miller, Rouby, & Gailliot, 2009). This perception of attractive

same-sex persons as potential rivals even occurs automatically

and without awareness (Buunk, Massar, & Dijkstra, 2007; Mas-

sar & Buunk, 2010), thus pointing to an adaptive sensitivity to

relevant social categories. Because attractive same-sex persons

elicit unfavorable upward social comparisons (Jones & Buck-

ingham, 2005) and serve as intrasexual rivals over relationship

opportunities (Gutierres et al., 1999), people tend to perceive

attractive same-sex individuals as threats to self-esteem (Park &

Maner, 2009) and relationships (Buss et al., 2000). Consequently,

as soon as people reach sexual maturity (Agthe, Spörrle, Frey,

Walper, & Maner, 2013), they tend to derogate (Försterling,

Preikschas, & Agthe, 2007; Vaillancourt, 2013) and avoid

(Agthe, Spörrle, & Försterling, 2008; Agthe et al., 2011) attractive

same-sex persons. In addition, women display heightened vigi-

lance to attractive intrasexual rivals during the fertile phase of

their menstrual cycle, the time during which the women’s repro-

ductive prospects are most salient (e.g., Fisher, 2004).

Negative responses to attractive same-sex persons have been

found not only in romantic contexts (Maner, Gailliot, Rouby,

Miller, et al., 2007; Maner et al., 2009) but also in organiza-

tional decision-making (Agthe, Spörrle, & Maner, 2010; Luxen

& van de Vijver, 2006; Ruffle & Shtudiner, 2014). Thus, for

European Caucasian samples confronted with same-ethnicity

targets, the nature of attractiveness biases depends on whether

one is evaluating a target of the same sex or the opposite sex.

Do Attractiveness-Based Social Evaluation Biases
Generalize to Other Ethnic Groups?

The underlying adaptive social motives these attractiveness-

based evaluation biases are designed to serve (cf. Neuberg,

Kenrick, Maner, & Schaller, 2004; Kenrick, Delton, Robertson,

Becker, & Neuberg, 2007) are relatively universal across cul-

tures and ethnicities (Buss, 1989): Despite cultural differences

in the importance of attractiveness (Anderson, Adams, & Plaut,

2008), persons from different cultures still regard attractiveness

as a valuable criterion for mate choice (Buss, 1989; Chang,

Wang, Shackelford, & Buss, 2011; Kamble, Shackelford,

Pham, & Buss, 2014), so that across cultures, attractive

opposite-sex persons tend to receive favorable social evalua-

tions (Langlois et al., 2000).

However, this preference for attractive persons seems to be

limited to opposite-sex targets (Li & Zhou, 2014). In many

cultures, attractive same-sex targets are regarded with jealousy

(Buss et al., 2000; Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002). Hence, it is likely

that also in non-European Caucasian samples, people will per-

ceive highly attractive members of their own sex and ethnicity

as a threat and, consequently, will respond negatively toward

them (e.g., derogate them). Thus, we predicted that, across

different ethnicities, participants would positively evaluate

attractive opposite-sex targets, but negatively evaluate attrac-

tive same-sex targets. We test this hypothesis in Study 1.

Do Attractiveness-Based Biases Generalize
to Between-Ethnicity Evaluations?

Even though persons from different ethnicities and cultures

tend to generally agree on whom they consider attractive (Coet-

zee, Greeff, Stephen, & Perrett, 2014; Cunningham, Roberts,

Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995; Rhodes, 2006; Rhodes et al.,

2001; Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993), we predict that

attractiveness-based biases will be reduced or even eliminated

for between-ethnicity evaluations. That is, although an individ-

ual may respond in a biased way to attractive members of their

own ethnicity, such biases may not be as strong when members

of a different ethnicity are evaluated.

There are three (not mutually exclusive) reasons for this

prediction: First, members of other ethnic groups may be rel-

atively less likely than same-ethnicity targets to be seen as

2 Evolutionary Psychology



potential mates and romantic rivals (e.g., Eastwick, Richeson,

Son, & Finkel, 2009; Feliciano, Robnett, & Komaie, 2009;

McClintock, 2010). For instance, Stephen et al. (2012) found

that people’s ability to judge health cues (like natural skin color

variation) for other-ethnicity targets is rather limited (com-

pared with same-ethnicity targets). Thus, people might be more

sensitive to mating-related cues in targets who share their own

ethnicity. This might partially result from socialization, such as

the perception that family acceptance for a partner of another

ethnicity would be rather low (Mills, Daly, Longmore, & Kil-

bride, 1995; Wang, Kao, & Joyner, 2006). Yet, such intergroup

biases (including preferences for same-ethnicity partners) may

also be linked to adaptive motives such as greater caution and

vigilance toward (particularly male) out-group members (Maner

& Miller, 2013; Olsson, Ebert, Banaji, & Phelps, 2005). Already

young children show favorable reactions toward those who belong

to their own social category (for reviews, see Bigler & Liben,

2006; Hirschfeld, 1998; regarding ethnicity, see Aboud, 1988;

Comer, 1989), and even though explicit ethnicity-related biases

become more egalitarian across individual development, implicit

attitudes favoring the in-group remain stable (Baron & Banaji,

2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006). Although it is unlikely

that people have evolved to categorize others into racial or ethnic

categories (see Cosmides, Tooby, & Kurzban, 2003), race and

ethnicity serve as important group markers in modern cultural

contexts. Accordingly, some studies find evidence for a potential

(though not always strong and completely consistent) own-race

preference in attractiveness judgments (Burke, Nolan, Hayward,

Russell, & Sulikowski, 2013; Rhodes et al., 2001, 2005).

Second, a key feature of whether a target person is perceived

as a potential mating rival involves the perceived likelihood

that a potential mate (whom oneself desires) would be inter-

ested in the target person. Given that people typically prefer to

date and mate within ethnicity (e.g., Hitsch, Hortaçsu, &

Ariely, 2010; Lin & Lundquist, 2013; Robnett & Feliciano,

2011), one might perceive a relatively lower likelihood that a

potential (or current) mate would view members of other eth-

nicities as desirable partners. That is, one might be relatively

less likely to see same-sex members of other ethnicities (versus

the same ethnicity) as rivals because they are less likely to be

viewed as desirable by one’s own romantic interests.

Third, other-ethnicity targets might be perceived as rela-

tively less relevant for appearance-based social comparison

because they appear to be less similar to the evaluator and are,

thus, less likely to elicit self-other comparison (Tesser, 1988;

Major, Testa, & Bylsma, 1991). That is, other-ethnicity targets

are less likely to pose a threat to one’s self-esteem and to be

perceived as a potential object of social comparison. Accord-

ingly, attractiveness-based biases are hypothesized to be stron-

ger for targets of one’s own ethnicity than for targets of another

ethnicity. We test this hypothesis in Study 2.

Overview of the Current Research

Across cultures, adaptive mating-related motives may guide

social perception (e.g., for Caucasian samples, see Maner,

Gailliot, Rouby, Miller, et al., 2007, and for Asian samples,

see Li et al., 2015). Given that the social motives underlying

attractiveness-based biases (e.g., mating, social comparison)

are presumed to be relatively universal, we hypothesize that

those biases will generalize to other-ethnicity samples evaluat-

ing targets of their own ethnic background (Study 1). With

regard to between-group effects, we hypothesize that European

Caucasians will display larger evaluative biases when judging

members of their own ethnicity than members of other ethni-

cities (Study 2).

