Consuming Behaviour

© John Desmond

First published, January, 2026

Grianan Publishing,

John’s Brae,

Shrove, ROI, F93E7R9

Cover design © John Desmond (with thanks to Alan Gillies)

Part Three: Theory

This section presents three theoretical perspectives that consider important questions pertaining to consumption. The evolutionary explanation from domain specificity presented in chapter five (a) asks about the kinds of problems confronted by humans during the Pleistocene period when, they argue, specific action programmes were developed to solve particular problems. The question of identity does not arise for these theorists except perhaps in relation to how all of these separate action programmes that operate sub-personally are combined into a unity of purpose at the personal level. Chapter five (b) shifts focus to consider the development of the market in relation to pro sociality.

Social explanations which are discussed in chapter six explain identity as a product of language and culture. From an evolutionary perspective, these explanations are consistent with the argument that human intelligence is plastic and general purpose, as exemplified in the use of abstract processing through the operation of metaphor and metonymy. As members of a language community we quickly learn to understand the world in largely the same way as those who surround us, we are also trained to conform to the roles and identities prescribed for us within our culture together with the expectations that accompany such understanding. Key questions relate to the extent to which we passively conform to the roles and identities specified for us in advance by the social structure into which we are born, or act as agents to shape our own identities and destinies.

Culture is also extremely important to psychoanalytic understanding of identity which is explained in chapter eight. In evolutionary terms this is explained as a variant of cultural group selection. However psychoanalytic explanations go beyond this to focus on the clash between the ancient drives for the immediate satisfaction of desires and the societal demand for constraint.

Chapter Five (a): Evolution: Domain Specificity

Introduction

This chapter expands on the introductory discussion of evolutionary accounts of exchange in chapter three by discussing developments in evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. No field has expanded more rapidly in the intervening years since the first edition of this book was published., Media interest exploded in April 14th 2003 following the announcement of the sequencing of the entire human genome. Some would have us believe that discovery is of equal significance to 1439 when the first Bible rolled out from Gutenberg’s press, the first of May 1844, when news was first dispatched by electric telegraph, or the day in 1990 when a photograph from the Voyager spacecraft showed Earth as a tiny pinprick in the vastness of space. The mass media asserted that it was now just a matter of time before cures would be found for hereditary ailments such as congenital heart disease and the discovery of genes for addiction and being ‘gay’. Against this background the prominent geneticist Professor Steve Jones cautioned that;

It has been said that the four letters of the genetic code are H, Y, P, and E, and medical providers must realize that the molecular biology business is as adept at promoting its wares as is any other (Jones, 2000).

Against hype, Jones states that the most startling thing about the knowledge that the human genome consists of just 25,000 genes, is that it reveals how little is actually known about how the genome works. He notes that despite the refutation of simplistic interpretations influenced by eugenics, or crude genetic determinism, this persists in the popular media through discussion of search for ‘the gay gene’ or genes for heart disease and so on. Jones comments in relation to heart disease and diabetes that, rather than focusing on a few high-risk individuals. It would be better all round to quit smoking, exercise more and eat more sensibly.

Although Charles Darwin was unaware of the existence of the gene, the sequencing of the genome vindicates the overall argument he made in the Origin of the Species, by reminding us of our shared inheritance with other animals. The evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers writing in the forward to Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene tells us that; “The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5% of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant, oddity whilst seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty”. (Trivers, 1976: v). Whilst perhaps the greatest accomplishment of evolutionary thought, is to bring humans down to earth by reminding us of our continuity with other animals, it offers much more than that.

This chapter is divided into two parts. Following a brief introduction to Darwin discussion turns to domain specific explanations of consciousness of kind, sexual selection, averageness and beauty. Part two discusses the role of imitation and culture in a multilevel explanation.

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

In his early life Darwin embarked on the Beagle, which set off from England on its voyage of discovery in 1831. Almost thirty years after the Beagle set sail, Darwin rushed his first major work into print, for fear of being beaten to the post by a rival. The Origin of Species (1859) provided the inspiration for evolutionary biology.

Darwin’s explanation is similar in respects to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1809), whose work influenced a number of authors including Sigmund Freud. A common example is Lamarck’s argument that giraffes started with short necks but began to stretch out to reach higher branches when all the leaves within reach were eaten. In this account the neck of the giraffe grew in length over succeeding generations as constant stretching in one generation was then passed to the next.¹ Darwin’s explanation is different, stressing that changes during the life of an organism have no effect on the evolution of the species. He focuses instead on the variation within any given population of organism. Due to variation some giraffes may have had short necks and others long ones. In times of scarcity, offspring born with longer necks will be more likely to survive and those with short necks to die out. A striking human illustration of exceptionalism is Guðlaugur Friðþórsson, who survived alone in freezing seas following the capsize of the fishing boat he was on off the coast of Iceland, on the 11th March 1984. Remarkably, Friðþórsson survived for more than six hours in temperatures that would cause the vast majority of people to die in twenty minutes. Whilst Friðþórsson’s story is anecdotal, it illustrates the mountain of evidence from hundreds of species that supports Darwin’s explanation over that of Lamarck.²

Whilst evolutionary explanations were quickly incorporated into the natural sciences such as botany and biology, they received a cautious and often hostile reception from the social sciences and marketing. This is because of the furore surrounding what the sociologist Talcott Parsons called “social Darwinism”, attributed to Herbert Spencer, who coined the unfortunate phrase “survival of the fittest” (Hirschman, 2008; Wilson, 2019: 33-34).³ Fitness for Darwin describes an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce by passing its genes to the next generation. Fitness is thus a relative term that relates to the survival of those that are best adapted to present conditions, whatever those happen to be.

Spencer is attributed with propagating the idea that society is an arena of relentless competition. Unsurprisingly, Spencer’s argument was popular amongst the elite of the time through the implication that there might be a scientific basis for the possession of wealth and fame and that the rich deserve their wealth which is the product of their individual striving, while the poor deserve more blame than sympathy for their plight. This narrative, which directly contradicted the traditional Christian message that the rich risk eternal damnation, was popularized by “robber barons” such as Dale Carnegie to justify their ruthless practice of “laissez-faire” capitalism and their disproportionate wealth, on the grounds that they were naturally superior to the poor. John D. Rockefeller described the ruthless expansion of his business as “merely the working-out of the law of nature and a law of God’ (De Waal, 1996: 11). Today similar arguments to the above are promulgated by the ‘Paypal mafia’ and others.

As a corrective to such hubristic thinking Simon Blackburn argues (2014) argues that while achieving high office in business or politics is often  a group rather than an individual achievement, this tends to be forgotten and dismissed by those who climb the greasy pole, who attribute their success to their singular abilities.  Like Jon Ronson (2011), Blackburn attributes such convenient amnesia to the unusually high number of those in high office who display psychopathic tendencies. Blackburn describes an unusual study that compared senior business managers to groups of patients , including one group drawn from Broadmoor, a centre for the detention of serious psychiatric offenders.⁴  The researchers found that business managers scored highly on psychopathic personality disorder and that by comparison to the other groups, they demonstrated traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder such as grandiosity, manipulativeness, superficial charm, lack of empathy and dictatorial tendencies.  On the other hand, they were less likely to be physically aggressive or consistently irresponsible.

As discussed by Foucault (2011)⁵ in relation to biopower, Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton and others developed the racist argument that the reproduction of those deemed as socially “unfit” should be curtailed on the basis of their mediocrity. Adolphe Quetelet had earlier argued that observations found in the middle of the bell curve, are “normal” or “average” and should thus be thought to be most socially desirable. Quetelet’s development of the Body Mass Index (BMI) is the standard used by many today to differentiate those deemed ‘normal’ from ‘obese’ (Eknoyan, 2007). Galton (1864/5) agreed with Quetelet that “normality” should be equated with the idea of “average”, but rather than thinking of averageness as socially desirable, Instead Galton linked averageness to “mediocrity” and in so doing worried that over time exceptional characteristics would revert to the average he considered mediocre.

Galton’s fear of mediocrity and desire to develop exceptional abilities, based on his misplaced understanding of averageness, led to the development of eugenics and was popularised in the early 1900s through the formation of eugenics societies in Britain, Europe and beyond. The wide circulation of these ideas was highly consequential by recommending that the birth-rate of all those deemed “unfit” should be constantly monitored and checked, while the “stock” of those deemed to be “fittest” should be improved by early marriages.

It seems rather obvious that the ideas of Spencer and Galton would have received a warm welcome from the wealthy intelligentsia and from those in government by offering seeming proof of the naturalness of their superiority, enabling them to argue on the same ground that the situation of the poor and destitute was also natural. It was argued that the indigent poor lacked the ‘natural’ resilience to conquer their situation. Moreover these ideas provided a convenient and seemingly intellectual justification for the colonization and expropriation of the inhabitants of other countries who were deemed inferior. Such ideas became prevalent in Europe and the USA from the early to mid-twentieth century, providing a false rationale for the forced sterilization of supposedly ‘feeble-minded’ ‘imbecile youth’ and homosexuals, who were labelled as sexual deviants, and of people of colour.⁶

While much is now known about the shameful history of eugenics in the USA which involved the forced sterilisation of those deemed ‘unfit’, this paled in comparison with the notorious Nazi programme of mass murder of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political dissenters and people who were judged as mentally defective.⁷ In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (1932) had warned against the monstrous role of the state at that time, describing a society set far into the future, a place where children are grown in vats in a central hatchery where embryos are graded into five tiers of intelligence.

In recent years anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and other members of the US alt-right⁸ have drawn on studies of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) to contend the need for social segregation on the basis of supposedly immutable differences and for the institution of ‘hard’ borders as a means to restrict immigration. Once lonely voices from the margins of society these calls are progressively becoming louder. These individuals were particularly interested in the argument made in The Bell Curve by Herrrnstein and Murray (1994) who made the contention that inherited IQ and not environmental factors determines employment, income, welfare dependency, divorce and parental behaviour. The authors gave particular credence to the research findings of Richard Lynn, based on his collection of national data sets of IQ. Lynn’s findings were controversial at the time they were published and were dismissed by prominent psychologists such as Leon Kamin, who argued that, “Lynn’s distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity” (Kamin, 1995, 100). Kamin critiqued the entire argument made in The Bell Curve as based on shoddy research that involved treating correlation as causation, and as, ‘another eruption of crude biological determinism’ whose argument was ‘at many critical points pathetic’.⁹

Despite mounting criticism of their argument for ‘hard’ differences between individuals from different cultures, apologists for the alt-right continue to dress their overt racism in the clothes of scientific objectivity by essentialising supposed cultural differences and by arguing for a racial hierarchy that ensures whites come out on top one way (based on differences in climate)¹⁰ or another (on the basis of differences in IQ). On the basis of what is at best, shaky evidence, they continue to argue that egalitarianism is morally reprehensible and affirmative action and overseas aid programmes are wasteful because of “hard” cultural differences in abilities and attitudes, and so condemn the ‘forced integration’ of schools.¹¹

In addition to the above, a new eugenics appears in at least two forms. In one incarnation this consists of the promotion of neoliberal values of consumer choice related to testing and screening, where individual consumers are presented with a number of embryos and asked to choose which they wish to develop into children and those they want to have destroyed (Hubbard & Wald, 1999). In the UK this eugenics of consumer choice has led to a huge decrease in the number of Down Syndrome births.¹² Linked to this a second form of eugenics is now promoted by neo-libertarians who cite flawed science to press for racial segregation on the basis of supposed immutable differences between “races”. Misinformation is fed by social media to an audience that is highly receptive to it, as its relative level of prosperity has fallen, while its sense of entitlement has remained intact, providing an alibi for the projection of resentment onto a scapegoat.

While the rise of the new eugenics is troubling, discussion now turns directly to discuss the two main categories of evolutionary thought comprising domain-specific and domain-general arguments in relation to to consumption.

Domain-Specific vs. Domain-General Arguments

Whilst in management studies and marketing, it is still generally taken for granted that culture is of central importance to any explanation, evolutionary theory is divided on this issue. It was for some time argued that humans possess domain general abilities comprising a general intelligence based on symbolic processing and metaphorical understanding that is applied to real-world problems. This domain-general explanation highlights our ability to create abstract meaning from our life experiences. In chapter six it is discussed further how this presupposes our ability to compare and contrast two apparently different domains and to locate what they share in common. For example, Marlboro often used a cowboy to advertise its cigarettes. As pointed out by Roland Barthes, advertisements do not simply convey meanings such as, ‘this is a cowboy’ at the denotative level, but crucially rely on our ability to use signifiers such as the cowboy as metonyms to connote meanings of freedom and independence associated with the “rugged individualism” of the ‘Wild West’. In the chapter it is also argued that the meaning of Chanel No. 5 too once obtained its meaning by association with the chic image portrayed by Catherine Deneuve (Williamson, 1978).

