Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2017
In our response, we review and address the comments on our target article made in the 25 commentaries. First, we review and discuss the commentaries that recognized the value of our approach, accepted the main premises and conclusions of our target article, and suggested further avenues for research on attractiveness-related biases. We then respond to commentators who either misinterpreted some parts of our target article or made statements with which we disagree. These commentaries provided us with an opportunity to clarify some aspects of our target article, for example, the fact that we address both the functional significance of attractiveness-related biases and their underlying mechanisms. We provide a rebuttal to two commentaries, in which we are accused of poor scholarship. We conclude our response by addressing two commentaries that discussed the societal implications of the occurrence of attractiveness-related biases in the labor market by briefly discussing the relationship between scientific research and social policy.
Target article
Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology
Related commentaries (25)
An assessment of the mating motive explanation of the beauty premium in market-based settings
Attention and memory benefits for physical attractiveness may mediate prosocial biases
Attentional and affective biases for attractive females emerge early in development
Attractiveness bias: A cognitive explanation
Attractiveness biases are the tip of the iceberg in biological markets
Context matters for attractiveness bias
Evolutionary explanations for financial and prosocial biases: Beyond mating motivation
Explanations for attractiveness-related positive biases in an evolutionary perspective of life history theory
How should we tackle financial and prosocial biases against unattractive people?
Is there an alternative explanation to the evolutionary account for financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive individuals?
It is not all about mating: Attractiveness predicts partner value across multiple relationship domains
Just My Imagination: Beauty premium and the evolved mental model
Mating motives are neither necessary nor sufficient to create the beauty premium
Omitted evidence undermines sexual motives explanation for attractiveness bias
Oxytocin drives prosocial biases in favor of attractive people
Prosocial behavior as sexual signaling
Strong but flexible: How fundamental social motives support but sometimes also thwart favorable attractiveness biases
The biasing effects of appearances go beyond physical attractiveness and mating motives
The out-of-my-league effect
The type of behavior and the role of relationship length in mate choice for prosociality among physically attractive individuals
The wolf will live with the lamb
There is more: Intrasexual competitiveness, physical dominance, and intrasexual collaboration
Tinbergen's “four questions” provides a formal framework for a more complete understanding of prosocial biases in favour of attractive people
Understanding the physical attractiveness literature: Qualitative reviews versus meta-analysis
What does evolutionary theory add to stereotype theory in the explanation of attractiveness bias?
Author response
Moving forward with interdisciplinary research on attractiveness-related biases