Attractive individuals have an advantage in social exchange, and the target article highlights the financial rewards associated with being attractive. The first part of Maestripieri et al. focuses on sexual opportunity as a primary reason for explaining financial and prosocial biases in favour of attractive people, and this idea is supported by data. However, the same pro-attractive biases can be found when mating motivation is an unlikely explanation for their existence, such as among individuals of the same sex (Lucas & Koff Reference Lucas and Koff2013; Rosenblat Reference Rosenblat2008). Table 1 in the target article suggests that biases in opposite-sex pairs are greater than those in same-sex pairs, but not completely absent for the latter, and this leaves the question of why there are biases in same-sex pairs at all.
Mating motivation may result in favouring attractive individuals and, indeed, may be the strongest determinant of positive bias in opposite-sex pairs, but there are also other relevant theories that are complementary in predicting biases for and against attractive individuals in situations where mating motivation is not relevant. I argue here that evolutionary-based theories related to competition, friendship formation, and leadership choice can help explain why biases exist between individuals of the same sex.
Maestripieri et al. note that individuals may be concerned over the attractiveness of potential sexual rivals and so not biased in their favour, or even biased against them (Agthe et al. Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2010; Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2011). This direct form of competition among members of the same sex for mates is widely studied in nonhuman animals, in which it is termed intrasexual selection (Andersson Reference Andersson1994), and the same logic applies to other types of competition, such as for resources. For example, in the case of the hiring panel, the person being hired could be seen as a potential rival for promotion, not just in mating.
In opposition to the predictions for competition, pressures related to friendship formation suggest that we might favour attractiveness in same-sex alliances and friendships. Indeed, studies show that people want to bond as friends with attractive individuals (Lemay et al. Reference Lemay, Clark and Greenberg2010). Friendship bonds are important in humans because of living in groups (Dunbar Reference Dunbar2009), and friendships are adaptive, being linked to improved reproductive success and living longer (Seyfarth & Cheney Reference Seyfarth and Cheney2012). In the example of the hiring committee, they are not only selecting potential rivals, but also potential allies. If we consider that individuals may select other individuals to join not just their organisation, but also their in-group, then we can predict that they may hire more attractive individuals as potential allies and friends. For example, tall men are found to be both attractive and dominant, and a bias towards attractive other men by heterosexual men may be predicted because tall, attractive, dominant men are likely to make powerful coalitional partners and be favoured as friends and allies (Little & Roberts Reference Little and Roberts2012).
Humans also often elect to follow leaders, and there are evolutionary theories concerning when it may be beneficial to an individual to decide to follow certain other individuals (Van Vugt Reference Van Vugt2006). Attractive individuals might make popular leaders because of useful traits associated with attractiveness such as health. Indeed there is evidence that attractiveness is positively related to being selected as a leader: Attractive political candidates are evaluated more positively than unattractive individuals (Budesheim & Depaola Reference Budesheim and Depaola1994), people are more likely to say they would vote for an attractive leader than a less attractive leader (Little et al. Reference Little, Roberts, Jones and DeBruine2012), and some studies have demonstrated that attractive candidates are more likely to win real elections (Berggren et al. Reference Berggren, Jordahl and Poutvaara2010).
For the three factors mentioned previously, attractiveness may play a role in positive financial biases towards same-sex and opposite-sex others without recourse to mating. However, these different factors are most likely complementary to mating motivation, and which factors come into play is likely to depend on the context of the particular situation. For example, the apparent conflict between predictions for attractive same-sex individuals for competition (negative) and friendship (positive) can be resolved by considering the context – is the person a threat or a potential ally? This resolution is supported by studies showing that those with high self-esteem are not biased against attractive same-sex individuals compared to those with lower self-esteem and that the desire to interact with versus avoid individuals also mediates these biases (Agthe et al. Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2011). Perceived threat or competition may then underlie bias to attractive same-sex individuals, and in some contexts, such as where low threat is perceived, individuals can favour attractive same-sex individuals.
Leadership may represent a special case where issues of competition are reduced because the benefit of following particular leaders is high. In terms of context, attractive faces are relatively more valued as leaders in wartime than peacetime contexts. This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may cue health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders (Little et al. Reference Little, Roberts, Jones and DeBruine2012), but less so in peacetime leaders. In this way, leaders appear to be chosen because the characteristics they possess are seen as best suited to lead in particular situations. These “conditional” biases are important in the context of financial and prosocial biases in favour of attractive people because they highlight that the financial reward for beauty may not be straightforward and that beauty may be rewarded more or less depending on the job or situation in question.
In summary, mating motivation likely plays a role in bias towards attractive individuals. Three complementary theories drawn from the evolutionary literature also make relevant predictions concerning biases towards attractive individuals: competition, friendship, and leadership selection. The relative balance of these different factors will be context dependent, and the effects of context can help explain why the pattern of bias towards attractive same-sex and opposite-sex others is variable. The authors have highlighted an important issue in that mating can help explain pro-attractive biases, and here I note that there is more to evolutionary explanations than sexual reproduction – evolutionary approaches also encompass ally formation, leadership, and strategic choice, which could all have an impact on financial and prosocial biases relating to appearance.