Study 1

Study 1 tests the hypothesis that, across samples from diverse

non-Caucasian ethnic backgrounds (i.e., Asia [AS], Middle

East [ME], Latin America [LA]), people will evaluate attrac-

tive same- and opposite-sex targets of their own ethnicity in

biased ways (i.e., attractiveness will have a positive influence

for opposite-sex constellations, and a negative influence for

same-sex constellations). That is, paralleling the findings of

Caucasian samples these biases should generalize to the

within-ethnicity evaluations of non-Caucasian samples and

be reflected in attributions as well as social interaction

intentions.

Materials and Method

Participants

International students from LA (n ¼ 207), the ME (n ¼ 181),
and AS (n ¼ 195) staying at German language schools and
universities for language courses participated in our study.

Their mean age was 25.01 years (SD ¼ 6.56). All participants
had advanced German-language skills.

Design and Procedure

For each ethnic group (i.e., LA, ME, AS), Study 1 employed a 2

(participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target attractiveness;
highly attractive versus less attractive) between-subjects

design.

Similar to prior studies (Agthe et al., 2008; Försterling et al.,

2007), participants received a scenario describing the occupa-

tional history and success of a target person. It contained edu-

cational (e.g., education in home country), occupational (e.g.,

employed as a doctor in Germany), and social (e.g., family)

background information about the target and highlighted the

target’s early career success. This information was constant

across all experimental conditions. In addition, the materials

included a passport-sized black and white facial photograph of

the target, which portrayed a male or female, highly attractive

or less attractive person of each of the three different ethnic

groups. Photographs were prerated and selected for higher and

lower attractiveness in an independent pretest: Across ethnici-

ties, attractive targets were between 7.00 and 9.00 and less

attractive targets were between 2.00 and 4.00 on a 10-point

rating scale. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the

Agthe et al. 3



four experimental conditions; all targets matched participants’

ethnic groups (i.e., each participant only saw a stimulus person

of his or her own ethnicity). After reading the scenario, parti-

cipants responded to measures of social evaluation and desire

for social interaction as well as a manipulation check. The

methods of both studies were evaluated and approved by a

university research ethics committee.

Measures

Explicit measures of social evaluation can elicit social desir-

ability effects and other response biases. Thus, instead of ask-

ing people to explicitly evaluate each target, we used a more

implicit attributional measure used in previous research to tap

underlying biases in social judgment (Agthe et al., 2008; För-

sterling et al., 2007). Using 2 items (from 1 ¼ not important to
10 ¼ very important), participants attributed the target’s early
career success to ability as well as to luck. As in previous

research, the difference score between these 2 items served

as dependent variable reflecting the extent to which partici-

pants attributed the target’s successes to internal versus exter-

nal causes. Previous studies (Agthe et al., 2008; Försterling

et al., 2007) have shown that positive social evaluations foster

internal attributions of success (i.e., to ability), whereas nega-

tive evaluations promote external attributions (i.e., to luck).

Subsequently, participants provided measures of their desire

for social interaction with the target: Participants reported the

degree to which they would like to (a) work with the candidate

and (b) become friends with the candidate (1 ¼ not at all, 10 ¼
very much). The two variables were highly correlated (.60 � r
� .75 for the three samples) and were averaged to create a
composite measure of desire for social interaction. As manip-

ulation check, participants rated the target’s attractiveness from

1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive).

Results

Manipulation Check

In all three ethnic samples, the attractive targets (Moverall ¼
7.18, SD ¼ 1.97) were perceived as better looking than the less
attractive targets (Moverall ¼ 5.39, SD ¼ 2.17), ps < .005,
ds > .45.

Evaluative Attributions

First, we examined the hypothesized Participant Sex � Target
Sex � Target Attractiveness three-way interaction. As we
detected no significant influence of ethnicity on this interaction

(i.e., the four-way interaction was not significant, p > .40),

aggregating across ethnicities in order to develop an overall

impression of the data seems justified.

A 2 (participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target attractive-
ness) analysis of variance confirmed the hypothesized three-

way interaction, F(1, 573) ¼ 34.34, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .06 (no
further main or interaction effects reached significance; for

overall mean values, see bottom of Table 1). In order to eluci-

date this three-way interaction, we decomposed it into two

separate lower order two-way interactions for the two sexes

of the respondents. These interactions were analyzed by means

of simple main effects. We confirmed Target Sex � Target
Attractiveness interactions for female participants, F(1, 306)

¼ 31.32, p < .001, and male participants, F(1, 267) ¼ 8.07, p <
.005. Women provided less positive attributions for attractive

female targets compared with less attractive female targets, p <

.001, but provided more positive attributions for attractive male

targets compared with less attractive male targets, p < .001.

Male participants only tended to prefer less attractive males

compared to attractive males, but this tendency did not reach

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations (in Brackets) of Evaluative Attributions Across Ethnicities (Study 1).

Sex of Target

Male Female

Attractiveness of Target Attractiveness of Target

Ethnicity and Sex of Participants Low High Low High

Latin American participants
Male participants 2.57a (2.27) 0.42b (2.96) 1.05 (2.80) 2.10 (2.79)
Female participants 1.80 (2.31) 2.31 (2.51) 3.45

a
(2.11) 0.49

b
(3.17)

Asian participants
Male participants 1.23 (2.30) 0.33 (3.29) 0.96 (2.75) 1.78 (3.32)
Female participants 0.02 (2.48) 1.10 (2.61) 1.87 (2.53) 1.05 (2.72)

Middle East participants
Male participants 0.80 (2.71) 2.26 (2.61) 0.45a (3.19) 3.05b (3.75)
Female participants �0.25a (2.63) 2.68b (3.36) 1.85 (3.15) 0.52 (2.87)

All participants
Male participants 1.52 (2.49) 0.92 (3.08) 0.83

a
(2.88) 2.27

b
(3.29)

Female participants 0.45a (2.59) 2.15b (2.93) 2.50a (2.65) 0.63b (2.96)

Note. Within each row and sex constellation of target and participant, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05 (based on independent t-tests). Higher
means indicate more positive attributions.

4 Evolutionary Psychology



significance, p ¼ .22. However, they provided more positive
attributions for attractive females than for less attractive

females, p < .01. These findings provide first evidence that the

recently described three-way interaction between respondent

sex, target sex, and target attractiveness found for European

Caucasian samples generalizes to non-Caucasian samples.

Even though we detected no significant influence of ethni-

city on the three-way interaction (see above), we conducted

exploratory analyses for each ethnic group (i.e., LA, AS, and

ME) to confirm that the expected pattern was present in each of

the three ethnicities (see Table 1). For all three ethnicities, we

detected the hypothesized three-way interaction, Fs > 5.00, ps

< .05, which predominantly (i.e., in 11 of 3 [ethnicity] � 4
[respondent sex-target sex constellation)] ¼ 12 conditions) was
in line with the hypothesized response pattern (i.e., more pos-

itive evaluations for attractive targets in opposite-sex constel-

lations and more negative evaluations for attractive targets in

same-sex constellations, Table 1). The only exception was for

males from the ME who unexpectedly tended to show a (insig-

nificant) preference for attractive male targets, p ¼ .08.

Desire for Social Interaction

As before, we examined the hypothesized Participant Sex �
Target Sex � Target Attractiveness three-way interaction.
Because we again detected no significant influence of ethnicity

on this interaction (i.e., the four-way interaction was not sig-

nificant, p > .15), we aggregated data across ethnicities.

