Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 2227–2235 | Cite as

RETRACTED ARTICLE: High Heels Increase Women’s Attractiveness

  • Nicolas GuéguenEmail author
Original Paper


Research has found that the appearance of women’s apparel helps increase their attractiveness as rated by men and that men care more about physical features in potential opposite-sex mates. However, the effect of sartorial appearance has received little interest from scientists. In a series of studies, the length of women’s shoe heels was examined. A woman confederate wearing black shoes with 0, 5, or 9 cm heels asked men for help in various circumstances. In Study 1, she asked men to respond to a short survey on gender equality. In Study 2, the confederate asked men and women to participate in a survey on local food habit consumption. In Study 3, men and women in the street were observed while walking in back of the female confederate who dropped a glove apparently unaware of her loss. It was found that men’s helping behavior increased as soon as heel length increased. However, heel length had no effect on women’s helping behavior. It was also found that men spontaneously approached women more quickly when they wore high-heeled shoes (Study 4). Change in gait, foot-size judgment, and misattribution of sexiness and sexual intent were used as possible explanations.


Women Attractiveness Sartorial appearance 


  1. Abbey, A. (1987). Misperception of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, S. B., Ward-Hull, C. I., & McLear, P. M. (1976). Variables related to women’s somatic preferences of the male and female body. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1200–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cash, T. F., Dawson, K., Davis, P., Bowen, M., & Galumbeck, C. (1989). Effects of cosmetics use on the physical attractiveness and body image of American college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Personality & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, C. L., & Glick, W. H. (1986). Resume evaluation and cosmetics use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fessler, D. M. T., Nettle, D., Afshar, Y., de Abdrade Pinheiro, I., Bolyanatz, A., Borgerhoff, M., & Zbarauskaite, A. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of the role of foot size in physical attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 267–276.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Furnham, A., Lavancy, M., & McClelland, A. (2001). Waist to hip ratio and facial attractiveness: A pilot study. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, J. A., & Jouhar, A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person perception. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199–210.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371–390.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Guéguen, N. (2007a). Bust size and hitchhiking: A field study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 1294–1298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guéguen, N. (2007b). 100 petites expériences de psychologie de la séduction. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  17. Guéguen, N. (2010). The effect of a woman’s incidental tactile contact on men’s later behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guéguen, N. (2011a). The effect of women’s suggestive clothing on men’s behavior and judgment: A field study. Psychological Reports, 109, 635–638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guéguen, N. (2011b). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Guéguen, N. (2012a). Hair color and courtship: Blond women received more courtship solicitations and redhead men received more refusals. Psychological Studies, 57, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guéguen, N. (2012b). Color and women hitchhikers’ attractiveness: Gentlemen drivers prefer red. Color Research and Application, 37, 76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guéguen, N. (2013). Effects of a tattoo on men’s behavior and attitudes towards women: An experimental field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1517–1524.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2009). Hitchhiking women’s hair color. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 941–948.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hatfield, E. (1983). What do women want from love and sex? In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McComick (Eds.), Changing boundaries (pp. 103–134). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  25. Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness: Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., Boulbry, G., & Ardicioni, R. (2009). Waitresses’ facial cosmetics and tipping: A field experiment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890–897.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in woman. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 443–456.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynn, M. (2009). Determinants and consequences of female attractiveness and sexiness: Realistic tests with restaurant waitresses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 737–745.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects on nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 3, 201–214.Google Scholar
  35. Morris, P. H., White, J., Morrison, E. R., & Fisher, K. (2012). High heels as supernormal stimuli: How wearing high heels affects judgments of female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niesta Kayser, D., Elliot, A. J., & Feltman, R. (2010). Red and romantic behavior in men viewing women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 901–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pazda, A. D., Elliot, A. J., & Greitemeyer, T. (2012). Sexy red: Perceived sexual receptivity mediates the red-attraction relation in men viewing women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 787–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perper, T. (1985). Sex signals: The biology of love. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rich, M. K., & Cash, T. F. (1993). The American image of beauty: Media representations of hair color for four decades. Sex Roles, 29, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of the waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgments of women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swami, V., & Barrett, S. (2011). British men’s hair color preferences: An assessment of courtship solicitation and stimulus ratings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 595–600.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2007). Unattractive, promiscuous, and heavy drinkers: Perceptions of women with tattoos. Body Image, 4, 343–352.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Swami, V., Furnham, A., Balakumar, N., Williams, C., Canaway, K., & Stanistreet, D. (2008). Factors influencing preferences for height: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature/sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Walsh, D. G., & Hewitt, J. (1985). Giving men the come-on: Effect of eye contact and smiling in a bar environment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 873–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wildman, R. W., & Wildman, R. W. (1976). Note on males’ and females’ preferences for opposite-sex body parts, bust sizes, and bust-revealing clothing. Psychological Reports, 38, 485–486.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (1991). The role of cosmetics in impression formation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social BehaviorUniversité de Bretagne-SudVannesFrance

Personalised recommendations