Available online 3 November 2022

Commentary on an article by David M. G. Lewis, Laith Al-Shawaf, Ayten Yesim Semchenko, and Kortnee C. Evans (2022). Lewis et al. tested two cognitive algorithms for how individuals perceive attractiveness of potential mates under uncertainty. The authors hypothesized that male participants would overperceive attractiveness (MOAB) and that female participants would underperceive attractiveness (FUAB), based in an Error Management Theory analysis of choice outcomes. The authors concluded that a sex- and attractiveness-differentiated bias existed, such that men overperceived attractiveness when shown stimuli of unattractive women and that women underperceived attractiveness when shown stimuli of attractive men. A reanalysis of this data using continuous ratings of attractiveness rather than dichotomized ratings of attractiveness revealed a crossover interaction that is inconsistent with the hypothesized algorithms and no statistically significant effects of sex. Instead, these results are more consistent with an evolutionary optimality hypothesis based on Signal Detection Theory (Brandner et al., 2021). Additional methodological concerns are discussed.

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.