From the above, the domain-general explanation argues that the mind is a flexible device which operates according to abstract rules that can be applied equally effectively to address problems in different domains. This idea is associated with the view that the mind is written upon by culture, in the same way that a blank sheet has no meaning until it is inscribed by the pen that writes on it (Pinker, 2002). This assumption is vigorously rejected from a domain-specific perspective, which argues to the contrary, that the mind comprises a number of innate modules, each of which was originally developed to solve a specific problem that recurred in the ancestral period called the Pleistocene. In this explanation the mind is likened to a jukebox, or a Swiss Army Knife, where each instrument has evolved to address a specific problem.Specialized modules have evolved which operate independently of each other for hearing, vision and language. This argument is most closely associated with Cosmides & Tooby (1989) whose perspective was introduced in chapter three. These authors rely on data from the Wason Selection Test to support their argument. Others offer evidence that very young infants avoid crawling over glass, which seems to cover over a vertical drop and that rats and other species seem to possess an innate aversion to food that can make them ill (Sperber & Hirschfield, 2005).

Even those who argue for domain general abilities acknowledge that humans are equipped with some form of domain specificity. Domain specific processes are mandatory, fast and operate non-consciously. However, theorists argue that domain-general abilities are also important in explaining how novel problems are solved (Chiappe & McDonald, 2005). They highlight the creative imagination of young children who act as bricoleurs¹³, by constantly experimenting with a wide array of processes and strategies and gradually coming through experience to select that which is most effective. Indeed one might point out that we rely on the domain-general process of metaphor in order to understand the arguments about domain-specificity, in relation to descriptions of “evoked” culture, such as those relating to the “Swiss Army Knife’ or as a “Jukebox’ described above (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989).

Authors from the perspective of cultural group selection accept that domain-specific modules provide part, but by no means all of the explanation. They argue that cumulative cultural adaptation is advantageous when there are large differences between environments in time and space and when that variation arises slowly enough to make transmission and accumulation by social learning useful (Boyd & Richerson, 2005: 131). These authors explain that social learning through imitation may well be an adaptation that evolved as a response to increased climate variation in the last half of the Pleistocene period.

Next we go into more detail to explore domain-specific explanations of consumption by briefly discussing questions relating to survival, consciousness of kind, sexual selection, and the purported relationship averageness and beauty, culminating in a discussion of the evolutionary basis of Foxall’s argument for Intentional Behaviourism.

Domain-Specific Explanations

The argument for domain-specificity made by Cosmides and Tooby (1989) which was introduced in chapter two, holds that that the human brain developed specific modules during the Pleistocene era to cope with recurrent problems presented by the ancestral environment. They argue that these modules include the ability to share with kin, to engage in reciprocal exchange with others and include a module for detecting cheats.

“Big Mistakes”

Survival

Cosmides and Tooby (1989) describe some of the problems arising from life in our current age as ‘Big Mistakes’ that have arisen when modules that developed in the Stone Age to solve persistent problems presented by scarcity and abundance, now engage non-consciously with the massively changed environment today. For humans, as for any species, it is imperative that one obtains the energy necessary to survive from one day to the next. It is assumed that starvation was an ever-present possibility in the ancestral environment and that specific adaptations developed to address this problem during the long course of the Pleistocene period. Given that at the time, hoarding was not feasible, it is argued that universal preferences developed for fatty and sweet foods to enable us to fatten ourselves up in times of plenty so as to enhance our chances of survival when food is in short supply.

Given the above, theorists contend that current concerns with obesity, type-two diabetes and heart-disease in the western world, which are now appearing in China and in other countries, is part of the ‘big mistake’, which is that that the human mind, which is specifically equipped for survival in the Stone Age, must deal with the totally different challenges posed by the environment today.

Consciousness of Kind?

‘Consciousness of kind” was one of the concepts devised by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) in their influential paper on brand community, to explain how those who own Apple Macs and Saabs seemed to know each other and to experience a feeling of one-ness even though they had never met. Elizabeth Hirschman (2008: 136-8) surmised that the “consciousness of kind” observed in the behaviour of members of brand communities is consistent with kin selection, not only by explaining fellow-felling but also to explain why these people devise norms which differentiate members of the community from those who are not. She detects similar tribal features at work in the Star Trek community (Kozinets, 2001) and in the anti-consumption Burning Man community (Kozinets, 2002). In Hirschman’s view, kin selection also explains why humans habitually value items that have been given to us by family and friends so much (McGraw et al., 2003).

According to Tooby & Cosmides, (1989) kin selection is a means to establish group membership and to exclude cheaters and freeloaders. By extending the idea of kinship to include others one has not actually met, her explanation must be based on the ‘big mistake’ hypothesis, which is that we mistakenly attribute consciousness of kind to others because we have been conditioned to do so in the ancestral environment of the Pleistocene period.

However, I should note that perhaps an equally valid if not a more convincing explanation, is that the members of some of these communities define themselves as much by who they are not, as by who they are. The PC owner is not a Mac owner; the Saab owner is not an Audi owner and so on. This explanation is more consistent with a cultural group explanation where groups vie with each other for status.

Next discussion turns to consider domain-specific arguments about sexual selection and beauty which are highly relevant to the context of consumption and also, as you might imagine, are occasionally somewhat controversial.

Sexual Selection

Sexual selection relates to the evolution of characteristics that developed in relation to mating rather than gaining survival advantage. Billions are spent daily in beautifying ourselves, even though a cursory search will often reveal that many of the products we purchase are vastly over-priced and have little or no lasting effect. Here I discuss evolutionary theories of beauty, first by outlining Darwin’s original idea that this is arbitrary and that we admire beauty for beauty’ sake, and then comparing this view with the mainstream argument today which asserts that beauty signifies that its possessor has good genes (Prum, 2018). The key difference between these explanations can be illustrated by referring to a prominent example in the literature. Given that we are dealing with biologists and not social theorists , researchers have not looked to the images portrayed in Men’s Health or Vogue but rather have asked why peahens prefer peacocks with large colourful tails? Darwin had argued that sexual selection differs from natural selection in that the peahen’s choice of tail is arbitrary as there is nothing intrinsic about this particular ornament to signal that its owner has a more robust constitution or better genes than other peacocks. He believed that the peahen makes her choice based purely on her belief that she finds the tail beautiful. In contrast, most contemporary theorists link sexual selection to genetic fitness by subscribing to the handicap principle, according to which the peahen prefers males with large colourful tails because the tail provides an “honest signal” of the male’s superior genetic makeup (Zahavi, 1975).

Darwin: Selecting Beauty, for Beauty’s Sake.

Darwin differentiated natural selection from sexual selection, arguing that the former preserves traits that are useful in the “struggle for life”, whilst sexual selection is exclusively concerned with reproductive success. As a consequence, he reasoned this often results in the development of bodily features such as the huge tail of the peacock that are not only useless but which can ultimately threaten the survival of its owner. From this he argued that males in particular develop beauty for beauty’s sake. Darwin (1871) thought that there is no universal standard of beauty with respect to the human body, quoting an example from the observations of Hearne;

An excellent observer who lived many years with American Indians, described the beauty ideal of a Northern American Indian as "broad at face, small eyes, huge cheek- bones, three or four broad black lines across each cheek, a low forehead, a large broad chin, a clumsy hook nose, a tawny hide and breast hanging down to the belt (Darwin, 1871, 590).

In humans there is a great deal of natural variation between ethnic groups with respect to skin colour, hair and face-shape, including the prominence and relative positions of the nose, eyes, lips and ears. There is also much cultural variation. Some groups elongate the face in different ways to mark their difference, for instance by using rings to lengthen the neck, inserting discs into the lips, or attaching heavy weights to elongate their ears, whilst many groups pierce the nose in a range of different styles.

Darwin developed his theory of sexual selection to explain his field observations, for instance, that peahens prefer the brilliant plumage of peacocks and in many species males are massively bigger than females. He hypothesized that such variability could be explained as caused by two sub-processes comprising intrasexual selection, and intersexual selection. Intrasexual selection involves competition between members of the same sex for access to those from the opposite sex. A classic example is the autumn rut, when the Scottish hills and glens resonate to the bellows of massively antlered stags, each competing to dominate large territories to gain access to females. From an evolutionary perspective, this ensures that the qualities that lead to the success of the winner, which are partially heritable, are passed down to succeeding generations and that those leading to failure are not.

Intersexual selection involves the attributes preferred by members of one sex for the opposite sex. Acting on such preferences will lead to an increase in the frequency of desired attributes and a decrease in the frequency of those that are undesired. Over time the preferred attributes should become more plentiful in the population. Intersexual mate preferences and patterns of intrasexual competition can co-evolve, with each influencing the other. One possible explanation is that intrasexual competition occurred many generations ago leading larger peacocks to successfully outcompete their smaller rivals, so to begin with the fact that they possessed a larger tail was not central. However, over aeons the large tail came to be regarded as beautiful by females who desired it because it now constituted the standard of beauty. By mating with a peacock with a large tail there was more likelihood that she would thus pass this desirable characteristic to her sons and thus increase the possibility for more grandchildren. The genetic benefit, if any, is thus indirect. Over succeeding generations this took what is called a “runaway” course as larger and larger tails were preferred.

The “Good Genes” Hypothesis

The idea that beauty is not simply in the eye of the beholder but signifies the possession of superior genes took some time to develop. Ronald Fisher (1915) built on Darwin’s idea to argue that females first evolve preferences for certain valueless traits that just happen to correspond to health and vigour. Their progeny inherit the genes underlying their mother’s preference and their father’s trait. Over time this reaches a tipping point leading to a runaway cycle where the trait and the preference are magnified out of all proportion, privileging beauty at the cost of fitness. It was not Darwin or Fisher who influenced subsequent theorising but rather Alfred Russell Wallace, who was a contemporary of Darwin and co-discoverer of natural selection. Wallace criticized Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and in particular that of female choice, which he thought anthropocentric and unnecessary. Importantly and contrary to Darwin, Wallace argued that sexual selection is not a separate process but is part of natural selection. For this reason there were few studies of sexual selection until the 1950s (Gayon, 2010).

The Handicap Principle

Although it seems that Amotz Zahavi was unfamiliar with Wallace, his arguments about sexual selection are broadly similar. Zahavi¹⁴ was principally inspired by the social theorist Thorstein Veblen’s (1899) account of emulation and the description of the potlatch by Marcel Mauss (1954). He developed the handicap principle based on his observations of signalling behaviour in animals and birds during mating. Zahavi theorized that evolution develops a system of honest signals, by which he means signals that are resistant to imitation by those who do not possess them and which convey the sexual potency of a subject. Thus the glorious fanned tail of a peacock not only provides a wonderful display but is also difficult to imitate by rivals. However, a highly desirable tail is also a handicap for its owner in that it is a form of extravagance or waste that requires more energy to maintain than does a tail of inferior quality. It also makes it less easy for the peacock to escape from predators. By conveying the impression that its owner can afford to waste the extra energy required to maintain its extravagant appendage, the tail’s owner signals that its immune system is stronger than its rivals and therefore that it possesses a better genetic make-up. Inferior signallers cannot afford to transmit such extravagant signs. In this explanation, extensive ornamentation is a sign of the fitness of the one who possesses it. If the animal thrives despite the burden of a metabolically expensive ornament then the animal has effectively proved its vigour to prospective mates.

Given the above, the evolutionary explanation of conspicuous consumption is based on observation of the conspicuous displays of birds and animals that are used to attract a mate. In matters of sexual attraction it is common for a subject to closely observe the attributes of a model who successfully attracts mates so as to improve their own chances. This provides a rather crude explanation of advertising which says to the poor wimp, “Buy this because the celebrity uses it” – and because women flock around the celebrity, the mug believes, “If I buy it, they will flock around me too!”. As explained earlier in discussing the work of Zahavi (1997), costly signals work to attract mates so that if we can afford the cost it means we must be rich in resources.

Where particular species of birds and animal rely principally on just one signal, such as the tail of the peacock, there seems to be no limit as to the means for humans to signal their prowess. Zahavi employs Mauss’s example of the potlatch to illustrate this. Some forms of potlatch entail that one tribe gives away, or even deliberately destroys more goods than that of another. Zahavi links this extreme wastefulness as a sign of potency. The tribe that wastes more and is untroubled by its waste, is the most potent. Humans seem to possess innumerably different schemes to demonstrate this, for instance by valorizing different parts of the body, such as the neck, which may be progressively stretched through the addition of rings, or the ears. In medieval Sienna competition between families focused around building the highest tower. The race for status symbols today varies from the demand for an expensive handbag by Ferragamo or some similar name, or a Rolex watch. The super-rich too compete for the most opulent yacht. In European countries fashions shift to accentuate different parts of the anatomy.

Zahavi’s explanation was further developed by Hamilton & Zuk (1982) who demonstrated that bright plumage in a male peacock signals that its owner is better protected against parasites. It thus came to be generally believed that sexual selection is in fact a type of natural selection which signals measurable benefits. The literatures on long and short-term mating strategies discussed in the next two sections have been heavily influenced by the good genes hypothesis. However, as is discussed at the end of this section the validity and generalizability of this hypothesis is increasingly questioned by biologists today.