A 2 (participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target attractive-
ness) analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for

participant sex, p < .05, as well as target sex, p < .05, indicating

overall higher desire for social interaction intentions for female

(compared to male) participants and concerning male (compared

to female) targets. More importantly, these lower order effects

were qualified by the hypothesized three-way interaction, F(1,

574) ¼ 35.06, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .06 (for overall mean values, see
bottom of Table 2). In order to elucidate this interaction, we

followed the same analytical approach as before: Lower order

two-way interactions confirmed Target Sex � Target Attractive-
ness interactions for female participants, F(1, 306) ¼ 15.34, p <
.001, and male participants, F(1, 268) ¼ 19.38, p < .001. Women
expressed less desire to interact with attractive female targets

compared to less attractive female targets, p < .005, but greater

desire to interact with attractive male targets compared to less

attractive male targets, p < .05. Similarly, male participants were

less inclined to interact with attractive male targets compared to

less attractive male targets, p < .005, whereas they expressed an

increased desire to interact with attractive females compared to

less attractive females, p < .005.

Even though we did not detect a four-way interaction (i.e.,

no effect of the ethnicities on the three-way interaction), we

analyzed the three non-Caucasian samples separately. The

hypothesized three-way interaction was (marginally) signifi-

cant for each of the ethnic samples: LA, F(1, 199) ¼ 18.55,
p < .001; AS, F(1, 186) ¼ 3.46, p ¼ .06; and ME, F(1, 173) ¼
17.23, p < .001. In each case, the pattern was completely in line

with the hypothesized response pattern (i.e., more positive eva-

luations for attractive targets in opposite-sex constellations and

more negative evaluations for attractive targets in same-sex

constellations, see Table 2).

Discussion

Findings from Study 1 provide some of the first empirical sup-

port for the hypothesis that attractiveness-based biases in social

evaluation (which operate in opposite directions depending on

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations (in Brackets) of Desire for Social Interaction Across Ethnicities (Study 1).

Sex of Target

Male Female

Attractiveness of Target Attractiveness of Target

Ethnicity and Sex of Participants Low High Low High

Latin American participants
Male participants 8.40a (1.39) 6.27b (1.92) 5.98 (2.10) 7.05 (2.00)
Female participants 7.80 (1.90) 7.83 (1.68) 8.34

a
(1.45) 7.13

b
(1.92)

Asian participants
Male participants 7.19 (1.95) 6.83 (1.94) 6.91 (2.48) 7.48 (1.64)
Female participants 7.35 (1.92) 7.70 (1.71) 7.48 (1.89) 6.68 (1.66)

Middle East participants
Male participants 7.63 (2.18) 7.15 (2.24) 5.95a (2.12) 7.95b (1.58)
Female participants 6.48

a
(2.09) 8.29

b
(1.62) 6.85 (2.32) 6.20 (1.71)

All participants
Male participants 7.70

a
(1.91) 6.74

b
(2.03) 6.31

a
(2.26) 7.49

b
(1.75)

Female participants 7.23a (2.00) 7.98b (1.67) 7.65a (1.94) 6.74b (1.83)

Note. Within each row and sex constellation of target and participant, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05 (based on independent t-tests).

Agthe et al. 5



the sex constellation of respondent and target) generalize to non-

Western samples. In 23 of the 24 (¼ 4 respondent sex-target sex
combinations � 3 ethnicities � 2 depending variables) constel-
lations, individuals positively evaluated attractive members of

the opposite sex but negatively evaluated attractive (in compar-

ison to less attractive) members of their own sex. These findings

are in line with the notion that social comparison and adaptive

mating-related motives (i.e., mate search and intrasexual com-

petition)—which can be found cross-culturally—might contrib-

ute to the bias. That is, positive responses might reflect approach

motivation (toward attractive opposite-sex targets as social

opportunities; Lemay et al., 2010), whereas negative responses

might reflect avoidance motivation (away from attractive same-

sex targets as social threats; Agthe et al., 2011).

Interestingly, the biased response pattern for participants’

desire for social interaction with same-ethnicity target per-

sons was somewhat smaller in the AS sample, which hints

at potential cultural variations of the bias. For instance, this

corresponds to findings indicating that reactions toward a

partner’s imagined infidelity are somewhat less intense in

AS samples compared to Western samples (Geary, Rumsey,

Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995), which might point to lower

underlying rivalry. Yet, research with AS participants

accords with Western findings that the preference for attrac-

tive persons seems to be limited to opposite-sex targets (Li

& Zhou, 2014).

Study 2

To our knowledge, Study 1 is the first research that showed that

attractiveness-based biases which depend on the sex constella-

tion of respondent and target (i.e., consistent positive versus

rather negative effects for opposite-sex versus same-sex target

attractiveness) generalize to non-Caucasian ethnicities’ within-

group ratings. This has so far almost exclusively been docu-

mented for European Caucasian samples. Study 2 extends these

findings by addressing corresponding between-ethnicity effects

for the first time. Based on considerations that self-other com-

parison as well as mating-related motives tend to be less strong

regarding other than one’s own ethnicity, Study 2 tests the

specificity of attractiveness-based social evaluation biases.

We hypothesize that these biases would be replicated for a

Caucasian sample evaluating Caucasian targets (which would

be in line with former findings) but would be reduced or elim-

inated for Caucasian participants evaluating non-Caucasian

(i.e., African, AS, LA, ME) targets (which so far has not been

empirically examined).

Materials and Method

Participants

A total of N ¼ 2,557 German participants of Caucasian ethni-
city were recruited at several universities across Germany.

Their mean age was 22.45 years (SD ¼ 3.55).

Design and Procedure

Study 2 employed a 2 (participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2
(target attractiveness; highly attractive vs. less attractive) � 5
(target ethnicity) between-subjects design.

The procedure was identical to that used in Study 1. Target

ethnicities were: LA (n ¼ 479), ME (n ¼ 629), AS (n ¼ 469),
African (n ¼ 469), and Caucasian (n ¼ 511). However, unlike
Study 1, the Caucasian-only sample of Study 2 provided eva-

luations of targets from their own as well as from other ethni-

cities. Thus, only in the case of Caucasian targets, participant

and target were of the same ethnicity. In addition to the picture

sets of Study 1 (i.e., pictures of LA, ME, and AS stimulus

persons), pretested picture sets of African and Caucasian target

persons (according to the same selection criteria as in Study 1)

were used.

Measures

We used the same measures as in Study 1, that is, the difference

scores of attributions to ability minus attributions to luck (con-

cerning the target person’s occupational success), the 2-item

measure (r ¼ .68) of desire for social interaction with the target
person, and the manipulation check of target attractiveness.

Results

Manipulation Check

In all five target ethnicity samples, the attractive targets (Moverall
¼ 7.24, SD ¼ 1.97) were perceived as better looking than the
less attractive targets (Moverall ¼ 4.84, SD ¼ 1.97), ps < .005.
Same-ethnicity and other-ethnicity targets did not differ signif-

icantly in the attractiveness ratings they received, p > .90. Thus,

for all target ethnicities, the Caucasian participants perceived

attractive targets to be more attractive than less attractive targets.

Evaluative Attributions

We ran a 2 (participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target attrac-
tiveness) � 2 (ethnicity constellation: same [i.e., Caucasian]
versus different [i.e., all else]) analysis of variance.