Attractive individuals have an advantage in social exchange, and the target article highlights the financial rewards associated with being attractive. The first part of Maestripieri et al. focuses on sexual opportunity as a primary reason for explaining financial and prosocial biases in favour of attractive people, and this idea is supported by data. However, the same pro-attractive biases can be found when mating motivation is an unlikely explanation for their existence, such as among individuals of the same sex (Lucas & Koff Reference Lucas and Koff2013; Rosenblat Reference Rosenblat2008). Table 1 in the target article suggests that biases in opposite-sex pairs are greater than those in same-sex pairs, but not completely absent for the latter, and this leaves the question of why there are biases in same-sex pairs at all.
Mating motivation may result in favouring attractive individuals and, indeed, may be the strongest determinant of positive bias in opposite-sex pairs, but there are also other relevant theories that are complementary in predicting biases for and against attractive individuals in situations where mating motivation is not relevant. I argue here that evolutionary-based theories related to competition, friendship formation, and leadership choice can help explain why biases exist between individuals of the same sex.
Maestripieri et al. note that individuals may be concerned over the attractiveness of potential sexual rivals and so not biased in their favour, or even biased against them (Agthe et al. Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2010; Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2011). This direct form of competition among members of the same sex for mates is widely studied in nonhuman animals, in which it is termed intrasexual selection (Andersson Reference Andersson1994), and the same logic applies to other types of competition, such as for resources. For example, in the case of the hiring panel, the person being hired could be seen as a potential rival for promotion, not just in mating.
In opposition to the predictions for competition, pressures related to friendship formation suggest that we might favour attractiveness in same-sex alliances and friendships. Indeed, studies show that people want to bond as friends with attractive individuals (Lemay et al. Reference Lemay, Clark and Greenberg2010). Friendship bonds are important in humans because of living in groups (Dunbar Reference Dunbar2009), and friendships are adaptive, being linked to improved reproductive success and living longer (Seyfarth & Cheney Reference Seyfarth and Cheney2012). In the example of the hiring committee, they are not only selecting potential rivals, but also potential allies. If we consider that individuals may select other individuals to join not just their organisation, but also their in-group, then we can predict that they may hire more attractive individuals as potential allies and friends. For example, tall men are found to be both attractive and dominant, and a bias towards attractive other men by heterosexual men may be predicted because tall, attractive, dominant men are likely to make powerful coalitional partners and be favoured as friends and allies (Little & Roberts Reference Little and Roberts2012).
Humans also often elect to follow leaders, and there are evolutionary theories concerning when it may be beneficial to an individual to decide to follow certain other individuals (Van Vugt Reference Van Vugt2006). Attractive individuals might make popular leaders because of useful traits associated with attractiveness such as health. Indeed there is evidence that attractiveness is positively related to being selected as a leader: Attractive political candidates are evaluated more positively than unattractive individuals (Budesheim & Depaola Reference Budesheim and Depaola1994), people are more likely to say they would vote for an attractive leader than a less attractive leader (Little et al. Reference Little, Roberts, Jones and DeBruine2012), and some studies have demonstrated that attractive candidates are more likely to win real elections (Berggren et al. Reference Berggren, Jordahl and Poutvaara2010).
For the three factors mentioned previously, attractiveness may play a role in positive financial biases towards same-sex and opposite-sex others without recourse to mating. However, these different factors are most likely complementary to mating motivation, and which factors come into play is likely to depend on the context of the particular situation. For example, the apparent conflict between predictions for attractive same-sex individuals for competition (negative) and friendship (positive) can be resolved by considering the context – is the person a threat or a potential ally? This resolution is supported by studies showing that those with high self-esteem are not biased against attractive same-sex individuals compared to those with lower self-esteem and that the desire to interact with versus avoid individuals also mediates these biases (Agthe et al. Reference Agthe, Spöerrle and Maner2011). Perceived threat or competition may then underlie bias to attractive same-sex individuals, and in some contexts, such as where low threat is perceived, individuals can favour attractive same-sex individuals.
Leadership may represent a special case where issues of competition are reduced because the benefit of following particular leaders is high. In terms of context, attractive faces are relatively more valued as leaders in wartime than peacetime contexts. This pattern suggests that attractiveness, which may cue health and fitness, is perceived to be a useful attribute in wartime leaders (Little et al. Reference Little, Roberts, Jones and DeBruine2012), but less so in peacetime leaders. In this way, leaders appear to be chosen because the characteristics they possess are seen as best suited to lead in particular situations. These “conditional” biases are important in the context of financial and prosocial biases in favour of attractive people because they highlight that the financial reward for beauty may not be straightforward and that beauty may be rewarded more or less depending on the job or situation in question.
In summary, mating motivation likely plays a role in bias towards attractive individuals. Three complementary theories drawn from the evolutionary literature also make relevant predictions concerning biases towards attractive individuals: competition, friendship, and leadership selection. The relative balance of these different factors will be context dependent, and the effects of context can help explain why the pattern of bias towards attractive same-sex and opposite-sex others is variable. The authors have highlighted an important issue in that mating can help explain pro-attractive biases, and here I note that there is more to evolutionary explanations than sexual reproduction – evolutionary approaches also encompass ally formation, leadership, and strategic choice, which could all have an impact on financial and prosocial biases relating to appearance.