Long-Term Mating Strategies

The formation of long-term relationships is interesting to evolutionary theorists who seek to understand what strategies are used and the traits preferred by each sex. Much of the discussion is informed by the “good genes hypothesis”, by either implicitly or explicitly including sexual selection as part of the process of natural selection. Theorists argue that we must accept that humans are neither solely monogamous, nor solely promiscuous, and so a menu of strategies is available (Buss, 2007: 39). Given that we are the products of the mating strategies that led to our ancestor’s success, we must have inherited these strategies. Evolutionary theorists seek to describe the rules to explain the strategies followed by each sex to select a mate and to engage in relationships. A relevant question is whether males and females use the same, or different, strategies? It is argued that males and females select different items from the menu of strategies, using different attributes to judge the attractiveness of a potential partner, expressing different attitudes towards engaging in short-term sexual relations, and giving different reasons for sexual jealousy (Buss, 2007).

Darwin was puzzled by his observation that females are often the most choosy sex. One answer is that choosiness is related to parental investment, or the amount of time spent rearing young (Trivers, 1972). In humans, sex, which can consist of a ‘one-night stand’ for a man, is a very costly process for a woman for whom pregnancy, birth and breast-feeding, involve pain and are intensely time consuming. Trivers (ibid.) developed the explanation that that the more time devoted to parental investment, the more benefits would be reaped from careful selection of a mate. In line with this idea, he hypothesized that intrasex competition should be higher for the sex that incurs little cost, to gain access to the sex that incurs high costs. Applied to humans, this argues that men compete for access to fertile women.

From the above, because the production of children involves her in making a large parental investment, a woman is expected to be much more discriminating and choosy than a man when judging candidates for a long-term mate or marriage partner. In seeking to maximize her inclusive fitness, she will aim to improve her reproductive success. To achieve this she looks for a mate who is rich in resources to provide for her and in her children, who offers physical security and protection, shows promise as a good parent and whose goals and values are compatible with hers (Buss, 2007: 39).

In order to test the above, the desired qualities sought by women and men in a long-term mate were measured by a large-scale survey, from thirty-seven cultures (Buss et al., 1990). Intelligence, kindness, dependability and understanding were mentioned as desired by both sexes across cultures, as were mutual attraction and love. Both sexes also mentioned the importance of shared political and religious beliefs. Although there was some variability between cultures, women, significantly more than men, desired good financial prospects in a mate. Women also valued qualities such as ambition, industriousness, social status and older age. On the other hand there were differences between cultures with respect to the expectation of virginity, where 62%, generally from traditional societies, held it to be important, whilst 38%, generally from Western European countries, did not). The researchers concluded, despite this, the results supported the view that, “(m)en’s desire for sexual fidelity of a mate rather than premarital virginity may indeed by a human universal” (ibid.: 505). They argue that this is because uncertainty over paternity is a recurrent problem for men.

Can intrasex competition play a role in how we perceive advertisements? Although evidence is limited, the authors of one study found that although women are often highly critical of the portrayal of stereotypical images in advertising, their attitudes are more favourable when these images are framed within the context of a self-promotion strategy through intrasexual competition (Kyrousi et al., 2016).

The Search for “Honest Signals” of Fitness

Today mainstream theorists argue against Darwin that the social standard of beauty is not arbitrary nor is it infinitely culturally variable but rather that observable cues are linked to fertility (immediate prospect of conception) and to reproductive potential (future reproductive potential). To count as an honest signal a trait should be very difficult to imitate, clearly linked to fitness and instantly recognizable. Buss et al. (1990) found universally that men desire mates who are younger than them, varying from two years younger in China to six years younger in Zambia and Nigeria. Their explanation for this is that more youthful women should be more fertile. Some examples of “honest signals” of genetic quality discussed below include the Waist-to-Hip (WHR) ratio in women and facial shape and skin tone and colour in women and men.

Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR)

If observable cues are linked to fertility in women then these must in some way be linked to the production of estrogen. One such cue is the Waist-to-Hip ratio (WHR) (Singh, 1993a; 1993b). Before puberty this is the same for both sexes. However, after puberty women typically maintain a lower WHR than men, except during the menopause. Additionally it has been found that women with a higher waist-to-hip ratio and lower body mass index report difficulties becoming pregnant and have their first live birth at a later age than married women with lower waist-to-hip ratio (Kaye et. al., 1990).

Using Playboy centrefolds from 1960 to 1978, Garner et al., (1980) found evidence for a gradual, but definite change in the ideal body-shape for women. Singh (1993) conducted a study of Playboy centrefolds (1955-1965; 1976-1990) and Miss America contest winners (1923-1987) and found that WHRs were consistently low over the years. There was a clear trend towards slenderness. In spite of decreasing body weight, WHR varied from .68 to .72. In a follow-up study Singh found that for all weight categories, male and female participants rated the figure with the lowest WHR (0.7) as more youthful, healthy, reproductively capable and attractive. Participants rated the figure of normal weight with the WHR of 0.7 as being the most attractive. Singh concluded that, “It seems that, in Western societies a narrow waist set against full hips has been a consistent feature for female attractiveness, whereas other bodily features such as bustline, overall body weight or physique have been assigned various degrees of importance over the years.” (Singh, 1993b.: 296). Singh’s findings that the ideal range for the WHR was within a tight range of 0.68 and 0.71 with a mean of 0.7, were widely circulated amongst evolutionary psychologists, economists and others. For instance the psychologist Nancy Etcoff drew from this that although women’s bodies had become leaner over the years, the WHR had stayed the same.¹⁵. Such invariance over time was thus argued to reflect evidence for the existence of a highly specific preference in males for a WHR of 0.7 had been installed in male psychology as the result of natural selection.

However, a re-examination by Freese and Meland (2002) discovered more variation than that reported by Singh, finding that WHRs varied from 0.61 to 0.78 for Miss America contestants, with a mean score of 0.67. While some might argue that this is not much different to a mean of 0.7 the authors argue that it disputes the widely cited claim that male psychology is hard-wired to cluster ‘invariably and tightly around a WHR of 0.7. Additionally, it reminds us that just because research has been conducted using supposedly hard ‘scientific’ methods, one should not rush uncritically to accept its findings. It also highlights the importance of conducting replications, which are still lacking in many areas.

Another line of research found that men and women each attend to the waist and hips as important regions. There seems to be abundant evidence that both men and women gaze at the chest and abdomen area when judging females’ attractiveness and body fat (Cornelissen, Hancock, Kiviniemi, George, & Tovee, 2009; Hewig, Trippe, Hecht, Straube, & Miltner, 2008).

From the above, female waist-to hip-ratio is claimed to act as a simple solution to a recurrent problem for males, acting as an evolved honest signal of fertility in selecting prospective mates. Added to findings from Freese and Meland (2002) who found more variation than reported by Singh (1993a,b), others have argued that from the 1960s, models such as Twiggy exhibited a trend towards a more tubular or androgynous shape (Morris et al., 1989). While Singh (1993) had reported that although the models were flat-chested, their waist-to-hip ratios were between .68 and .69 implying a lack of tubularity, at least in the lower half of the body segment, can one now trust these findings?

Can one conclude from the above that the WHR is universal? As is often the case, the evidence is equivocal. A study of males in a foraging society supported the hypothesis finding a preference for figures with a higher WHR (Marlowe & Wetsman, 2001). However when researchers asked Chinese men and women to judge the attractiveness of female patients who had undergone surgery to reduce their waist-to-hip ratio, larger numbers of subjects of both sexes chose post-operative photographs with lower WHRs as more attractive than pre-operative photos of the same women. Although some had gained weight and others had lost it, changes in Body Mass Index (BMI) were not found to be related to attractiveness. (Dixson and Dixson, 2010).

One thing that made me uneasy when reading this research was why focus on female attractiveness? The assumption guiding the research discussed above is that males place more emphasis on female body shape, when selecting a long-term partner whereas females look for personality, material wealth and physical security (Kendrick et al. 1994). There appears to be some empirical evidence to support the hypotheses that men respond to cues related to fertility such as age and attractiveness, whereas women respond to cues of security. A study of personal advertisements found men who mentioned their wealth received a higher response rate from women than men who did not, whilst women who mentioned attributes relating to their physical attractiveness and youth received more replies from men than those who did not (Baize & Schroeder, 1995). This research programme appears to be scratching at the surface of a more complex question. For instance, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that wealthy older women “cougars” have little difficulty in attracting young attractive men!¹⁶

After some searching I found a research stream that investigates honest signals of reproductive capability and gene quality in men. One study found that women judge tall, physically symmetric men more attractive (Braun & Bryan, 2006: 807). The authors found that in considering short term relationships women prefer a V shape in a man, favouring broad-shouldered men with narrow waists. It is also reported that physically symmetric men have more sexual partners (Little et al., 2008; Gangestad and Thornhill, 2003.). If Malcolm Gladwell is right then this can lead to a variation of the ‘Big Mistake’ hypothesis where a supposedly ‘honest signal’ of fitness backfires in today’s environment. in Blink Gladwell (2005) describes “the Warren Harding error” as the human propensity to automatically associate good looks with intelligence. Gladwell cites this as a warning about the dark side of automatic information processing, which he argues lies at the root of a lot of prejudice and discrimination (Gladwell, 2005, 76). Warren Harding was particularly handsome, tall, with a bronze complexion, glossy black hair, glowing eyes and a honeyed voice. That Harding was pompous and not particularly intelligent would be unworthy of comment except that in 1914 he was elected President of the United States of America on the basis of his physical stature and self-presentation. Gladwell mentions Harding as a warning because he turned out to be one of the worst presidents ever elected to office which provided him full rein for him to indulge his egocentric concern for pomp and ceremony over the responsibility demanded by his office.

There are so many questions! Is Harding the exception that proves the rule? Do good looks signal good genes? What evidence is there for the “good genes” hypothesis, that average, symmetrical faces act as honest signals of health and intelligence? Some academics argue that these are honest signals because health and intelligence are costly and difficult to fake. The next section discusses questions of symmetry, averageness and sexual dimorphism in relation to facial attractiveness.

Is it Good to be Beautiful?

Some evolutionary theorists argue that the modern human face is the product of an adaptive process. For example the eyes are located at the front of the head to enable stereoscopic vision and the computation of depth which enables hunters to locate prey. Facial attractiveness is understood to serve a deeper purpose than aesthetic value by communicating an honest signal that its owner has ‘good genes’; “An eye or beauty locks onto faces which show signs of health and fertility, just as one would predict if it had helped the beholder to find the fittest mate”. (Etcoff, 1999). Why otherwise is it that babies who are ‘cute’ receive more attention than others (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1983) or that in studies of art portraiture the more attractive the sitter, the more a painting is liked (Zaidel & Fitzgerald, 1994)?

People use facial attractiveness to indicate aspects of a person’s internal character; physically beautiful people are thought morally good (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972); teachers believe physically attractive children are more intelligent than others (Clifford & Walster, 1973); more attractive candidates are more successful at interview (Bull & Rumsey, 1988). The downside for those considered unattractive is not only that they are likely to be discriminated against at school and in the workplace, but are also likely be treated more aggressively by others (Alcock et al 1998). However there is some variability in findings. Frieze Olson & Russell (1991) report slightly differently from Bull & Rumsey (op. cit.), that attractive males and unattractive females are considered the best managers.

When reading two-dimensional images such as magazine advertisements men and women tend to focus on the right-hand side of a woman’s but not a man’s face when judging facial beauty (Zaidel, Chen & German, 1995). This effect has more to do with the physiognomy of the face than with the perception of the observer (Chen, German and Zaidel, 1996). The authors conclude in line with the good genes hypothesis that, “facial beauty is anchored in biology and survival of the species because it relays signals about reproduction and internal health more so than facial identity” (ibid.: 475).

Averageness, symmetry and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. All three are found attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures.

Symmetry and Facial Attractiveness

From the above, human faces are bilateral, or two-sided structures, such that observers systematically focus on one side more than the other. Faces also generally show high degrees of symmetry, and it is argued that this acts as an honest signal of good genes. There seems to be little doubt that humans find symmetrical faces attractive (Rhodes, 2006). However, the key question is whether these signal superior fitness? One study found that those with symmetrical faces are more intelligent (Zebrowitz et al., 2002). However further research indicated that people are only accurate when judging perceptions of faces in the bottom half of the attractiveness continuum rather than those at the top end (Zebrowitz & Rhodes, 2004). This invites one to turn the question around. Rather than asking if average faces signal “good” genes, do asymmetric faces signal “bad” genes? Are individuals with asymmetric facial features less smart or unhealthier than others? Fluctuating asymmetry (FA) describes variation from perfect symmetry in the face or body due to pathological reasons; for instance, FA is found in children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FASD).