As hypothesized, we detected a significant four-way inter-

action, F(1, 2541) ¼ 18.06, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .01, confirming
that the significant three-way interaction between respondent

sex, target sex, and target attractiveness, F(1, 2541) ¼ 13.70,
p < .001, Z2 ¼ .01, varied as a function of whether respon-
dents provided answers regarding their own or a different

ethnicity. To further elucidate this complex finding of a

four-way interaction, we ran separate analyses for

respondents evaluating their own ethnicity versus another

ethnicity: A 2 (participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target
attractiveness) analysis of variance confirmed the hypothe-

sized three-way interaction for European Caucasian partici-

pants evaluating Caucasian targets (i.e., targets of their own

ethnicity), F(1, 503) ¼ 22.26, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .04. In line with
Study 1 and prior research, women provided less positive

6 Evolutionary Psychology



attributions for attractive female targets compared with less

attractive female targets and tended to provide more positive

attributions for attractive male targets compared to less attrac-

tive ones. In contrast, male participants provided less positive

attributions for attractive male targets than for less attractive

male targets, whereas they tended to provide more positive

evaluations for attractive compared to less attractive female

targets (for mean values, see Table 3 bottom row). This three-

way interaction did not reach significance when participants

evaluated targets from other (i.e., non-Caucasian) ethnicities,

F(1, 2038) ¼ 0.37, p > .50.
When distinguishing between the different non-Caucasian eth-

nicities, no significant three-way interaction emerged for any of

the non-Caucasian target ethnicities either, Fs < 1.50, ps > .22.

There was neither a consistent pattern of attractive same-sex target

derogation nor systematic evidence of glorification of attractive

opposite-sex targets (for mean values, see Table 3 first four rows).

Desire for Social Interaction

In line with the previous analysis, we ran a 2 (participant sex) �
2 (target sex) � 2 (target attractiveness) � 2 (ethnicity con-
stellation) analysis of variance.

As hypothesized, we detected a significant four-way inter-

action, F(1, 2541) ¼ 16.85, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .01, confirming that
the three-way interaction between respondent sex, target sex,

and target attractiveness, F(1, 2541) ¼ 32.81, p < .001, Z2 ¼
.01, varied as a function of whether respondents provided

answers regarding their own or a different ethnicity. We again

ran separate analyses for respondents evaluating their own eth-

nicity versus another ethnicity: When examining European

Caucasian participants evaluating only Caucasian targets, a 2

(participant sex) � 2 (target sex) � 2 (target attractiveness)
analysis of variance confirmed the hypothesized three-way

interaction, F(1, 503) ¼ 31.07, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .05. Women
expressed less desire to socially interact with highly attractive

female targets compared to less attractive female targets,

whereas they indicated increased intentions to interact with

attractive male targets compared with less attractive male tar-

gets. Male participants provided less interaction intentions for

attractive male targets than for less attractive male targets,

whereas they tended to provide more desire for interaction for

attractive compared to less attractive female targets (for mean

values, see Table 4 bottom row). In line with our hypotheses

and the already confirmed four-way interaction, this three-way

interaction was not observed when respondents provided

responses regarding targets from other ethnicities, F(1, 2,038)

¼ 3.33, p ¼ .068 (for mean values, see Table 4 first four rows).
For explorative purposes, we ran separate analyses for the

different ethnicities of the targets. We detected no three-way

interaction for ME, p > .30; AS, p > .22; or African, p > .24,

ethnicities. However, we found a significant three-way inter-

action with respect to LA targets, F(1, 471) ¼ 8.27, p < .005,
Z2 ¼ .02. For LA targets, the Caucasian female participants
responded in line with how they responded to Caucasian tar-

gets; however, providing a less consistent picture, the Cauca-

sian male participants generally preferred attractive targets,

although this preference was somewhat smaller when evaluat-

ing male targets. This three-way interaction regarding LA (i.e.,

other ethnicity) targets was significantly smaller than the pre-

viously described interaction observed for Caucasian (i.e.,

same-ethnicity) targets, F(1, 974) ¼ 4.16, p < .05.

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations (in Brackets) of Evaluative Attributions Across Target Ethnicities.

Sex of Target

Male Female

Attractiveness of Target Attractiveness of Target

Ethnicity of Targets and Sex of Participants Low High Low High

Latin American targets
Male participants 1.53 (2.89) 0.98 (2.73) 2.20a (2.79) 1.10b (2.72)
Female participants 2.52 (2.31) 2.14 (2.61) 2.00 (2.42) 1.56 (2.84)

Asian targets
Male participants 2.46 (2.70) 2.29 (2.66) 1.13 (3.06) 1.61 (2.85)
Female participants 2.32 (2.53) 2.28 (2.34) 2.05 (3.03) 2.77 (3.24)

Middle East targets
Male participants 1.18 (2.19) 1.64 (2.18) 1.91 (2.53) 1.41 (2.69)
Female participants 2.49 (2.74) 2.34 (2.61) 2.42 (2.76) 2.36 (3.03)

African targets
Male participants 1.95 (2.95) 1.33 (2.78) 1.90 (2.35) 0.97 (3.30)
Female participants 2.42 (3.01) 2.60 (2.49) 2.57 (2.85) 1.98 (3.05)

Caucasian targets
Male participants 1.67a (2.90) �0.23b (2.91) 0.59 (2.33) 1.08 (3.01)
Female participants 1.12 (2.02) 1.36 (2.33) 1.69

a
(2.43) �0.01b (2.60)

Note. Within each row and sex constellation of target and participant, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05 (based on independent t-tests). Higher
means indicate more positive attributions.

Agthe et al. 7



Discussion

For European Caucasian participants, we observed an interac-

tion such that they responded in a relatively negative way to

attractive (in comparison to less attractive) same-sex targets but

in a more positive way to attractive (in comparison to less

attractive) opposite-sex targets which was consistent with

hypotheses. Moreover, as hypothesized, this biased response

pattern did not emerge for evaluations of other-ethnicity tar-

gets. The attractiveness-sex constellation had no effect on the

overall evaluations of other-ethnicity targets, thereby pointing

to the possibility that the latter might be relatively less relevant

for the respondents. This is consistent with preferences to date

same-ethnicity partners (Lin & Lundquist, 2013; Potârcă &

Mills, 2015) and findings of racial exclusion of other-

ethnicity persons in mate search by different ethnic groups

(e.g., AS, Caucasian, LA), particularly regarding the mate pre-

ferences of Whites (Herman & Campbell, 2012; Robnett &

Feliciano, 2011). Moreover, persons from an ethnic group other

than one’s own are more readily associated with the presence of

threat (compared with persons of one’s own ethnicity; Olsson

et al., 2005).

The only exception in the pattern found in this study per-

tained to responses to LA targets, such that desire for social

interaction with LA targets varied as a function of their attrac-

tiveness. These results from the Caucasian sample suggesting

that positive responses to attractive opposite-sex persons as

well as negative reactions toward attractive same-sex persons

emerged more strongly for European Caucasians and LAs than

for targets from other ethnic backgrounds fit with findings

indicating that Caucasians seem to prefer Whites and LAs as

potential partners (Feliciano et al., 2009), that mate poaching—

which might enhance the sensitivity to rivalry—is more fre-

quent in Europe and LA than in other (i.e., AS or African)

cultures (Schmitt et al., 2004), and that LA students are more

likely than other ethnic groups to date interculturally (Keels &

Harris, 2014). Moreover, regarding partner preferences, the

‘‘Latino-White boundary’’ seems to be less rigid than other

ethnic barriers: Latino Americans tend to prefer other Latinos

or Caucasians as mates (Feliciano, Lee, & Robnett, 2011). This

is in line with notions that mating rivalry is not completely

limited to one’s in-group (Klavina & Buunk, 2013). However,

the overall pattern for LA targets was not the same as that for

Caucasian targets, and the pattern did not generalize to social

evaluations. Thus, on the whole, results suggest that

attractiveness-based social evaluation biases did not generalize

to between-ethnicity contexts.

General Discussion

Physical attractiveness exerts powerful biases on social percep-

tion. Recent research suggests that the well-documented posi-

tive stereotypes about good-looking people reflect a desire for

social interaction (Lemay et al., 2010) because attractiveness

often represents the presence of desirable social opportunities.

Conversely, negative social reactions may be directed toward

attractive members of one’s own sex who are perceived as

threatening in the context of social relationships (Agthe

et al., 2011). To date, this pattern has so far been documented

almost exclusively in European Caucasian samples.