Two meta-analyses of over one hundred studies suggest that there is a relation between FA, general mental capacity (Banks et al., 2010) and health (Van Dongen & Gangestad, 2011). However, the effects are tiny, ranging from 0.1 to 0.2. Tellingly, the authors note extensive publication bias where authors more readily submit negative correlations between FA and intelligence and health and not scores that are positive or neutral. Others argue that the methodological shortcomings of studies are so great that it is often impossible to compare them across traits (Graham & Özener, 2016). One of the most comprehensive projects to date, based on the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children with a sample size of 4,732, found a small (< 1%) negative association between FA and intelligence, but no relation with health (Pound et al., 2014). The authors argue that leaving this small difference aside, the general lack of associations between facial asymmetry and health suggests that the preference for symmetrical faces has nothing to do with good genes. Moreover, they suggest that rather than signalling good genes, the preference for symmetry might potentially have evolved to help perceivers avoid markers of disturbed development and pathology. Overall, while individuals who are moderately attractive are also likely to be healthy and intelligent, as Gladwell (2005) observed in the case of Warren Harding, we are predisposed to mistakenly attribute health and intelligence to exceptionally good looks. There is also the disturbing finding that we consistently over-generalize facial asymmetry to mistakenly judge others as less intelligent and unhealthier than they actually are (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008).

Averageness and Facial Attractiveness

Deriving from Quetelet’s original argument, and in line with the good genes hypothesis, average faces ought to be considered more attractive as signals that the individual has a strong immune system. It is also argued that selection pressures should operate against extreme genotypes (Symons, 1979). This hypothesis has been supported in a number of experiments where composite faces with average features have been judged as more attractive than the individual faces from which they are constructed (Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Grammar & Thornhill, 1994). For example, Burt & Perrett (1995) employed digital techniques to ‘morph’ faces by calculating the average position for 208 predefined points on each face, while also averaging its colour.

Does averageness act as an honest signal that the bearer has good genes? The evidence is mixed. Early studies found that deviations from facial averageness are related to chromosomal disorders (Thornhill & Møller, (1997) and averageness to good health (Rhodes, et al., 2001). However, other studies have found no relationship between facial averageness and immune function (Foo et al., 2017) or susceptibility to infectious diseases (Cai et al., 2019).

Sexual Di-Morphism and Facial Attractiveness

The idea that “averageness = beauty” favours what in biological terms is known to as a “stablilizing” rather “directional” selection. Stabilizing selection tends towards in-breeding which is avoided in many species, while directional selection of more extreme characteristics associated with out-breeding is observed in a number of species. Thus whilst an average face may be considered attractive, a highly attractive face would be based on a sample of average faces. Researchers hypothesized that subjects should prefer images of male and female faces that have been morphed to exaggerate dimorphic characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity. This argument is related to the operation of oestrogen in females and to testosterone in males. Thus compared to average faces males and females should consistently prefer ‘feminine’ faces that signal the effects of oestrogen, through the development of a ‘baby-face’ with larger eyes, higher eyebrows and smaller chins. This was tested by means of two experiments where subjects were asked to compare an average face against a highly attractive face based on a sample of average faces (Perrett et al.,1994; 1998). In line with the argument for selective out-breeding, the highly attractive face was preferred over an average face shape.

A more complex picture emerges in respect to the perception of male faces. A large jaw and prominent forehead are produced in the developing male during adolescence leading theorists to surmise that these might act as honest signals that their bearer carries good genes, which should make them highly attractive to the opposite sex. The signals are ‘honest’ because testosterone decreases the effectiveness of the immune system and so only those individuals with high-quality immune systems can afford to develop such secondary characteristics. Yet again, results are mixed. There is some evidence to support this (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Debruine et al., 2006). For example in one study male teenagers with dominant facial features reported sexual intercourse at an earlier age than less dominant looking adolescents (Little & Perrett, 2002). However several other studies found that more feminine male faces of low dominance are also considered highly attractive (Perrett et al., 1998; Little & Hancock, 2002). Men and women with baby-like faces have been perceived as warmer, more honest and more sincere, but also more naïve than others. Indeed more “feminine” looking male faces were preferred over faces that had been “masculinised”, which were perceived as colder and more dishonest, suggesting that the hypothesis with respect to secondary sexual characteristics be rejected. The authors concluded that while masculinity and dominance in male faces might be attractive in the short term because the owner offers good immunity genes, these males are thought to make bad parents because they are unlikely to commit to a relationship and can be aggressive. On the other hand feminine-faced males are thought to be more honest and committed and cooperative, and thus to make better parents and attractive long-term partners. ‘Masculine’ men may thus be preferred candidates for short-term relationships. Another possibility is that sexual dimorphism is linked to intrasexual competition. Masculine men and feminine women should be better able to compete with members of their own sex. As masculinity increases men are seen to be more dominant (DeBruine et al,, 2006). So it could be that this is related to competition between males and not just to attractiveness to females.

Skin Colour and Texture

Skin colour and texture are of primary concern to consumers. The market for moisturisers, tanning products, sun-creams and anti-aging creams comprises a vast competitive arena where some of the biggest global brands compete ruthlessly over their promise of a clear, smooth and unblemished skin. In Asia and South-Africa concerns are raised about the extensive use of skin lightening creams, whilst in the UK the opposite concern is raised in relation to consumers who desire a tanned appearance by using tanning parlours or spending hours in direct sunlight without adequate protection. From an evolutionary perspective it is argued that the lightness and texture of the skin and its colour act as honest signals of health and youthfulness.

Research to date on Caucasian subjects confirms that the homogeneity and distribution of skin colour across the face contributes to perceptions of health, age, and attractiveness. Skin redness, which is observed in those with rosy red cheeks, is associated with healthy blood flow and signals physical fitness in males and females (Stephen et al., 2009b). Skin yellowness is also found attractive and is influenced by carotenoids which improve the immune system through consumption of fruit and vegetable and by melanin colouration, which is increased by tanning, or exposure to the sun. In one study subjects evinced a preference for males with darker skin, whereas light skin signified youthfulness, fertility and femininity for males and females of high social class (Stephen et al., 2009a).

A pertinent question is what contributes most to perceptions of attraction in yellowness, carotenoids or tanning? Depending on the answer, to look more attractive then one ought either to consume more fruit and vegetables or spend more time getting a suntan. In one experiment where participants could manipulate the amount of colour, they chose to increase the yellowness and lightness of morphed faces, whereas tanning darkens the skin (Stephen et al., 2009a). In a subsequent study participants chose to manipulate the beta-carotene colouration more than that for melanin to achieve what they considered a healthy complexion. These results suggest that consumption of fruit and vegetables contributes more to perceptions of health than does a suntanned appearance (Stephen et al., 2011: 224-225). In one study to measure the effect of consumption of fruit and vegetables over a six-week period, it was found that moderate amounts increased perceived health (2.9 portions) and attractiveness (3.3 portions). The authors note that American and European adults have a much lower rate of consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables and suggest that this could be dramatically increased by drawing consumers’ attention to the positive impact increased and regular consumption of these can have on their appearance (Whitehead et al., 2012). A further question is whether carotenoid consumption or melanin is considered more attractive? In one study clear evidence emerged that carotenoids are consistently judged more attractive. In light of these findings the old adage might thus better be formulated as “an apple a day keeps the cosmetics company at bay”!

Other studies confirm that white Europeans and black South African participants show similar increases when manipulating lightness and yellowness, arguing that this shows cross-cultural consistency in the role of carotenoids in skin appearance. The authors argue that this might be seen to support the existence of innate domain-specific role for skin colour in the apparent health of humans, but caution that further research is needed (Stephen et al., 2011). A further study with African males found that they considered younger, thinner women with a lighter, yellower skin colour and more homogeneous tone to be attractive (Coetzee et al., 2012). The authors also found that skin colour is more important than sexual dimorphism in face shape.

Short Term Mating Strategies

Evolutionary theorists argue that males and females exhibit consistent differences in short-term mating preferences. If one accepts the explanation based on parental investment, then males are predicted to have evolved a greater desire for casual sex, which requires little investment compared to the risks it holds for females. Over a one-year period an ancestral male who had sex with dozens of women could have caused multiple pregnancies, whereas a female who had sex with dozens of men would have produced just one child! (Buss & Schmidt, 1993). The argument is that males evolved towards promiscuity because it did no damage to their reputation. On the other hand promiscuity would have been more damaging to the female reputation as if a male mated with a promiscuous female, he would never be able to ensure his paternity.

In a well-known and controversial study to test such observations, males and females on a U.S. college campus were approached in public by an experimenter of the opposite sex (Clark & Hatfield, 1989). A confederate recruited by the experimenter would say: “Hi, I’ve been noticing you around campus and I find you very attractive.” The experimenter would then ask one of the following questions: “Would you go out with me tonight?”; “Would you come over to my apartment tonight?” or (3) “Would you go to bed with me tonight?” The experimenters recorded the percentage who agreed to each request, and also any verbal comments they made.

Of the females approached by a male experimenter, 50% agreed to go out on a date with him; 6% agreed to go back to his apartment; and 0% agreed to have sex. Some who were asked for sex took this as an insult whilst others thought this was strange. Of the males approached by the female experimenters, 50% agreed to go out on a date, similar to the women’s responses. However, 69% agreed to go back to her apartment. And 75% agreed to have sex with her. Of the males who declined the sexual request, some were apologetic, citing for instance a prior commitment with parents or a fiancée. (Clarke & Hatfield, 1989).

The above study was partially replicated in Austria, Canada, Germany and the USA (Clark & Hatfield, 2003). However sexual attitudes, mores and dating behaviours have changed significantly since then, for example, through the development of online apps such as Tinder and nowadays it is not considered ethically acceptable to replicate the original study. Hatfield (2006) recognised that a major problem with the original study was its lack of real-world relevance, as even in 1989 ,it was considered gross to invite a stranger to have sex, and the question “Are men or women most open to casual sex” is simplistic. She subsequently has argued for more sophisticated studies that take into account (a) who is doing the asking, in terms of their age, gender, race and social class? (b) who is being asked, reflecting the personality traits and social situation of the person? (c) what is being asked, such as an invitation to go on a date or for casual sex? (d) reasons given for accepting or rejecting offers? (e) the role played by cultural and/ or historical factors which influence acceptance or rejection. She also modified the research design to consist of a pencil and paper exercise where respondents are presented with a morphed image of an individual from the opposite sex and asked to imagine if they were approached by this person in class, how likely they were to have a drink with them, go on a date or go to bed with them.

Replications have since attended to some of the points made by Hatfield (2006). Findings from studies conducted in Denmark and France are not so clear-cut as in the original. For Danish women, the more explicit the sexual invitation, the less likely they were to agree. Danish men were more likely to agree to go back to the apartment for a drink than to agree to a date or to sex, a difference which the authors attributed to cultural differences between Denmark and the USA (Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2009, 2010). The French men in the study by Guéguen (2011) also generally agreed to go back to the woman’s apartment for a drink, but not so much for sex. Some women accepted the offer for drinks but all declined the sexual invitation. The behaviour of the men was later interpreted in the following manner by Tappé et al. (2012) who asked their respondents why they had accepted or rejected the proposal. Describing one of the men in their study who stated his preference to go to the apartment for sex they note that, “He observed that if you accept an offer to visit a woman’s apartment you can always initiate sex if you wish to do so. If you accept an offer for sex, and discover your partner is mad, sad, or bad, you are stuck”.

Conley (2011) focused on the role played by the proposer in the Clark and Hatfield study. She found that the large difference between male and female choosers discovered by Clark and Hatfield was eliminated when participants were asked to imagine that the person proposing sex was attractive or unattractive. She reasoned that a women is less likely to take reputational risk and appear sexually desperate whereas men do not bear that risk. Conley asked respondents to consider that the proposer was a celebrity such as Donald Trump or Roseanne Barr, finding that her participants expressed very little interest in either! Women were more likely to accept if they thought the proposer was a good lover. Overall her findings suggest that the personality characteristics of the proposers in Clark and Hatfield’s study played a greater role than did gender differences.

In a later paper Conley shifted focus to consider the role played by the context in which casual sex occurs. The sexual double standard refers to the harsher penalties imposed on women than men for engaging in sex with strangers. A key finding was that the anticipation of negative judgments plays a role in women being less likely to accept casual sex offers from men (Conley et al., 2012). The context also featured in research by Baranowski et al. (2015). They had six male and eight female average-looking confederates approach162 men and 119 women either at a university campus or in a nightclub and ask them for a date or casual sex. The authors found that significantly more men than women consented to a sexual invitation. The second stage of research was conducted in a laboratory setting in order to gauge the perception of risk by the women. This experiment involved sixty male and female subjects who were each shown ten photographs of persons of the opposite sex and asked to choose whom they would like to meet for a date or for sex. In this study the same proportion of men and women agreed to a date or sex. However, men selected a wider range of choice compared to women. The authors concluded that women were more liberal in a safer setting. Tappé et al. (2012) focused on the cultural context, choosing the US state of Hawaii, which is sexually conservative by comparison to the mainland. The pattern of results differed from the predominantly European American community in which the original study was run. The authors concluded that despite cultural differences men appear to be more likely to agree to engage in casual sex than women.

Sex Differences and Consumption

It is argued that universal sex differences occur in precisely those domains predicted to involve sex-differentiated adaptive problems, whereby women preferentially look for resources, whilst men prefer mates who displays cues to youth and physical attractiveness as signs of fertility. Women will value physical appearance as a means to compete with members of the same sex and to locate the best possible mate. Evolutionary psychologists draw attention to the increased propensity for women to devote a greater proportion of their income and time than men to grooming and general appearance, which often involves submission to pain and the risk of deformity, as when wearing six-inch heels. They are also much more likely to have plastic surgery performed, where the data suggest that they are ten times more likely to do so than men (Saad, 2007: 71). Women spend a greater proportion of their income and time on grooming. When derogating a rival they are more likely to focus on physical attributes such as cellulite, or pear-shape. More worryingly, as is discussed more fully in chapter nine, they are also much more prone than men to engage in disordered eating and to suffer from severe ailments such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. On the other hand men tend to display signs of their wealth and prestige, such as a car and will put down potential competitors by questioning their drive and ambition (Buss, 2004).

￼

Figure 5.1: Evolutionary explanation of beauty

Intentional Behaviourist Explanation of Consumption

The following account discusses Gordon Foxall’s development of intentional behaviourism. While Foxall is best known for developing a behaviouralist explanation of consumption this is discussed here because this explanation is framed within the domain-specific evolutionary context described by Tooby and Cosmides (1989). Foxall’s scheme is ambitious because he recognises the role played by both intentionality and of sub-personal processes in consumption. Give this, he is worthy of consideration for developing an alternative explanation to that offered by neuropsychoanalysis, which is discussed in chapter eight. His evolutionary explanation is discussed near the end of this section.

Foxall is best known for developing consumer behaviour analysis which, as the name suggests, offers a behaviourist account of consumer decision processes which explains these in terms of operant conditioning, involving a classic threefold contingency, involving a discriminative stimulus, response and reinforcement. Foxall later developed the Behavioural Perspective Model (BPM) which specifies that the rate of behavioural response is explained by discriminative stimuli in the behavioural setting and by levels of utilitarian reinforcement and informational reinforcement (Foxall, 1990). He argued that the setting can be open, as in a street market, or relatively closed, as for instance, in a supermarket. Utilitarian reinforcement relates to the technical and operational qualities of the product, its reliability and so forth, whereas informational reinforcement relates to performance feedback, social status and prestige. One can derive utilitarian reinforcement from any car that enables one to get from A to B, but over and above that, a Porsche provides informational reinforcement. Research informed by this perspective aims to describe behaviour at a super-personal level, studying what are known as molar processes, or overall patterns of response to the rate of reinforcement that are identifiable from the relative frequencies at which responses are emitted. Data on reinforcement is thus obtained from consumer panels rather than from molecular, or individual sources.

Behaviourism is an extensional science as it restricts its remit to purely to the observation of behaviour in relation to environmental contingencies (operant behaviour) and eschews any ascription of intentionality to the consumer. However, Foxall (2008, 2010) broke with this convention when arguing that it is necessary for behaviourists to admit some form of intentionality if they are to develop a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation of consumer behaviour. This seems contradictory, for surely the whole point of behaviourism is to avoid “within the skin” concepts that cannot be directly observed, such as knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? Foxall argues on pragmatic grounds that in practice it is extremely difficult for behaviourists to avoid discussion of intentionality, for instance an explanation of the continuity of behaviour over time, requires discussion of knowledge, remembering and forgetting.

Foxall’s development of intentional behaviourism is largely indebted to the philosopher Daniel Dennett, for whom consciousness is based on the model of a computer, consisting of layered software programmes that run on the hardware of the brain. Where behaviourists confine their explanations to the super-personal level of group behaviour, Dennett focuses on explaining the operation of brain processes at the sub-personal level which are qualitatively different from the personal explanations that consumers provide of their behaviour, in other words between “me” as an organism and me as a person. This is interesting, as it opens up the idea that human subjectivity is layered, inviting questions as to whether the organism and the person are aspects of a whole, or can act as separate agencies whereby one overrides the other.

In Dennett’s scheme the investigation of the sub-personal realm by neuroscience aims to develop a functional explanation by focusing on the study of brain mechanisms. Neuromarketing organizations and neuroscientists focus on the sub-personal level. For instance Sarah Todd of Campaign argued that neuroscience is essential for retailers, “to evaluate subconscious biases and behaviour when shoppers walk through the shop - from store design and navigational layout to display, signage and packaging”.¹⁷ Publicity for Neurofocus has claimed that its neurological findings enable it to target consumers much more profitably than traditional self-report questionnaires. Sub-personal influences have obviously been of interest to those developing 5G systems or ‘the internet of things’.

Foxall is especially keen to maintain conceptual clarity and methodological dualism by distinguishing between brain and mind and between sub-personal and personal levels of analysis. This is for methodological reasons and also to avoid the mereological fallacy, which, he argues, Dennett himself is prone to in his later works. The mereological fallacy refers to the pervasive tendency to erroneously attribute properties of the whole to its parts (Bennet & Hacker, 2003), for instance, by using the personal as a metaphor to discuss sub-personal processes as if they were intentional by ascribing desires and wants to them (Foxall, 2007: 27). This is akin to thinking homunculi or little people in our heads tell us what to do rather then the operation of a complex set of processes; for example simplistic statements about causation as in comments like “I didn’t eat that ice-cream, my emotional brain made me!”.

Foxall argues that three nested processes exist; at the super-personal level there is observation of frequencies of behaviour and identification of beliefs or emotions. This enables the researcher to access the personal ascription of beliefs and emotions. Research at the sub-personal level aims to discover the neural correlates, or the smallest set of neural events that can account for the belief or emotion expressed at the super-personal level. Dennett asks that we should enquire of any object what desires and beliefs would it be rational for it to have given its learning history and the situation it faces?

Foxall’s Explanation of Consumer Behaviour at the Super-Personal Level

Foxall argues that findings at the super-personal level deriving from consumer behaviour analysis demonstrate the matching law, which holds that when provided with more than one option, consumers will match their behaviour to the relative returns provided by each option to optimize their overall reinforcement. In other words, we are most likely to choose that alternative that yields us the most satisfaction, or which minimizes our dissatisfaction. This derives from research by Herrnstein (1961, 1970), who presented pigeons with two keys, A and B which each delivered food pellets at a different rate. Herrnstein found that the pigeons allocated their responses to A and B based on the relative reinforcement received from responding to each option, thus optimizing their overall reinforcement. Findings from animals were confirmed in the context of consumer behaviour analysis by evidence that when presented with two or more brands consumers will match their responses to the relative reinforcement provided by each (Sigurdsson & Foxall, 2016).

While the matching law describes behaviour at the molar level, melioration explains it at the molecular level. This predicts that in contrast to rational choice theory, when presented with two alternatives, the consumer will not take long-run consequences into account but will always choose that alternative that provides the highest local rate of reinforcement (Herrnstein & Prelec, 1991). The reality is that people tend to be inconsistent in their preferences. At one time a person may prefer a larger reward that will be provided in the future over a smaller, sooner, for example, they may decide to cut out mid-morning snacks as a means to lose weight, by envisioning the enjoyment of wearing their favourite swimsuit when they go on holiday. After a successful few days their plan goes awry when they are sat in a café with a friend who offers to buy them a doughnut. They decline, but when the friend insists, they eat the doughnut and then regret their decision. Given that everyone has experienced similar instances, whether in relation to food, tobacco, alcohol or drugs, it is claimed that economic irrationality is normal (Foxall, 2008: 376). How is such behaviour to be explained?

Foxall turns to the Ainslie’s (1992) picoeconomics to explain the self-defeating inconsistencies of behaviour that lead to the misery caused by overconsumption of harmful substances such as food or alcohol and of behaviours such as gambling. Ainslie described differences between exponential and hyperbolic discounting. Exponential discounting involves subtracting a constant proportion of utility for any given delay, for every additional unit of delay. For example if I leave money on deposit in a bank, I should expect to receive 1/12th of what I would receive one year from now in one month’s time. Similarly by abstaining from high calorie snacks each day my weight and shape will change incrementally. But the vast majority of us do not discount in this way in practice, but rather hyperbolically, by preferring a smaller reward such as the doughnut that is available soon, to the larger, later rewards gained by fitting into one’s swimsuit. Famously, hyperbolic discounting was investigated by Mischel et al. (1988) who found that a young child’s success in delaying the gratification of eating marshmallows was related to later cognitive and social development, health, and even brain structure.¹⁸

While one might presume that a failure of willpower is the most obvious explanation for engaging in delayed gratification, Ainslie turned the question around to ask, “how does an internal marketplace that disproportionately values immediate rewards turn into a long-term maximizer of utility?’ (Ainslie, 2005). Rather than explaining this as a failure of control of a top down ego or will, Ainslie pointed instead to bottom-up processes. He argued that when presented with a choice, the mind is a battleground of conflicting interests, with some triumphing over others. A particular interest such as fitting into one’s swimsuit survives by realizing more expected discounted reward than other interests that might become dominant. So my interest in dieting might arrange for me not to visit café’s where doughnuts are available to ensure that the discounted value of doughnuts will never rise over the rewards provided by dieting – but the interest in doughnuts spikes when I am in the situation in the café and my friend has purchased the doughnut (Ainslie, 2005, 637).

Importantly, Ainslie did not describe addiction as a disease related to biological factors but as a behaviour related to time period. He defined an addiction as a behaviour where the marketplace in the mind is temporarily dominated by short-term over long term interests. The addict has a clear phase of conscious preference and also of regret after indulging these short-term interests which are experienced as problems, because they tend to detract from overall utility in the long run.

Foxall did not follow along with Ainslie’s idea of interests but rather sided with evidence from experiments from fMRI scans which discovered that two different brain systems are involved in exponential and hyperbolic discounting (McClure et al., 2004; 2014). This is similar to Daniel Kahneman (2011) who argued for two brain systems, System I and System 2. This account proposes that short-term impulsive behaviour involves the limbic system which responds to immediate rewards whereas long-term patience involves higher-level executive processes. In this argument the brain does not discount hyperbolically but rather different parts of it discount exponentially, with the limbic system discounting more steeply than the higher-level system. However ,as with much scientific enquiry this is disputed by Ainslie and Monterosso & Luo (2010) who argue that these supposedly distinct systems are in fact related.

Foxall’s Sub-Personal Explanation

Sub-personal explanations describe the neural substrates of economic decisions. Dennett focuses on the neural substrates of behaviour which he links to personal intentions in a manner that is consistent with evolutionary theory. The key question presented by Ainslie (2005) is why do we often act against our own best interest when we consume by preferring a smaller-sooner reward over a larger-later reward? This should not happen if we discounted the future exponentially. From the above, McClure et al. (2004) propose that humans share with nonhumans a lower automatic process governed by the limbic system that motivates impatient emotional choices (System 1). This process competes with a uniquely human capacity for general reasoning and future planning that is governed by the lateral prefrontal cortex (System 2). The authors argue that sudden elicitation of limbic activity by near-term opportunities or other factors creates the spike in the discount curve that makes it seem hyperboloid and is responsible for temporary reversals of preference.

Foxall argues that the reward system in the brain consists of neurons that fire at higher or lower rates depending on whether a stimulus is better or worse than expected from experience. From a biological perspective the ordinal ranking of options as better or worse permits a more rapid decision than does rational evaluation. All consumer behaviour from routine shopping to extreme forms of addiction are marked by an increased firing of dopamine (DA) neurons. The principal difference, which is important, is that everyday consumption produces pleasure as an aftereffect, whereas in extreme behaviours dopamine is triggered prior to the act as a signal to the accoutrements associated with the behavior (ibid.: 371-372). Foxall explains that for the addict it is not the pleasure, if any, that the flood of dopamine creates that is reinforcing. Rather it is the environmental cues that predict the flood. For the drug addict the risks attendant on procuring the substance, the assortment of the paraphernalia, their preparation of the body and of the substance prior to ingesting it are key. Pleasure is created by anticipation’ for example, the heroin addict is stimulated by the prospect of acquiring the drug and engaging in the ritual of preparation prior to injection.

Foxall (2005), discusses the importance of emotions in consumer behaviour which he reduces to just three basic emotions, namely, pleasure, arousal and dominance. Pleasure provides utilitarian reinforcement; arousal, information reinforcement; whilst dominance is related to the behavioural setting. As consumers, we express ‘liking” for the everyday consumption objects we find fulfilling and which enhances our status. On the other hand there is comparatively low enjoyment to be gained from routine purchases. Compulsive and addictive behaviours differ from everyday consumption as they are associated more with ‘wanting’, which is characterised by a state of high arousal, low pleasure and low dominance. The addict gains no pleasure from consumption but also loses the confidence inspired by self-control linked to dominance along with the anxiety associated with high arousal.