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations (in Brackets) of Desire for Social Interaction Across Target Ethnicities.

Sex of Target

Male Female

Attractiveness of Target Attractiveness of Target

Ethnicity of Targets and Sex of Participants Low High Low High

Latin American targets
Male participants 6.44 (1.54) 6.49 (1.93) 6.56 (1.68) 6.90 (1.94)
Female participants 6.59 (1.76) 6.98 (1.74) 7.58

a
(1.41) 6.43

b
(1.89)

Asian targets
Male participants 6.09 (1.68) 6.57 (1.79) 5.83 (1.86) 5.86 (1.81)
Female participants 6.48 (1.62) 6.15 (1.49) 6.24 (1.93) 6.23 (1.77)

Middle East targets
Male participants 6.24 (1.91) 6.43 (1.81) 6.00 (2.38) 6.21 (1.79)
Female participants 5.90 (2.18) 6.29 (2.02) 6.83 (1.79) 6.54 (2.21)

African targets
Male participants 6.75 (1.81) 6.78 (1.89) 6.53 (1.73) 7.14 (1.93)
Female participants 7.90 (1.41) 7.95 (1.74) 7.64 (1.47) 7.57 (1.81)

Caucasian targets
Male participants 5.62 (1.77) 5.58 (2.11) 5.34 (1.60) 5.72 (2.33)
Female participants 5.59

a
(1.81) 6.84

b
(1.92) 6.73

a
(1.47) 4.58

b
(1.89)

Note. Within each row and sex constellation of target and participant, means with different superscripts differ at p < .05 (based on independent t-tests).

8 Evolutionary Psychology



The current article contributes to the literature by demon-

strating that (a) these biases generalize to samples from other

ethnic backgrounds and (b) these biases do not apply when

people are evaluating members of an ethnicity other than their

own. The current findings thus provide new evidence for both

the generalizability and the specificity of attractiveness-based

biases in social perception.

Study 1 extends prior research by showing that

attractiveness-based social evaluation biases are not restricted

to Caucasian ethnicities from Western cultures. When evaluat-

ing members of their own ethnicity, AS, ME, and LA partici-

pants displayed positive biases toward attractive opposite-sex

persons and negative biases toward attractive same-sex per-

sons. The findings are consistent with evolutionarily inspired

research (Buss, 1989; Buss et al., 2000), emphasizing the fact

that, across many cultures, highly attractive individuals reflect

both desirable mating opportunities (opposite-sex targets) as

well as potential relationship threats (same-sex targets). Our

findings support the notion that attractiveness biases might be

based, at least in part, on universal adaptive motives linked to

mating and related social comparison processes.

It is worth noting that explanations for attractiveness-based

biases, which involve mate preferences and rivalry on the one

hand, and social comparison as well as threats to one’s self-

esteem on the other hand, are not mutually exclusive. Because

physical attractiveness represents a highly desirable criterion

for mate choice across different cultures and ethnicities (Buss,

1989), it is likely also to be relevant for social comparison and

self-esteem cross-culturally. As prior research suggests (Agthe

et al., 2011; Maner, Gailliot, Rouby, Miller, et al., 2007), social

judgment biases that emerge as a function of attractiveness are

unlikely to be caused merely by concerns associated with self-

esteem and social comparison. Rather, these processes may in

part reflect proximate manifestations of underlying adaptive

mating-related motives.

Interestingly, the attractiveness-based biases were found

both in women and men. Although women generally compete

more on the dimension of physical attractiveness than men do

(Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002; Townsend & Levy, 1990), physical

attractiveness is important for both sexes (e.g., Asendorpf,

Penke, & Back, 2011; Luo & Zhang, 2009), particularly in

young adulthood. Because women display a preference for

good-looking men (e.g., Niesta Kayser, Agthe, & Maner,

2016), physical attractiveness also represents an important

dimension of rivalry for men, although comparison dimensions

such as status and dominance gain more and more importance

for them with increasing age.

Study 2 contributes to the literature by demonstrating that

attractiveness biases are stronger when one is evaluating a mem-

ber of one’s own ethnicity than when one is evaluating a member

of a different ethnicity. European Caucasian participants showed

no significant attractiveness bias toward African, AS, or ME

targets, despite recognizing other-ethnicity targets as highly

attractive. The only exception to this pattern emerged for LA

targets: In line with the attractiveness stereotype, male and

female participants wished to have contact with attractive

opposite-sex persons. In addition, female participants preferred

to avoid attractive same-sex targets. However, these

attractiveness-based biases did not extend to social evaluations

and were significantly smaller in size compared to the biased

response pattern regarding same-ethnicity targets.

Attractiveness-based biases are presumed to be linked to

mating-related motives and related social comparison processes

(Agthe et al., 2011; Försterling et al., 2007; Luxen & van de

Vijver, 2006). Thus, although individuals certainly form and

maintain romantic relationships with members of other ethnici-

ties, the current findings are in line with evidence suggesting that

mating-related social evaluation biases may be observed most

strongly when individuals are exposed to members of their own

ethnicity (Eastwick et al., 2009; McClintock, 2010; see also

Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). Particularly regarding the

first stage of contact (i.e., when initiating romantic interest), the

degree of self-segregation is comparably higher than when reci-

procating romantic interest (Lewis, 2013), so that a preference

for persons of one’s own ethnicity may dominate mate-searching

behavior for both men and women (Lin & Lundquist, 2013).

Given that prior research has often documented negative

biases toward ethnic out-group members, it is interesting that,

in the case of attractiveness-based biases within specific sex-

constellations, being of a different ethnicity might sometimes

be beneficial. There were actually less negative reactions

toward attractive same-sex persons when the person being

evaluated was of a different ethnicity, arguably because

reduced similarity and comparability might have lessened the

perceived threat to one’s relationships and self-esteem. The

relatively smaller negative bias for out-group members can

be contrasted with the numerous studies indicating strong neg-

ative biases toward out-group members (Plant, Goplen, &

Kunstman, 2011; Trawalter, Todd, Baird, & Richeson, 2008;

Unkelbach, Forgas, & Denson, 2008). The differences in find-

ings likely derive from the fact that the types of threat denoted

by out-group members in previous studies (e.g., threat to phys-

ical safety; Maner et al., 2005) are categorically different than

the type of threat typically posed by attractive individuals (e.g.,

threats to one’s romantic relationship).

The emergence of different reactions to attractive opposite-

sex and same-sex persons between and within ethnicities is

consistent with the fundamental social motives framework

(Kenrick, Neuberg, Griskevicius, & Schaller, 2010): Due to

their centrality over the course of human evolutionary history,

motivational states associated with survival and reproductive

success are able to direct processing of social information in

order to manage the relevant benefits and costs of social life

(Kenrick, Neuberg, Griskevicius, Becker, & Schaller, 2010;

Neel, Kenrick, White, & Neuberg, 2015). Mate search and

intrasexual competition may functionally shape people’s reac-

tions to attractive other sex versus same-sex persons when the

targets appear relevant in the respective context, activating

motives designed to avoid negative outcomes by potential riv-

als and to gain access to potential mates. Accordingly, our

findings are in line with evolutionarily inspired empirical find-

ings suggesting that adaptive motives such as mate seeking,

Agthe et al. 9



mate retention, or self-protection can bias interpersonal percep-

tion of, attention to, and cognitions about individuals who dif-

fer in gender, physical attractiveness, and ethnicity (Li et al.,

2015; Maner, Gailliot, & DeWall, 2007; Maner et al., 2005;

Maner & Miller, 2013; Neuberg et al., 2004; Schaller, Park, &

Mueller, 2003). Such effects often reflect adaptive biases

meant to help individuals reap the benefits and avoid the costs

associated with social living.