In discussing the neural substrates of emotions Foxall seeks to map his three basic emotions of pleasure, arousal and dominance onto the scheme of basic emotions identified by the neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp (1998) which are described further in chapter eight. He is thus presented with the problem of how to map his basic emotions with those described by Panksepp who writes the basic emotions in capitals to demonstrate their universality. Panksepp describes FEAR, RAGE, SEEKING, LUST, CARE, PANIC AND PLAY. Foxall maps FEAR, RAGE, SEEKING AND LUST onto arousal and CARE, PANIC AND PLAY onto pleasure/displeasure. Although Panksepp does not describe dominance as a basic emotion but as an emergent emotional system based on a combination of others, Foxall is not discouraged, arguing that this ‘actually reaffirms the centrality of dominance as a human emotion” (Foxall, 2020: 385).

From the above highly addictive behaviours involve a high firing rate of dopamine as opposed to its low firing in routine behaviour. Foxall argues the “primrose path” of addiction as a movement from everyday consumption towards more impulsive behaviour which is pleasurable but involves arousal, culminating in the addictive state.

Foxall’s Evolutionary Explanation

That extreme discounting is prevalent today is evidenced in a range of compulsive behaviours from problem gambling to alcoholism, the abuse of prescription and illegal drugs, overeating and obsessive sex. How is one to explain this? Foxall (2010) dismisses Ainslie’s (2005?) explanation based on interests in favour of what he describes as the “more constructive approach” offered by Tooby and Cosmides (1989). This explains temporal discounting as a mental module that became hardwired during the Pleistocene era and which now forms part of automatic System 1 architecture. This would have been adaptive during the Pleistocene when it was developed, when individuals lived very much from one day to the next, with little idea of the future, as it would have difficult to store food for long. Consequently, individuals made the most of brief periods of glut that were invariably followed by long spells of privation.

Foxall argues that the environmental changed from the Pleistocene period through the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals. Farmers now enjoyed more wealth, had more time for leisure and were more future oriented. In these new conditions extreme discounting would have been discouraged as antisocial. Foxall explains this in behaviourist terms as a change in the pattern of reinforcement so that a new orientation developed through the gradual movement towards farming settlements. By comparison with hunters farmers had time for leisure and more wealth, status and power. Deferred gratification was now emphasized by the emergent religions. Moving to the present time, over recent decades there has been a shift in the direction of a short-term horizon. The drive in contemporary affluent societies is towards immediate gratification which is provided by low-cost reinforcers that can be consumed immediately. These are facilitated by changes in community and family structures which have removed forces that hitherto inhibited consumption. These changes promote a discernable redirection of temporal perspective toward the short term and the concomitant expansion of extreme consumer behaviours such as drug dependence, pathological gambling and other forms of addiction.

Foxall sides with those who argue that higher-level executive functions developed in order to self-regulate behaviour from a present to a future orientation. This occurs by redirecting the temporal perspective away from short term satisfaction towards the achievement of longer-term goals that are ultimately more rewarding. He cites Bartkey (2001) who locates the development of executive functions such as working memory, internalization of speech, regulation of emotions and increased self-monitoring as means to shift the regulation of social exchange from overt public pressure towards internal self-monitoring. Bartkey argues that this was necessary given the interpersonal competition that arises within this group-living species. (Reminiscent of Elias civilizing process – see also Vrecko 2010) which evolved as an adaptation to the problems of taking past occurrences into account and the need to anticipate the consequences of current actions. Positive and negative reinforcement must be taken into account, since while some impulsive behaviours produce immediate reward, others serve to avoid or escape from aversive stimulation. An activity such as selecting a larger later reward (LLR) instead of a smaller sooner reward (SSR) activity requires some sort of internal capacity to sense the future. Foxall argues that changes in environmental contingencies have led to these transitions. This suggests that such contingencies are more powerful than evolutionary forces. Why is routine consumer behavior self-controlled?

Discussion

Foxall’s intentional behaviourism is an ambitious development that purports to explain all aspects of consumer behavior from the routine to the extreme and which seeks to reconcile super-personal to sub-personal and personal perspectives in an evolutionary context. The breadth of his discussion which spans philosophy, behaviourist and evolutionary psychology, economics and neuroscience is to be welcomed nowadays when academic enquiry is becoming more narrowly specialized. On the other hand this breadth inevitably opens up weaknesses in his overall argument, given the reflexivity of scientific enquiry which entails that no one theory has been decisively proven. For example positing a domain specific module for engaging in addictive behavior (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989) that triggers the activation of automatic ‘system 1’ processes in the presence of substances such as sucrose that would have been highly rewarding during the Pleistocene (Kahneman, 2011) - these authors actually present different explanations. His approach might be described as being overly reductive as for instance with respect to his discussion of emotion which focuses on Panksepp’s (1998) four basic systems of fear, rage, panic and expectancy and omits discussion of alternatives such as Ekman (1992) who proposed between six and fifteen emotions. He also entirely omits to consider that the emotions may be social. In this text the emotions are discussed more widely in chapter X on the body and chapter Y on psychoanalysis. Additionally his attempt to fit Panksepp’s list of basic emotions to his own set of basic emotions is Procrustean.

Foxall’s description of the ‘primrose path” to addiction is that this is an aberrant form of consumption in which anyone can become entangled. It thus shifts the blame away from the addict and onto the environmental cues that trigger addictive behavior. On the other hand many neuroscientists argue that addiction is a chronic disease related to the impact of substances on reward systems and moreover that the existence of gambling addiction reinforces this biological explanation (Vrecko, 2010). UK news excitedly reported research that supposedly identified a brain region (the medial prefrontal cortex) where heroin ‘relapse’ occurs (Bossert et al., 2011), albeit that the study participants were rats. On the other hand social and cultural scholars focus on the historical construction of the addict in particular social contexts (Rasmussen, 2010). These accounts often convey the impression that neuroscientific research is really a façade for social control (Vrecko, 2010). However social explanations do not seem to have gained so much traction on public policy as the disease model (Kushner, 2006; Dunbar et al., 2010).

Discussion and Conclusion

The core argument presented above is that much human behaviour is guided by the routine non-conscious operation of dedicated domain-specific modules that enabled our ancestors to survive, recognize kin, select fertile partners and signal their status to others in the blink of an eye. They also explain the role played by beauty in evolutionary understanding, although here it is important to distinguish Darwin’s argument that this is lies in the eye of the beholder, from mainstream advocates of the good genes hypothesis. Moreover, in relation to sexual selection, the concept of parental investment purports to explain why women are choosier than are men when it comes to sex and why women focus principally on the wealth of a prospective mate whilst men are drawn more to physical attributes such as an hourglass figure and a clear-skinned, baby-like face. This in turn provides an evolutionary basis for why women spend much more time and effort in cultivating their appearance through body modification, cosmetics and clothing than do men. These explanations have been subjected to critique,

Evaluating the ”Good Genes” hypothesis

Given its central importance to consumers it is important for researchers to understand beauty. We desire beauty in others, for who has not experienced the bliss and heartache of a romantic crush, or wished to be the object of another’s desire? This intensity of experience, which has long been regarded as the preserve of the poet, romantic novelist and musician, is now occupied as the territory for evolutionary psychologists and reduced to the question of mate choice, where human longing is placed on an equal footing to the choices made by some species of bird, rodent, fish and frogs. The peacock’s tail is one of those examples that instantly communicates the theory which explains it. Given its drain on the metabolism and the difficulty it imposes for escape from predators, surely this handicap operates as a clear signal that its owner has superior genes, or does it convey the opposite? Applied to humans the same principal is invoked to explain why women prefer well-muscled men. However, appealing it may be for some, the purported association between beauty and evolutionary fitness is disputed and indeed this was not argued by Darwin.

The underlying theory advanced by mainstream evolutionary social scientists is motivated by the argument that beauty is important to us by acting as an honest signal of fertility and good genes. It is important to remember that the fundamentally reflexive nature of scientific enquiry means findings are open to dispute and revision. The blanket assumption beauty = good genes is now criticized by psychologists and biologists. There is evidence that facial averageness is an attractive trait for humans although symmetry has only a small effect (Jones & Jaeger, 2019). From this study, which found that increased femininity was not preferred in female faces but rather, subjects disliked masculinity, researchers are increasingly arguing that it is not so much that beauty signals good genes but that lack of it potentially signals bad genes. Whilst this seems to true in some species, a meta-analysis of ninety studies on fifty-three species found mediocre support for the good-genes hypothesis (Jennions et al., 2012a; Jennions et al., 2012b). Richard Prum (2018) argues for a return to Darwin’s argument that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Whilst the evidence for the heritable benefits of choosing a beautiful mate is patchy, he argues that beauty is found everywhere in nature. Prum is drawn back to the explanation of beauty advanced by Darwin and Fisher. For him runaway selection seems a much more powerful force than natural selection. He argues that animals are agents in their own evolution, that birds are beautiful because they are beautiful to themselves.¹⁹ When it comes to studying beauty in humans, most research has been WEIRD (Henrich et al, 2010), with samples consisting in the main of students living in western urban settings. Previous findings that relate symmetry to attractiveness are now questioned. In one study

Overall the consensus that appears to be emerging is that mate choice is an important aspect of sexual selection which is itself a complex and multilayerd process. In seeking to explain the continuing controversy over whether or not mate choice is optimally designed to pick mates bearing good genes, biologists now discuss the limitations of research to date, pointing out that this is a difficult area to research that involves specialists from entirely different disciplines each using their own concepts to discuss the same observations. Importantly, most research has focused on the fitness consequences of the behaviour and not on the complexities of the behaviour itself (Rosenthal, 2017). For example, there is a focus on attributes that are preferred rather than those that are rejected, that signify bad genes. Interestingly, researchers such as Rosenthal now avoid the use of “males” and “females” but instead use “courters” and “choosers” in their arguments, as each sex can play either role.

Sexual Selection?

This area is particularly contentious, especially research that appears to bolster the argument that ‘men are from Mars, women are from Venus’ (Gray, 1992), and Simon Baron Cohen’s claim in The Essential Difference, that women are ‘hardwired’ for empathy to engage in social relationships, whereas men are predisposed to building systems. In The Blank Slate Pinker (2002) argues similarly that women are emotional and that men compete for status using violence. Such arguments lend credence to claims that all young girls will naturally choose to play with dolls and prams and that boys with balls and guns.

Short Term Mating?

While on the face of it the study by Clark and Hatfield (1989) has little to do with consumption, this is important to consider because it feeds into a narrative which many find compelling, that women are “hardwired” to be fundamentally differently from men. For instance, Schmidt et al. (2012) discuss male fantasies and consumption of pornography to argue that there is a, “wealth of evidence from real-world studies of actual mate choice and marital dynamics’, to support the view that men and women have distinct short-term mating psychologies. The meta-analysis by Baumeister et al. (2001) also supports the contention that males have a stronger sex drive than females. They report that men have more intense sexual desires and fantasize more about sex, want sex more frequently, desire more sexual partners, masturbate more often and are less willing to forego sex, than women.

The earlier discussion of Clark & Hatfield (1989) notes that the authors themselves had reservations about their original study which they sought to remedy in later research. Subsequent findings were not so definitive as the original study. A major reason is cultural, relating to the powerful social stigma that attaches itself particularly to women who engage in short-term relationships. In a comprehensive review of the scientific literature Saini (2017) argues that the reason women are less likely to say “yes” to questions such as that posed by Clark and Hatfield are cultural. This is because societies over millennia have imposed punitive sanctions on women engaging in sexual encounters with strangers. Whilst evolutionary anthropologist Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy (2001) does not directly critique Clark & Hatfield (1989), she offers extensive research amongst primate and human groups which problematizes the theoretical assumptions that underpin this research. Hrdy challenges the assumption, which she describes as stereotypical, that men are naturally sexually assertive and that women are sexually submissive, offering evidence that apes, monkeys and human females engage extensively in non-reproductive sex and indeed that there are many reasons to assume that women are sexually assertive (ibid.: 160). Most importantly, she argues that the reality is that there is very little actual information to go on (ibid.: 177).

The argument that women desire fewer sexual partners than men has also come under scrutiny. In one study the researchers used a fake lie detector. When asked about real sexual partners, those who were not attached to the lie detector produced the predicted response, with men reporting more sexual partners than women. However, when participants were linked to the fake lie detector, women reported a slightly higher mean (4.4 partners) than did men (4.0 partners (Alexander & Fisher, 2003).

Researchers have also investigated the idea that women are choosier than men. One study of speed-dating behaviour asked women to move around a room where individual men sat at tables. This is different to the normal setup where women sit at tables waiting for men. The change resulted in women behaving more like stereotypical men, becoming less selective, whereas men behaved more like stereotypical women and become more choosy. The authors argued that this reversal had to do with the context, where the act of physically approaching another person makes them seem more attractive (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009).

Despite the rhetoric of gender equality in western societies, Natasha Walter (2010) describes the ‘new determinism’ whereby girls are drowned in a sea of pink and boys in blue; where toys are positioned at ‘Mommy and Me’ and ‘Daddy and Me’. Walter argues that culture continues to play a major role in constructing a gendered environment. She asks what if Miranda wants to play football, or if a boy who wants to be a ballet dancer (ibid.: 134)? Current assumptions structured around blue and pink overlooks the very real variability between boys and girls (ibid.: 145/6). While the issues identified by Walter have since been publicly recognized by many, including media broadcasters and advertisers, these stereotypical attitudes are ingrained in automatic behaviours that are incredibly difficult to change.