One interesting question for future research pertains to

whether or not the reduced attractiveness-based biases regard-

ing out-group members might be specific for European Cauca-

sian respondents because individualistic (in comparison to

collectivist) cultures generally show less inclination to devalue

out-group members (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012).

Limitations and Future Directions

Limitations of the current research offer useful avenues for fur-

ther investigation. One limitation is that Study 1’s non-

Caucasian participants were temporarily living in Germany (for

a language course or a semester as an exchange student). Thus,

the sample is relatively selective in that it only includes people

who were able and willing to study abroad. Moreover, some

acculturation may have occurred because, by attending language

education in Germany, the other-ethnicity participants had

already been heavily exposed to the influence of Western media

and culture. Future research would benefit from examining dif-

ferent ethnic groups in their own immediate cultural context.

In Study 1, the biases were less pronounced for the AS

sample compared to the LA and the ME sample, pointing to

potential cultural differences in the strength of attractiveness-

based biases. One factor to be examined in future studies

regards the role attractiveness plays in mating choices within

traditional societies; in traditional societies, mate choice is lim-

ited by family expectations and kinship rules (Yu & Shepard,

1998), so the extent of individual choice that is allowed in

personal relationships may affect attractiveness-based biases

(Adams, Anderson, & Adonu, 2004; Anderson et al., 2008).

Therefore, differences could be expected between Western cul-

tures and more traditional cultures and societies. Besides,

social influence exerted by one’s environment and social net-

work (e.g., one’s peer group) may affect perceptions of attrac-

tiveness even in very different surroundings, economic states,

and political climates (Lehmiller, Graziano, & VanderDrift,

2014; Swami & Tovée, 2007). In addition, in organizational

contexts (which are often also influenced by culture), the

anticipated level of competition or cooperation with a new

colleague (i.e., the perceived instrumentality to oneself) may

influence whether a person’s attractiveness and/or ethnicity

(i.e., being of the same vs. another ethnic group) promotes

negative versus positive reactions (Lee, Pitesa, Pillutla, &

Thau, 2015; Lee, Pitesa, Thau, & Pillutla, 2015).

Moreover, other contextual factors like the target person’s

status and achievements (Agthe & Spörrle, 2009), as well as

individual differences like people’s social comparison orienta-

tion (Agthe, Spörrle, Frey, & Maner, 2014), their own level of

attractiveness (Agthe et al., 2010), their sexual preference (För-

sterling et al., 2007), sociosexual orientation (Simpson &

Gangestad, 1992), or partnership status and commitment

(Lydon, Fitzsimons, & Naidoo, 2003) may influence whether

positive or negative attractiveness-based biases are likely to

emerge toward an other-sex versus same-sex target person.

Considering that our hypotheses referred to heterosexual parti-

cipants, failing to measure sexual preference may have added

noise to our current data, so it is important for future research to

attend more carefully to people’s partner preference (i.e.,

whether they feel attracted to other-sex versus same-sex per-

sons). It might also be helpful to use more precise ethnic cate-

gories. For instance, people from AS are likely to differentiate

somewhat better than European Caucasians whether a stimulus

person from AS is Chinese, Japanese, or from another ASn

country, and this may affect reactions to the target. Besides,

there might be substantial variability in reaction pattern across

populations (Heinrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).

Moreover, the tendency to stereotype on the basis of appear-

ance when drawing characterological inferences may be

weaker for people from collectivistic or interdependent cul-

tures (e.g., East AS) because individuals might rely more on

group-level attributes when evaluating others (Dion, Pak, &

Dion, 1990; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997). Such

potential cultural influences on the nature of attractiveness-

based biases could be profitably addressed in future research.

Although our results fall short of identifying the specific

mechanisms underlying attractiveness biases within and

between ethnicities, previous studies provide important clues.

For instance, prior research has documented that the likelihood

to have contact with the target person (Luxen & van de Vijver,

2006) and the desire to meet him or her (Agthe et al., 2011;

Lemay et al., 2010) partly explain positive versus negative

reactions toward attractive other-sex versus same-sex persons.

Future studies investigating the potential underlying processes

for attractiveness-based biases within and between ethnicities

would move us toward a better understanding of the observed

patterns. For instance, investigations might test more directly

whether particular target persons who vary in attractiveness

elicit perceptions of threat associated with either romantic riv-

alry or social comparison. Testing potential mechanisms

should also control for participants’ sexual preference, as the

attention to the likely partner preferences might also explain

why gay or lesbian participants might not show the same reac-

tion patterns (Försterling et al., 2007).

Conclusion

The current studies are the first to show that positive (negative)

biases toward attractive opposite-sex (same-sex) persons of the

same ethnicity generalize across diverse ethnic backgrounds

(within-group effects; Study 1) but emerge almost exclusively

toward targets of the evaluator’s own ethnic background

(between-group effects; Study 2). At a broader conceptual

level, this research provides support for the notion that the

motives underlying biases in social evaluation—including

10 Evolutionary Psychology



adaptive motives associated with mating and social compari-

son—seem to be manifested in relatively universal ways across

human cultures. At the same time, findings provide evidence

for important boundary conditions in how—and toward

whom—those motives are expressed. Overall, our studies high-

light the value of attending both to fundamental social motives

shaped by natural selection as well as to possible cultural influ-

ences when exploring biases in social perception.

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues and our research assistants for their help with

the data collection. In particular, we wish to thank Rebecca Dörfler,

Katrin Zweier, Eiko Fried, Sebastian Wolf, Erik Danay, Alexandra

Müller, Christine Obel, and Martina Servaty. As well, we wish to

express our gratitude to our anonymous reviewers for their helpful

comments on a former version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York, NY:

Blackwell.

Adams, G., Anderson, S. L., & Adonu, J. K. (2004). The cultural

grounding of closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron

(Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 321–339).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Agthe, M., & Spörrle, M. (2009). On the context sensitivity of the

sexual attribution bias: A replication and extension to situations of

failure. The Open Psychology Journal, 2, 19–24.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Försterling, F. (2008). Success attributions

and more: Multidimensional extensions of the sexual attribution

bias to failure attributions, social emotions, and the desire for

social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34, 1627–1638.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., Frey, D., & Maner, J. (2014). Looking up

versus looking down: Attractiveness-based organizational biases

are moderated by social comparison direction. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 44, 40–45.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., Frey, D., Walper, S., & Maner, J. K. (2013).

When romance and rivalry awaken: Attractiveness-based social

judgment biases emerge at adolescence. Human Nature, 24,

182–195.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Don’t hate me because

I’m beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation

and decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

46, 1151–1154.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Does being attractive

always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on

social decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-

tin, 37, 1042–1054.

Anderson, S. L., Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2008). The cultural

grounding of personal relationship: The importance of attractive-

ness in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 95, 352–368.

Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to

mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes

of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Per-

sonality, 25, 16–30.

Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit

attitudes evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and

adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58.

Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup

theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.),

Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 34, pp.

39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Bleske, A. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Poaching, promiscuity and

deceit: Combatting mating rivalry in same-sex friendships. Per-

sonal Relations, 8, 407–424.

Burke, D., Nolan, C., Hayward, W. G., Russell, R., & Sulikowski, D.

(2013). Is there an own-race preference in attractiveness? Evolu-

tionary Psychology, 11, 855–872.

Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition:

Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 54, 616–628.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evo-

lutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 12, 1–49.

Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for

partner choice and intrasexual competition. In J. H. Barkow, L.

Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary

psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 249–266). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Buss, D. M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Explor-

ing the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In C. Crawford & D.