The above discussion illustrates that questions relating to human sexuality are complex, as they are situated at the confluence of a number of different discourses, ranging from experimental and evolutionary psychology and neuroscience to social psychology, anthropology and social theory. Authors and researchers differ in relation to what constitutes reality and how best to investigate it and lack the shared concepts that comes from a common language to describe the phenomena they seek to explain.

References and further reading

Al-Ubaydli, O.; D. Houser, J. Nye, M.P. Paganelli & X.S. Pan (2012) The Causal Effect of Market Priming on Trust: An Experimental Investigation Using Randomized Control, PloS one, 8(3): e55968.

Ball, Philip (2017) Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen? The Observer, 8th January.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen

Board, B. J., & K. Fritzon, (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634304

Bowlby, Rachel (1993) Shopping With Freud. London & New York: Routledge.

Banks G.C., J.H. Batchelor & M.A. McDaniel (2010) Smarter people are (a bit) more symmetrical: a meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and fluctuating asymmetry. Intelligence 38, 393–401. 

Baranowski, Andreas M, & Heiko Hecht (2015) Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(8) DOI: 10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2003). The essential difference, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Baumeister, R. F; K.R. Catanese and K.D. Vohs (2001) Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views,conceptual distinctions,and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 5(3): 242–273.

Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah (1981) The woman who never evolved, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Braun, Margaret F. & Angela Bryan (2006) Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 23(5): 805-819.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Buss, D. M. (1994/2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125-150.

Cai, Z.; A.C. Hahn, W. Zhang, I.J. Holzleitner, A.J Lee, L.M. DeBruine & B.C. Jones, (2019). No evidence that facial attractiveness, femininity, averageness, or coloration are cues to susceptibility to infectious illnesses in a university sample of young adult women. Evol. Hum. Behav., vol. 40:156–159.

Chiappe, D., & K. MacDonald (2005). The evolution of domain-general mechanisms in intelligence and learning. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 5- 40.

Chae, S., S. Desai, M. Crowell & G. Sedgh (2017). Reasons why women have induced abortions: a synthesis of findings from 14 countries. Contraception, 96(4), 233–241. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.014

Clarke, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39- 55.

Coetzee, Vinet, S.J. Faerber, J.M. Greeff, C.E. Lefevre, D.E. Re & D.I. Perrett (2012) African perceptions of female attractiveness. PLoS One, vol. 7(10) e48116, doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0048116

Colman, A.M., (2016). Race differences in IQ: Hans Eysenck's contribution to the debate in the light of subsequent research, Personality and Individual Differences, 103(Dec), 182-189.

Conley, T. D.; A. Zeigler & A.C. Moors  (2012).Backlash From the Bedroom: Stigma Mediates Gender Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2):392-507.

Conley, T. D.  (2011a).  Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309-239.

Conley, Terri, D.; Amy C. Moors, Jes L. Matsick. Ali Ziegler & Brandon A. Valentine (2011b). Women, Men and the Bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 296-300.

Conley, Terri, D.; Ali Ziegler & Amy C. Moors, (2012). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly November 29, 2012

Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J. B., Kiviniemi, V., George, H. R., & Tovee, M. J. (2009). Patterns of eye-movements when male and female observers judge female attractiveness, body fat and waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 417-428.

DeBruine LM, B.C. Jones BC, A.C. Little, L.G. Boothroyd, D.I. Perrett, I.S. Penton-Voak, PA Cooper, L. Penke, D.R. Feinberg & B.P. Tiddeman (2006) Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006;273:1355-1360.

Deichmann, U. (2016) Epigenetics: the origins and evolution of a fashionable topic. Developmental Biology, vol. 416(1):249-254.

Dixson, B.J. & A.F. Dixon (2010) Female waist-to-hip ratio, body mass index and sexual attractiveness in China. Current Zoology, vol. 56(2): 175-181.

Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P. (1994) “Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell’s mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 268-287.

Etcoff, N.L. (1999) Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, New York: Doubleday.

Eknoyan, Garabed (2007) Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874)—the average man and indices of obesity, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol 23(1):47-51.

Fehr, E., & S. Gäechter(2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.

Flack, Jessica C. & Frans. B.M. de Waal (2000) “Any animal whatever”, pp. 1-31 . In, Leonard D. Katz (Ed.) Evolutionary origins of morality: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Bowling Green OH: Imprint Academic.

Flack, Jessica C. & Frans. B.M. de Waal (2000) “Being nice is not a building block of morality’, pp. 67-79. . In, Leonard D. Katz (Ed.) Evolutionary origins of morality: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Bowling Green OH: Imprint Academic.

Foo, Y.Z.; L.W. Simmons & G. Rhodes, G. (2017) Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans. Sci. Rep. vol, 7: article no. 39731.

Foucault, M. (1997). Society must be defended: lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976., David Macey (trans). London: Penguin.

Foxall, G.R. (2010) Accounting for consumer choice: Inter-temporal decision making in behavioural perspective. Marketing Theory (December): 315-345.

Foxall, G.R. (2008) Reward, emotion and consumer choice: From neuroeconomics to neurophilosophy. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 7:368-396.

Foxall, G.R. (2007) Intentional Behaviorism: Behavior and Philosophy, 35: 1-55.

Freese, J., & Meland, S. (2002). Seven Tenths Incorrect: Heterogeneity and Change in the Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Playboy Centerfold Models and Miss America Pageant Winners. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 133–138. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813195

Frieze, I., J. Olson & J. Russell (1991) “Attractiveness and income for men and women in management”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, July, 21/13: 1039-1057.

Galton, Francis (1864/5) “Civilization, Caste and Beauty, pp. 157-166; 318-327. In MacMillan’s Magazine, vol. 11 (Nov. 1864-April 1865).

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X

Garner, D. M, Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychological Reports, 47, 183-191.

Gayon, G. (2010) Sexual selection: Another Darwinian process. C R Biol. Vol.333(2):134-44. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2009.12.001.

Girard, René (2000) Mimetic desire and eating disorders. http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/contagion/contagion3/contagion03_girard.pdf. Accessed November 10th 2010.

Graham, J.H. & B. Özener (2016) Fluctuating asymmetry of human populations: A review. Symmetry, vol. 8(12):154. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8120154

Grammer, K. & Thornhill, R. (1994) “Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness”. J. Comp. Psych. 108: 233-242.

Gray, (1992) Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in a relationship, New York: HarperCollins.

Greely, Henry T. (2018) The end of sex and the future of human reproduction. Harvard University Press.

Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity of sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 40, 915-919.

Hernstein, R.J. (1961) Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, vol. 4: 267-272.

Hernstein, R.J. (1970) On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, vol. 13:243-266.

Hernstein, R.J. & D. Prelec (1991) Melioration: A theory of distributed choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5: 137-156.

Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube., T., & Miltner. W. H. R. (2008). Gender differences in specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, vol. 32, 67-78.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2009). “Would you go to bed with me?” Gender differences in receptivity to sexual invitations. In H. Høgh-Olesen, H. J. Tonnesvang, & P. Bertelsen (Eds.), Human characteristics: Evolutionary perspectives on human mind and kind (pp. 366-381).Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 453-458. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004

Hatfield, E. (2006). Love in the afternoon: Men’s and women’s receptivity to casual sexual offers. Paper presented at the Evolutionary Psychology Preconference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Palm Springs, CA., January

Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28: 501-513.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (2008) Evolution, biology and consumer research: What Darwin knew that we’ve forgotten. In, Mark Tadajewski and Douglas Brownlie (eds.) Critical Marketing: Contemporary Issues in Marketing, John Wiley, ch. 8:131-155.

Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A. & Smith, V.I. (1998) Behavioural foundations of reciprocity: Experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36: 335-352.

Jennions M.D.;,H. Kokko & H. Klug (2012a) The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J Evol Biol, 25:591–598

Jennions, M.D.; A.T. Kahn, C.D. Kelly & H. Kokko (2012b) Meta-analysis and sexual selection: past studies and future possibilities Evol Ecol, 26:1119–1151 DOI 10.1007/s10682-012-9567-1

Jha, P; R. Kumar & N. Dhingra (2006) Sex ratio in India: Author’s reply. The Lancet, vol. 367(9524) doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68761-8

Jones, Steve (2000) Genetics in medicine: Real promises, unreal expectations: one scientist’s advice to policymakers in the United Kingdom and the United States. Milbank Memorial Fund. http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/000712genetics.html

Jones, A. L., & Jaeger, B. (2019). Biological bases of beauty revisited: The effect of symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism on female facial attractiveness. Symmetry, vol. 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020279

Johnston, V.S., R. Hagel, M. Franklin, B. Fink & Grammar, K. (2001) Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for a hormone-mediated adaptive design” Evolution and Human Behaviour, 22: 251-267.

Jussim, L.J. & J. Eccles,(1995). Are teacher expectations biased by students’ gender, social class, or ethnicity? In Y-T Lee, L.J. Jussim & C.R. McCauley (eds.) Stereotype accuracy: Towards appreciating group differences. Washington D.D: American Psychological Association.

Klingenberg C..P, L. Wetherill, J. Rogers, R. Ward, I. Autti-Ramo, A. Fagerlund, S.W. Jacobson, L.K. Robinson, H.E. Hoyme, S.N. Mattson, T.K. Li, E.P. Riley, T Faroud and the CIFASD Consortium (2010) Prenatal alcohol exposure alters the patterns of facial asymmetry. Alcohol, vol.44(7-8):649–657. doi:10.1016/j.alcohol.2009.10.016

Kahneman, Daniel (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Kaye, S. A., Folsom, A. R., Prineas, R. J., Potter, J. D., & Gapstur, S. M. (1990). The association of body fat distribution with lifestyle and reproductive factors in a population study of postmenopausal women. International Journal of Obesity, vol. 14, 583-591

Kalick, S. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Langlois, J. H., & Johnson, R. M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psycho- logical Science, vol. 9, 8–13.

Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, vol. 58, 97–116.

Klingenberg C..P, L. Wetherill, J. Rogers, R. Ward, I. Autti-Ramo, A. Fagerlund, S.W. Jacobson, L.K. Robinson, H.E. Hoyme, S.N. Mattson, T.K. Li, E.P. Riley, T Faroud and the CIFASD Consortium (2010) Prenatal alcohol exposure alters the patterns of facial asymmetry. Alcohol, vol. 44(7-8):649–657. doi:10.1016/j.alcohol.2009.10.016

Koehler, N., G. Rhodes & L.W. Simmons (2002) “Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely”? Animal Behaviour, 64: 233-238.

Kyrousi, A. G., Panigyrakis, G. G., & Panopoulos, A. P. (2016). Attitudes toward ads portraying women in decorative roles and female competition: an evolutionary psychology perspective. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 771–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1138576

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Langlois, J.H. & Roggman, L.A. (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1: 115-121.

Lavater, Johann C.: (1775) Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe, Bd. 1-4. Zürich 1969 (Faksimiledruck nach der Ausgabe Leipzig und Winterthur 1775-1778).

Leit, R.A,, Pope, H.G. & Gray, J.J. (2000) Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: the evolution of Playgirl centerfolds. Journal of Eating Disorders, 29: 90-93.

Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2001) Self-perceived attractive- ness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.

Little , Anthony & David Perrett (2002) Do women prefer ‘manly’ faces?. http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/perception.asp. (5 pp.)

Little, A.C.; B.C. Jones, L.M. DeBruine & D.R, Feinberg (2008) Symmetry and dimorphism in human faces: interrelated preferences suggest both signal quality. Behavioral Ecology, vol.19(4): 902-908.doi: 10.1093/beheco/arn049

Loewenstein, G. (1996) Out of control: Visceral influences on behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 65(3)272-292.

Lefevre, C.E. & D. I. Perrett (2015) Fruit over sunbed: Carotenoid skin colouration is found more attractive than melanin colouration.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol.68(2):284-93. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.944194

Lueptow, L.B. Garovitch-Szabo, L. & M.B. Lueptow (2001) Social change and the persistence of sex typing: 1974-1997. Social Forces, vol. 80: 1-35.

McClure S.M.; D.I. Laibson, G. Loewenstein & J.D. Cohen (2004) Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, vol. 306:503–507.

Marlowe, Frank & Adam Westman, (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 30: 481-489.

Mason, R., (2000). Conspicuous consumption and the positional economy: Policy and prescription since 1970. Management and Decision Economics, vol. 21: 123-132.

Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and overadaptation. Journal of Sex Research, vol. 22:281-303

Mealy, L., (2000). Anorexia: A losing strategy? Human Nature, vol. 11: 105-116.

Mentemurro, B. & J.M. Siefken, (2016). Cougars on the prowl? New perceptions of older women's sexuality. Journal of Aging Studies, 28, 25-43.

Miller, G.F., (1999). Waste is good. Prospect: February, 18-23.

Mischel W., Y. Shoda & P.K.Peake, (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687–696.

Morgan, Philip S., (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first century demographic crisis? Demography, vol. 40(4): 589-603.

Morris, A., Cooper, T, & P.J.Cooper, (1989). The changing shape of female fashion models. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 593-596.

Muniz,A.M & T.C. O’Guinn, (2001). Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432, https://doi.org/10.1086/319618

Neiman, F. (1998) Conspicuous consumption as wasteful advertising, 267-290. In, A Darwinian perspective on spatial patterns in classic Maya terminal monument dates. In C. M. Barton & G.A. Clark (Eds.) Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary theory in archeological exploration

Nisbett. R.E. & Kanhouse, D.E. (1969) “Obesity, food deprivation and supermarket shopping behaviour”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 12: 389-394.

O’Cass, A. & H. Frost, (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product and Brand Management, vol.11: 67-86.

 Oppenheim, A. L. (1967). 2. Old Assyrian Letters from Anatolia, Business Worries, in Letters from Mesopotamia: Official Business, and letters on clay tablets translated from two millenia, (Leo Oppenheim (trans.). University of Chicago Press, 77-78.

Orth, U.R. & D. Holancova, (2004). Men’s and women’s responses to sex role portrayals in advertisements. International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 21:77-88.

Panksepp, J., (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions, New York: Oxford University Press.

Perrett D.I., K. May & S. Yoshikawa, (1994). Attractive characteristics of female faces: preference for non-average shape. Nature, Lond. vol. 368: 239-242.

Perrett D.I., Lee K. J., Penton Voak I., Rowland D., Yoshikawa S., Burt D.M., Henzi S.P., Castles D.L., Akamatsu S. (1998) Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, Vol.394(6696): 884-887.

Perrett D.I., K.May, & S. Yoshikawa, (1994). Attractive characteristics of female faces: preference for non-average shape. Nature, Lond. 368, 239-242.

Perrett D.I., K.J. Lee, I. Penton Voak, D. Rowland, S. Yoshikawa, D.M. Burt, S.P. Henzi, D.L. Castles & S., Akamatsu, (1998), Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, Vol.394(6696): 884-887.

Pick, Daniel, (1993). Faces of degeneration, Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, Steven, (2002). The blank slate. London: Penguin/Allen Lane.

Pinker, Steven,(1997). How the mind works. London: Penguin.

Pound, N.; D.W. Lawson, A.M. Toma, S. Richmond, A.I. Zhurov & I.S. Penton-Voak, (2014). Facial fluctuating asymmetry is not associated with childhood ill-health in a large British cohort study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 281(1792). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1639

Prum, Richard O., (2018). The evolution of beauty: How Darwin’s forgotten theory of mate choice shapes the animal world – and us. Random House/Penguin.

Quammen, David, (2018). The tangled tree: A radical history of new life, Harper Collins.

Rhodes, G.; L.A, Zebrowitz, A. Clark, S.M. Kalick, A. Hightower & R. McKay (2001) Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evol. Hum. Behav, vol. 22: 31–46.

Rhodes G., (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol.  Vol. 57:199–226.

Rohlinger, D. A., (2002). Eroticizing men: cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, vol.46: 61-74.

Rosenthal, G., (2017). Mate choice: the evolution of sexual decision making from microbes to humans. Princeton University Press.

Rustagi, D.; S. Engel & M. Kosfield, (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science, vol. 330: 961-964.

Saad, Gad, (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption, New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Saini, A., (2017). Inferior: How science got women wrong and the new research that’s re-writing the story, Random House.

Schmitt, Donald P.; Peter K. Jonason, G.J. Byerley, S.D, Flores, B.E. Illbeck, K.N. O’Leary & A.Quadrat (2012) A Reexamination of Sex Differences in Sexuality: New Studies Reveal Old Truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 21(2):135-139. doi: 10.1177/0963721412436808

Scott, L.M. (2005) Fresh lipstick: Redressing fashion and feminism. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.

Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J., (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behavior, vol.20:71–76.

Sigurdsson, V. & G. Foxall (2016) Experimental analysis of choice and matching: From the animal laboratory to the marketplace. In, Gordon Foxall (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Consumer Behaviour Analysis, Abingdon, Routledge: 78-96.

Silverstein, B., Perdue, L , Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media in promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, vol.14: 519-532.

Simpson, Bob (2000) Imagined genetic communities: Identity and ethnicity in the twenty-first century. Anthropology Today, vol. 16(3): 3-6.

Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women's attractiveness: the critical role of the waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4: 297-321.

Singh, D. (1993b). Adaptive significance of female attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 65, 293-307.

Singh, D., & Young, R.K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: role in judgements of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16: 483-507.

Skalka, A.M., (2018). Discovering retroviruses: Beacons in the biosphere, Harvard University Press.

Stephen, Ian D., F.H. Oldham, D.I Perrett & R.A. Barton (2012) Redness enhances dominance and attractiveness in men’s faces. Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 10(3): 562-572.

Stephen, I. D., Coetzee, V., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). Carotenoid and melanin pigment coloration affect perceived human health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3): 216-227.

Stephen, Ian D., M.J. Law Smith, M.R. Stirrat & D.L. Perrett (2009a) Facial skin coloration affects perceived health of human faces. Int J Primatol. Vol.30(6): 845–857. doi:  10.1007/s10764-009-9380-z

Stephen, I. D., V. Coetzee, M.J. Law-Smith, & D.I. Perrett (2009b). Skin Blood Perfusion and Oxygenation Colour Affect Perceived Human Health. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4(4): e5083 DOI: 10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0005083

Sperber, Dan & Lawrence Hirschfield (2005) Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive?, in, The Innate Mind: Structure and Content. Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich, (eds.), Oxford University Press: 149-165.

Tappé, M.; L.Bensman, K. Hayashi & E. Hatfield (2012) Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers: A New Research Prototype. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, vol. 7(2):323–344,: <https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121>. Date accessed: 02 apr. 2019. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v7i2.121.

Thornhill, R.; & A.P. Møller (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc., vol. 72: 497–548.

Till, B.D., (2000). Stimulus generalization in classical conditioning: an initial investigation and extension – Psychology and Marketing??

Trigg, A.B., (2001). Veblen, Bourdieu and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 35: 99-115.

Trivers, R.L., (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, vol.46: 35-57.

Trivers, R. L., (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871. Chicago: Aldine: 136-179.

Udry, J.R., (2000). Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review, 65: 443-457.

van Dongen S. & S.W. Gangestad (2011) Human fluctuating asymmetry in relation to health and quality: a meta-analysis. Evol. Hum. Behav. Vol. 32: 380–398.

van Rosmalen-Nooijens, KAWL., C.M. Vergeer & A.L.M. Lagro-Janssen, (2008). Bed Death and Other Lesbian Sexual Problems Unraveled: A Qualitative Study of the Sexual Health of Lesbian Women Involved in a Relationship. Women Health.;48(3):339-62. doi: 10.1080/03630240802463343

Vigneron, F. & Johnson, L.W., (1999). A review and natural framework of prestige-seeking consumer behaviour.” Academy of Marketing Science Review, vol.1: 1-15.

Wade, T. J., (2010). The relationships between symmetry and attractiveness and mating relevant decisions and behaviour: a review. Symmetry, vol. 2:1081-1098. doi:10.3390/sym2021081

Watts T.W.; G.J. Duncan & H. Quan (2018). Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes. Psychological Science, 29(7):1159-1177. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661. Epub 2018 May 25. PMID: 29799765; PMCID: PMC6050075.

Whitehead, R.D., D.Re, D. Xiao, G. Ozakinci & D.L. Perrett (2012) You Are What You Eat: Within-Subject Increases in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Confer Beneficial Skin-Color Changes. PLoS One, vol. 7(3): e32988. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0032988

Whiten, Andrew, Custance, Deborah M., Gomez, Juan-Carlos, Teixidor, Patricia and Bard, Kim. 1996. Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol.110(1): 3-14.

Yoder, Joel F., (2 015)Herbert Spencer and His American Audience. Dissertations. Paper 1660. h p://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1660

Yu, D.W., & Shepard, G.H. Jr., (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, vol. 396: 321-322.

Zahavi, A., (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53: 205-214.

Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A., (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zahavi, Amotz (2000) Altruism: The unrecognized selfish traits. In, Leonard D. Katz (Ed.) Evolutionary origins of morality: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Bowling Green OH: Imprint Academic: 253-256.

Zaidel, D.W. Chen, A.C. & German, C., (1995). She is not a beauty even when she smiles: Possible evolutionary basis for a relationship between facial attractiveness and hemisphere specialization. Neuropsychologia, vol. 33: 649-655.

Zaidel, D.W. & Fitzgerald, P., (1994). Sex of the face in Western art: Left and right in portraits. Empirical Studies of the Arts, vol.12: 9-18.

Zebrowitz, L.A. & J.M. Montepare, (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, May, 1;2(3):1497. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x. PMID: 20107613; PMCID: PMC2811283.

Zebrowitz, L.A. & G. Rhodes (2004) Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Non-Verbal Behaviour, vol. 28(3):167-184.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 28:238–249.

¹ This is argued to be a caricature of Lamarck’s ideas. See Gould (2002).

² However, it should be noted that since the millennium, some researchers into epigenetics or patterns of gene expression now argue that Lamarck was partially correct. At time of writing there is some controversy over this claim (see Deichman, 2016).

³ Hofstadter, (1955) argued that Spencer used Darwinism to justify laissez-faire economics, but see Yoder (2015) for a more nuanced discussion of Spencer.

⁴ Board & Fritzon (2005) in Blackburn, (2011, 71,72).

⁵ Foucault, (20111, 250-263).

⁶ National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics, its origin and development, 1883- present. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/timelines/eugenics

⁷ For the USA see Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: the story of eugenics and racism in America, NY, London: Teachers’ College Press.

⁸ A term coined by Gottfried and Spencer in 2008 that packages everything on the right from anarcho-capitalists to conspiracy theorists.

⁹ Although Colman broadly accepts the existence of a “Black-White Gap” in IQ, a proportion of which is inherited, he argues that this could be entirely due to environmental factors (Colman, 2016). Others like Kamin, have called Lynn’s methods and reporting into question. One review found found that Lynn had misreported and omitted some of his own data and that when this was taken into account his rankings of nations was no longer stable (Thomas, 2011). Additionally, instead of representative samples Lynn’s dataset comprised a hotchpotch of many convenience samples, for example IQ for Eritrea was estimated entirely on scores from children living in orphanages (Sear, 2022). Following an outcry, Elsevier initiated a review of Lynn’s research (see report by Devlin, H. & D. Pegg, (2024). Publisher reviews national IQ research by British ‘race scientist’ Richard Lynn. The Guardian, 10th December. Hans Eysenck, another prominent researcher of IQ has also had his methods questioned The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and Sage mentioned in relation to one of his papers, “Concerns with the validity of the datasets, including the “recruitment of participants, administration of measures, reliability of outcome ascertainment, biases in data collection, absence of relevant covariates, and selection of cases analysed in each article.” The article from Retraction Watch mentions that seventy-one of Eysenck’s papers have been listed as of concern. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/08/77-year-old-paper-by-controversial-psychiatrist-hans-eysenck-earns-an-expression-of-concern/

¹⁰ Racial Austrians offered a racialised interpretation of Hayek’s savanna story to argue that populations reared in warm climates failed to develop higher mental faculties because they did not face the challenges confronted by those living in cooler climates (Slobodian, 2925, 63).

¹¹ Slobodian,( 2025, 78/79).

¹² According to one source Down Syndrome births had fallen in Europe by 54% by 2021 due to genetic pre-screening. Down Syndrome which is linked to a defect on chromosome 21 and those born with it have lower mental ability, delayed growth and are prone to infection with a lifespan expectancy of around sixty years. Families I know which include a person with Down’s Syndrome, have described them as the most loving. Gunderman, R. (2021). Is Reducing Down syndrome a form of eugenics. The Psychologist, 3rd Jan.

¹³ A term developed by Roland Barthes to describe the improvisational aspect of how humans use what comes ready-to-hand when solving a problem.

¹⁴ Zahavi, (1975); Zahavi & Zahavi, (1997)

¹⁵ Freese & Meland, (2002, 133).

¹⁶ For more on perceptions of “cougars” by women see Mentemurro & Siefken, (2016).

¹⁷
Source: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/emotional-commerce-neuroscience-six-predictions-retail-brands-2016/1375789#Xt1RTZ0D0yldHFpX.99

¹⁸ Again,, given the reflexive nature of science I should mention that a replication of this study found only half the effect discovered by Mischel et al (2001). Moreover the effect was reduced by two thirds when family background, early cognitive ability, and the home environment were controlled for (Watts et al., (2018).

¹⁹ Prum studied the extraordinary sexual display of the manikan, a small cinnamon coloured bird called a which has evolved to engage in an extraordinary sexual display by beating its wings together faster than a hummingbird. Manikans have evolved solid wing bones in contrast to most bird species that have hollow bones. Manikans are awkward in flight and this self-perpetuating pressure to be beautiful has for Prum impeded the survival of the entire species. In consequence, Prum argues that some of the outcomes of sexual desire are not adaptive.