L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp.

405–430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395–422.

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J., Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P.

(2000). Distress about mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7,

235–243.

Buunk, A. P., Massar, K., & Djikstra, P. (2007). A social cognitive

evolutionary approach to jealousy: The automatic evaluation of

one’s romantic rivals. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. von

Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind (pp. 213–228). New

York, NY: Psychology Press.

Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011).

Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across

a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,

678–683.

Chen, N. Y., Shaffer, D. R., & Wu, C. (1997). On physical attractive-

ness stereotyping in Taiwan: A revised sociocultural perspective.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 117–124.

Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2014).

Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The

role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS ONE, 9, 1–8, e99629.

Agthe et al. 11



Comer, J. P. (1989). Racism and the education of young children.

Teachers College Record, 90, 352–361.

Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Kurzban, R. (2003). Perceptions of race.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 173–179.

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., &

Wu, C. (1995). ‘‘Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same

as ours’’: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural percep-

tion of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American

city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit

race attitudes. Child Development, 77, 1268–1281.

Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-

evoking effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 32, 829–852.

Dion, K. K., Pak, A. W., & Dion, K. L. (1990). Stereotyping physical

attractiveness: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 21, 158–179.

Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). Is

love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic

desire. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,

1258–1268.

Feliciano, C., Lee, R., & Robnett, B. (2011). Racial boundaries among

Latinos: Evidence from Internet daters’ racial preferences. Social

Problems, 58, 189–212.

Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009). Gendered racial

exclusion among white Internet daters. Social Science Research,

38, 41–56.

Fisher, M. L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases

female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 283–285.

Försterling, F., Preikschas, S., & Agthe, M. (2007). Ability, luck, and

looks: An evolutionary look at achievement ascriptions and the

sexual attribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 92, 775–788.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human

mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 23, 573–587.

Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K.

(1995). Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the

pattern of sex differences in adults from China and the United

States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 355–383.

Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, domi-

nance, and the mating game. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest

people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

Herman, M. R., & Campbell, M. E. (2012). I wouldn’t, but you can:

Attitudes toward interracial relationships. Social Science

Research, 41, 343–358.

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1998). Natural assumptions: Race, essence and

taxonomies of human kinds. Social Research. An International

Quarterly of the Social Sciences, 65, 331–349.

Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and

sorting in online dating. The American Economic Review,

100, 130–163.

Jones, A. M., & Buckingham, J. T. (2005). Self-esteem as a moderator

of the effect of social comparison on women’s body image. Jour-

nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1164–1187.

Kamble, S., Shackelford, T. K., Pham, M., & Buss, D. M. (2014).

Indian mate preferences: Continuity, sex differences, and cultural

change across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual

Differences, 70, 150–155.

Keels, M., & Harris, K. (2014). Intercultural dating at predominantly

White universities in the United States: The maintenance and

crossing of group borders. Societies, 4, 363–379.

Kenrick, D. T., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T., Becker, D. V., & Neu-

berg, S. L. (2007). How the mind warps: A social evolutionary

perspective on cognitive processing disjunctions. In J. P. Forgas,

M. G. Haselton, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social

mind (pp. 49–68). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates

reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Beha-

vioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–91.

Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V., &

Schaller, M. (2010). Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior

the fundamental-motives framework. Current Directions in Psy-

chological Science, 19, 63–67.

Klavina, L., & Buunk, A. P. (2013). Intergroup intrasexual competi-

tion: Reactions towards outgroup members as romantic rivals.

Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 93–120.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam,

M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-

analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126,

390–423.

Lee, S. Y., Pitesa, M., Pillutla, M., & Thau, S. (2015). When beauty

helps and when it hurts: An organizational context model of attrac-

tiveness discrimination in selection decisions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 15–28.

Lee, S. Y., Pitesa, M., Thau, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Discrimi-

nation in selection decisions: Integrating stereotype fit and inter-

dependence theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58,

789–812.

Lehmiller, J. J., Graziano, W. G., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2014). Peer

influence and attraction to interracial romantic relationships.

Social Sciences, 3, 115–127.

Lemay, E. P. Jr., Clark, M. S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is

beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical

attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 339–353.

Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,

110, 18814–18819.

Li, J., & Zhou, X. (2014). Sex, attractiveness, and third-party punish-

ment in fairness consideration. PLoS ONE, 9, e94004.

Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in

preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.

Li, W., Zhang, Y., Li, F., Li, X., Li, P., Jia, X., . . . Ji, H. (2015). Out of

lust or jealousy: The effects of mate-related motives on study-time

allocation to faces varying in attractiveness. PLoS ONE, 10,

e0132207.

12 Evolutionary Psychology



Lin, K.-H., & Lundquist, J. (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The

intersection of race, gender, and education. American Journal of

Sociology, 119, 183–215.

Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Simi-

larity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-

dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933–964.

Luxen, M. F., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Facial attractive-

ness, sexual selection, and personnel selection: When evolved

preferences matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,

241–255.

Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation

versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: A critical test using

the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-

letin, 29, 349–359.

Major, B., Testa, M., & Bylsma, W. H. (1991). Responses to upward

and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-

relevance and perceived control. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.),

Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp.

237–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maner, J. K., & Ackerman, J. M. (2015). Sexually selective cognition.

Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 52–56.

Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive

attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual

bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36.

Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007).

Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and

rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B.,

Wilbur, C. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cogni-

tion: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer,

B., Neuberg, S. L., . . . Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection:

How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.

Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2013). Adaptive attentional attunement:

Perceptions of danger and attention to outgroup men. Social Cog-

nition, 31, 733–744.

Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Moss, J. H., Leo, J. L., & Plant, E. A.

(2012). Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives

enhance people’s sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 70–83.

Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Rouby, D. A., & Gailliot, M. T. (2009).

Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition of romantic rivalry.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 74–87.

Markus, H. R., Mullally, P., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Selfways: Diver-

sity in modes of cultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. Jopling

(Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-

understanding (pp. 13–61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Judging a book by its cover:

Jealousy after subliminal priming with attractive and unattractive

faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 634–638.

McClintock, E. A. (2010). When does race matter? Race, sex, and

dating at an elite university. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

72, 45–72.

Mills, J. K., Daly, J., Longmore, A., & Kilbride, G. (1995). A note on

family acceptance involving interracial friendships and romantic

relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 349–351.

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual simi-

larity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and per-

ceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

25, 889–922.

Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2015).

Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspp0000068

Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., & Schaller, M. (2004).

From evolved motives to everyday mentation: Evolution, goals,

and cognition. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & S. M. Laham

(Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes

(pp. 133–152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Niesta Kayser, D., Agthe, M., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Strategic sexual

signals: Women’s display versus avoidance of the color red

depends on the attractiveness of an anticipated interaction partner.

PLoS ONE, 11, e0148501. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0148501

Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). The role

of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science, 309,

785–787.

Park, L., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Does self-threat promote social con-

nection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 203–217.

Pflüger, L. S., Oberzaucher, E., Katina, S., Holzleitner, I. J., & Gram-

mer, K. (2012). Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and

facial shape predict reproductive success. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 33, 708–714.

Plant, E. A., Goplen, J., & Kunstman, J. W. (2011). Selective

responses to threat: The roles of race and gender in decisions to

shoot. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1274–1281.

Potârcă, G., & Mills, M. (2015). Racial preferences in online dating across

European countries. European Sociological Review, 31, 326–341.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.

Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.

Rhodes, G., Lee, K., Palermo, R., Weiss, M., Yoshikawa, S., Clissa,

P., . . . Jeffery, L. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race,

and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319–340.

Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Aka-

matsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symme-

try in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based

standards of beauty. Perception, 30, 611–625.

Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion

by Internet daters. Social Forces, 89, 807–828.

Ruffle, B. J., & Shtudiner, Z. (2014). Are good-looking people more

employable? Management Science. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1927

Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the dark:

Interactive effects of beliefs about danger and ambient darkness

on ethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

29, 637–649.

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleitner, A., Ault, L., Austers,

I., . . . Zupanèiè, A. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching

across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on

romantically attracting another person’s partner. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 86, 560–584.

Agthe et al. 13



Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and

competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived

effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 1185–1204.

Shaffer, D. R., Crepaz, N., & Sun, C. (2000). Physical attractiveness

stereotyping in cross-cultural perspective: Similarities and differ-

ences between Americans and Taiwanese. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 31, 557–582.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and

romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

Stephen, I. D., Scott, I. M., Coetzee, V., Pound, N., Perrett, D. I., &

Penton-Voak, I. S. (2012). Cross-cultural effects of color, but not

morphological masculinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s

faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 260–267.

Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2007). Differences in attractiveness pre-

ferences between observers in low-and high-resource environ-

ments in Thailand. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5,

149–160.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of

social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). San Diego, CA: Aca-

demic Press.

Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential part-

ners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexu-

ality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19,

149–164.

Trawalter, S., Todd, A. R., Baird, A. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2008).

Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1322–1327.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). A theory of individualism

and collectivism. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2,

498–520.

Unkelbach, C., Forgas, J. P., & Denson, T. F. (2008). The turban

effect: The influence of Muslim headgear and induced affect on

aggressive responses in the shooter bias paradigm. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1409–1413.

Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as

an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130080. doi:10.

1098/rstb.2013.0080

Wang, H., Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2006). Stability of interracial and

intraracial romantic relationships among adolescents. Social Sci-

ence Research, 35, 435–453.

Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good:

The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in col-

lectivistic cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

23, 795–800.

Yu, D. W., & Shepard, G. H. Jr. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the

beholder? Nature, 396, 321–322.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don’t

all look alike: Individual impressions of other racial groups. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85–101.

14 Evolutionary Psychology

















<<
  /ASCII85EncodePages false
  /AllowTransparency false
  /AutoPositionEPSFiles true
  /AutoRotatePages /None
  /Binding /Left
  /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2)
  /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
  /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
  /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
  /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
  /CompatibilityLevel 1.3
  /CompressObjects /Off
  /CompressPages true
  /ConvertImagesToIndexed true
  /PassThroughJPEGImages false
  /CreateJDFFile false
  /CreateJobTicket false
  /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
  /DetectBlends true
  /DetectCurves 0.1000
  /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
  /DoThumbnails false
  /EmbedAllFonts true
  /EmbedOpenType false
  /ParseICCProfilesInComments true
  /EmbedJobOptions true
  /DSCReportingLevel 0
  /EmitDSCWarnings false
  /EndPage -1
  /ImageMemory 1048576
  /LockDistillerParams true
  /MaxSubsetPct 100
  /Optimize true
  /OPM 1
  /ParseDSCComments true
  /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
  /PreserveCopyPage true
  /PreserveDICMYKValues true
  /PreserveEPSInfo true
  /PreserveFlatness false
  /PreserveHalftoneInfo false
  /PreserveOPIComments false
  /PreserveOverprintSettings true
  /StartPage 1
  /SubsetFonts true
  /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
  /UCRandBGInfo /Remove
  /UsePrologue false
  /ColorSettingsFile ()
  /AlwaysEmbed [ true
  ]
  /NeverEmbed [ true
  ]
  /AntiAliasColorImages false
  /CropColorImages false
  /ColorImageMinResolution 266
  /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
  /DownsampleColorImages true
  /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average
  /ColorImageResolution 175
  /ColorImageDepth -1
  /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
  /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
  /EncodeColorImages true
  /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
  /AutoFilterColorImages true
  /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
  /ColorACSImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.40
    /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
  >>
  /ColorImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.76
    /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
  >>
  /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /AntiAliasGrayImages false
  /CropGrayImages false
  /GrayImageMinResolution 266
  /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
  /DownsampleGrayImages true
  /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average
  /GrayImageResolution 175
  /GrayImageDepth -1
  /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
  /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
  /EncodeGrayImages true
  /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
  /AutoFilterGrayImages true
  /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
  /GrayACSImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.40
    /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
  >>
  /GrayImageDict <<
    /QFactor 0.76
    /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
  >>
  /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
    /TileWidth 256
    /TileHeight 256
    /Quality 30
  >>
  /AntiAliasMonoImages false
  /CropMonoImages false
  /MonoImageMinResolution 900
  /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
  /DownsampleMonoImages true
  /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
  /MonoImageResolution 175
  /MonoImageDepth -1
  /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
  /EncodeMonoImages true
  /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
  /MonoImageDict <<
    /K -1
  >>
  /AllowPSXObjects false
  /CheckCompliance [
    /None
  ]
  /PDFX1aCheck false
  /PDFX3Check false
  /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
  /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
  /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
  ]
  /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
  /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
    0.00000
  ]
  /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
  /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
  /PDFXOutputCondition ()
  /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
  /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

  /Description <<
    /ENU <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>
  >>
  /Namespace [
    (Adobe)
    (Common)
    (1.0)
  ]
  /OtherNamespaces [
    <<
      /AsReaderSpreads false
      /CropImagesToFrames true
      /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue
      /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false
      /IncludeGuidesGrids false
      /IncludeNonPrinting false
      /IncludeSlug false
      /Namespace [
        (Adobe)
        (InDesign)
        (4.0)
      ]
      /OmitPlacedBitmaps false
      /OmitPlacedEPS false
      /OmitPlacedPDF false
      /SimulateOverprint /Legacy
    >>
    <<
      /AllowImageBreaks true
      /AllowTableBreaks true
      /ExpandPage false
      /HonorBaseURL true
      /HonorRolloverEffect false
      /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false
      /IncludeHeaderFooter false
      /MarginOffset [
        0
        0
        0
        0
      ]
      /MetadataAuthor ()
      /MetadataKeywords ()
      /MetadataSubject ()
      /MetadataTitle ()
      /MetricPageSize [
        0
        0
      ]
      /MetricUnit /inch
      /MobileCompatible 0
      /Namespace [
        (Adobe)
        (GoLive)
        (8.0)
      ]
      /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false
      /PageOrientation /Portrait
      /RemoveBackground false
      /ShrinkContent true
      /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors
      /UseEmbeddedProfiles false
      /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true
    >>
    <<
      /AddBleedMarks false
      /AddColorBars false
      /AddCropMarks false
      /AddPageInfo false
      /AddRegMarks false
      /BleedOffset [
        9
        9
        9
        9
      ]
      /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB
      /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
      /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName
      /Downsample16BitImages true
      /FlattenerPreset <<
        /ClipComplexRegions true
        /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false
        /ConvertTextToOutlines false
        /GradientResolution 300
        /LineArtTextResolution 1200
        /PresetName ([High Resolution])
        /PresetSelector /HighResolution
        /RasterVectorBalance 1
      >>
      /FormElements true
      /GenerateStructure false
      /IncludeBookmarks false
      /IncludeHyperlinks false
      /IncludeInteractive false
      /IncludeLayers false
      /IncludeProfiles true
      /MarksOffset 9
      /MarksWeight 0.125000
      /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
      /Namespace [
        (Adobe)
        (CreativeSuite)
        (2.0)
      ]
      /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
      /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
      /PreserveEditing true
      /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
      /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
      /UseDocumentBleed false
    >>
  ]
  /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<<
  /HWResolution [288 288]
  /PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice