ENS-05749; No of Pages 10

Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx – xxx

1 Original Article

2 Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction

Q1 3 Cari D. Goetz⁎, Judith A. Easton, David M.G. Lewis, David M. Buss
4 The University of Texas at Austin
5 Initial receipt 10 May 2011; final revision received 12 December 2011

6 Abstract

7 Although antiexploitation adaptations, such as cheater-detection mechanisms, have been well explored, comparatively little research has
8 focused on identifying adaptations for exploitation. The present study had two purposes: (1) to identify observable cues that afford
9 information about which women are sexually exploitable and (2) to test the hypothesis that men find cues to sexual exploitability sexually
10 attractive, an adaptation that functions to motivate pursuit of accessible women. Male participants rated photographs of women who
11 displayed varying levels of hypothesized cues to exploitability. We identified 22 cues indicative of sexual exploitability. Nineteen of these
12 cues were correlated significantly with sexual attractiveness, supporting the central hypothesis. Results suggest that sexual attraction to
13 exploitability cues functions to motivate men to employ exploitative strategies towards accessible targets, and contribute foundational
14 knowledge to the diverse classes of cues that afford information about which women are and are not sexually exploitable.
15 © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
16
17 Keywords: Sexual attractiveness; Exploitability

18
19 1. Introduction investigated the hypothesis that men would find women 40
displaying cues of sexual exploitability to be sexually 41
20 Exploitative resource acquisition strategies are a class of attractive, but not attractive as long-term mates, which 42
21 strategies designed to facilitate resource accrual by taking provides motivational impetus for pursuing women with an 43
22 advantage of other organisms through deception, coercion, or increased probability of sexual access. 44
23 force (Buss & Duntley, 2008). Much of the work examining
24 the domain of exploitability focuses on antiexploitation 1.1. Sexual exploitability 45
25 adaptations, such as cheater-detection mechanisms and
26 mechanisms devoted to reactions to being exploited (e.g., Short-term mate acquisition is one domain in which 46

27 Cosmides & Tooby, 2005; Fehr, Fischbacher, & Gachter, exploitative strategies would have been adaptive for males. 47

28 2002; Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002), rather than on the Because ancestral males and females differed in their 48

29 design of adaptations that produce exploitative strategies. minimum obligatory parental investment (Trivers, 1972), 49

30 Ancestrally, mate acquisition was one domain in which the calculus for determining whether to engage in a sexual 50

31 exploitative strategies could have been an effective means to relationship and how much investment to place in a 51

32 achieve successful mating outcomes, particularly if the relationship differs between the sexes. The sexual conflict 52

33 desired outcome was a short-term sexual relationship. Cues fueled by these differences in mating goals and preferences 53

34 of ease of exploitability are one source of information to would have created two general contexts in which an 54

35 which mechanisms for exploitation should be sensitive (Buss exploitative strategy, rather than a cooperative one, could 55

36 & Duntley, 2008). We examined three classes of cues that, if have been adaptive. First, in situations in which a female did 56

37 detectable by men, could have enabled them to assess a not want to have sex but a man did, a strategy using some 57

38 woman's vulnerability to sexual exploitation. In addition to form of exploitation could have been a way to achieve his 58

39 examining cues diagnostic of sexual exploitability, we goal. Second, a man might adopt an exploitative strategy 59
when he sought casual sex, but the woman sought a high- 60
investment relationship (Buss, 2003). 61
⁎ Corresponding author. Research on forms of sexual exploitation such as rape and 62
E-mail address: cdgoetz@[Link] (C.D. Goetz). sexual coercion suggests that selection could have favored 63

1090-5138/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.12.004
 2 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx

64 rape in contexts that lowered the potential costs associated potentially be persuaded to engage in sexual intercourse. 118
65 with using these strategies. Circumstances such as warfare or Low self-esteem and low assertiveness are associated with 119
66 when women were separated from protective kin could have having experienced sexual coercion (Greene & Navarro, 120
67 resulted in lower costs of engaging in exploitative strategies 1998; Testa & Dermen, 1999). Women low in assertive- 121
68 (Figueredo et al., 2001; Gottschall, 2004; Lalumière, Harris, ness and self-esteem may be particular targets of 122
69 Quincey, & Rice, 2005; Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). This exploitation because they will be less likely to resist 123
70 suggests that the assessment of a woman's immediate exploitative tactics. Cues indicative of immaturity and 124
71 vulnerability may be central to the activation of psycholog- naiveté also fall into this category. They suggest that a 125
72 ical mechanisms related to sexual exploitation. woman has less experience interacting with men, making 126
73 We have thus far broadly referred to “exploitative her more susceptible to exploitation. Low cognitive ability 127
74 strategies” without differentiating between potential types is another cue indicating greater exploitability because it 128
75 of exploitation. We propose that tactics for sexual signals ease of manipulability or deceivability. Thus, 129
76 exploitation fall under four somewhat distinct, although sensitivity to such cues may be one design feature of 130
77 perhaps overlapping, classes: sexual seduction, verbal or male tactics for sexual exploitation. 131
78 nonverbal pressure, deception, and sexual assault. Sexual Another category of psychological cues are those that 132
79 seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into indicate flirtatiousness, promiscuity, and more permissive 133
80 having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may sexual attitudes. These characteristics may indicate greater 134
81 include long-term commitment and investment as goals. ease of sexual exploitation by (1) causing women to put 135
82 Pressure involves relentless persistence, threats, or coercion themselves in situations where they are at a greater risk of 136
83 to induce an individual into having sex. Deception is sexual exploitation and (2) providing men with opportunities 137
84 dishonesty about intentions, likelihood of further commit- to approach women under the guise of responding to the 138
85 ment, or personal characteristics such as those sought by women's flirtatiousness, thereby facilitating a later attempt at 139
86 members of the opposite sex—a phenomenon well exploitation. Women with unrestricted sociosexuality (indi- 140
87 documented in human mating (Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & cating a positive orientation towards short-term mating) 141
88 Angleitner, 2005). Sexual assault involves using physical report a greater likelihood of being approached by a male 142
89 force, or the threat of physical force, to force sexual with sexual intentions (Sakaguchi & Hasegawa, 2006b). 143
90 intercourse. Although some cues to sexual exploitability Furthermore, more promiscuous women and women with 144
91 may be uniquely diagnostic of susceptibility to one type of multiple sexual partners report being more likely to have 145
92 exploitation (e.g., cues to being less physically formidable been sexually victimized (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Testa & 146
93 might make a woman more vulnerable to sexual assault but Dermen, 1999). Research suggests that men can identify 147
94 not deception), others may be indicative of multiple types of women's sociosexual orientation through brief interactions 148
95 sexual exploitability (e.g., lower intelligence may make a (Stillman & Maner, 2009), and other work has identified a 149
96 woman more susceptible to seduction and deception). variety of nonverbal cues indicative of flirtatiousness 150
97 Assessing these strategies discretely enabled us to determine (Moore, 1985, 2002). Being able to identify these traits 151
98 cues associated with vulnerability to different types of could serve a dual purpose. These traits may signal that a 152
99 exploitative strategies that vary in their nature (e.g., woman is more prone to engaging in sexual behavior by 153
100 psychologically exploitative vs. physically exploitative) choice, and by indicating greater ease of sexual access, they 154
101 and severity (e.g., sexual seduction vs. sexual assault). also may inadvertently signal greater sexual exploitability. 155
102 Although each exploitative strategy may have distinct A third category of psychological traits consists of cues 156
103 characteristics, during any given attempt to exploit a that indicate recklessness or risk taking. This includes 157
104 woman, a man may employ multiple tactics from different personality characteristics such as impulsivity, attention 158
105 classes of strategies (e.g., an attempt at sexual seduction seeking, and being prone to take risks. Although displaying 159
106 may also involve the use of deception). Thus, we included these characteristics may not indicate a woman is currently 160
107 all four in the current study to capture a wide array of cues exploitable, they indicate a greater likelihood she will 161
108 and to better understand which cues are indicative of eventually be in dangerous situations, such as being alone 162
109 vulnerability to which strategies. or intoxicated. Drinking alcohol, one form of risky behavior, 163
is positively correlated with sexual victimization (e.g., Testa 164
& Dermen, 1999). In the modern environment, drinking 165
110 1.2. Cues to sexual exploitability
alcohol and engaging in party culture may result in being 166
111 1.2.1. Psychological cues perceived as reckless and exploitable. 167
112 Male adaptations to detect cues to sexual exploitability
113 may be designed to pick up on several classes of cues. 1.2.2. Incapacitation cues 168
114 First, men may be sensitive to different psychological traits Cues suggesting current incapacitation represent another set 169
115 indicating that a woman is sexually exploitable. One of cues to sexual exploitability. Intoxication, fatigue, or other 170
116 category of psychological cues is traits that suggest that a forms of cognitive impairment could make a woman less able 171
117 woman is mentally or emotionally manipulable and could to resist tactics of sexual exploitation. Other conditions related 172
 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx 3

173 to her current level of physical protection, such as being alone et al., 2009). This suggests that more permissive attitudes 227
174 or isolated, compared to being with “bodyguards” such as towards short-term mating enhance women's attractiveness 228
175 friends, family members, or a mate, may also provide in short-term mating contexts. These cues may be seen as 229
176 information about her current sexual exploitability. more attractive because they signal that a woman is more 230
likely to voluntarily engage in sexual behavior and hence 231
177 1.2.3. Physical cues be more sexually accessible, or because they indicate ease 232
178 Finally, physical traits may indicate a lack of formida- of sexual exploitability. 233
179 bility to resist sexual exploitation. Characteristics such as a Previous research also suggests that cues to emotional and 234
180 shorter gait, slower walking speed, and low energy are psychological manipulability may be linked with sexual 235
181 associated with being rated as easier to attack (Gunns, attractiveness. Cross-culturally, men prefer younger women 236
182 Johnston, & Hudson, 2002). Women with a shorter gait as mates because they are higher in reproductive value and 237
183 and slower walking speed are also rated as more likely to fertility than older women (Buss, 1989). Youth may also 238
184 be targets of sexual advances (Sakaguchi & Hasegawa, enhance sexual attractiveness because it is a cue to 239
185 2006a). Static cues, such as being short or small, may also immaturity and naiveté, suggesting a higher probability of 240
186 indicate exploitability. payoff for an exploitative strategy. Intelligence is another 241
187 In sum, cues to sexual exploitability are conceptualized trait valued in long-term mates; however, men's preference 242
188 into three broad classes: (1) psychological cues indicating a for intelligent mates is relaxed when men are asked about 243
189 woman is mentally or emotionally manipulable or is flirtatious strictly sexual relationships (Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & 244
190 or promiscuous, or revealing a risk-taking proclivity; (2) Sadalla, 1993; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990). 245
191 incapacitation cues indicating a woman is temporarily or Rather than simply lowering their standards for intelligence 246
192 currently in a state in which she could be exploited; and (3) in short-term mates, men may prefer (consciously or 247
193 physical cues indicating a lack of formidability to resist unconsciously) less intelligent mates in this context because 248
194 sexually exploitative tactics. they are more exploitable and therefore more sexually 249

195 1.3. Sexual attraction to exploitability attractive. We suggest that this logic applies to other cues to 250
sexual exploitability—any recurrently observable cue that 251
196 Exploitative tactics typically require motivational impetus indicates a man will be more successful when attempting to 252
197 to fuel their enactment. We hypothesized that the emotion of implement an exploitative sexual strategy will increase 253
198 sexual attraction functions as one such mechanism. Further- perceptions of a woman's sexual attractiveness to motivate 254
199 more, we hypothesized that cues in the classes described him to attempt to use that strategy. 255
200 above would render a woman attractive as a short-term mate,
201 motivating an exploitative strategy. Traditionally, re-
1.4. Current study 256
202 searchers have characterized signs of fertility, health, and
203 other markers of mate quality as indicators of attractiveness We conducted the present study in four steps to identify 257
204 (e.g., Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Scheyd, cues to sexual exploitability and to test the hypothesis that 258
205 2005; Singh, 1993; Sugiyama, 2005). Recognition of cues to cues to sexual exploitability are indicators of sexual 259
206 exploitability serves a different function. They are hypoth- attractiveness. First, we used an act nomination procedure 260
207 esized to be associated with sexual attractiveness because to generate previously undocumented potential cues to 261
208 they indicate a woman could be exploited for a short-term sexual exploitability. The research team then assembled 262
209 sexual opportunity. By making a woman more exploitable, digital photographs of women displaying varying levels of 263
210 these characteristics might also make her less attractive as a these cues. The photographs were coded to identify which, 264
211 long-term mate because a man would be risking investment and to what degree, cues were displayed in each image. 265
212 in a mate who could be sexually exploited by other men. We Finally, male participants rated the attractiveness and 266
213 hypothesized that cues to exploitability would be uniquely exploitability of the women in the photographs. 267
214 related to short-term mate attractiveness and inversely
215 correlated with long-term mate attractiveness.
216 Although the hypothesized link between sexual exploit-
217 ability cues and sexual attractiveness has yet to be explored 2. Method 268

218 directly, some circumstantial evidence exists. When asked 2.1. Participants 269
219 to rate women's facial attractiveness (without differentiat-
220 ing between long-term and short-term mate attractiveness), Participants were students enrolled in an introductory 270
221 both men and women found faces with cues to unrestricted psychology course and received partial course credit for their 271
222 sociosexuality more attractive (Boothroyd, Jones, Burt, participation. Seventy-six males participated, ranging in age 272
223 DeBruine, & Perrett, 2008). However, when asked from 18 to 47 (M=19.59±3.76). To avoid fatigue effects, 273
224 specifically about long-term mate attractiveness, men participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. 274
225 found women with facial cues related to unrestricted One group viewed a randomized set of 36 photographed 275
226 sociosexuality less desirable as long-term mates (Campbell women (out of the total of 110), and the other two groups 276
 4 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx

t1:1 Table 1
t1:2 Correlations between hypothesized cues to sexual exploitability and mate attractiveness
t1:3 Positively correlated cues Seduce Pressure Deceive Assault Overall
t1:4 “Easy” .81⁎⁎⁎ .73⁎⁎⁎ .72⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎ .75⁎⁎⁎
t1:5 Immature .69⁎⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎⁎ .68⁎⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎⁎
t1:6 Intoxicated .69⁎⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎⁎
t1:7 Reckless .70⁎⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎⁎
t1:8 Promiscuous .72⁎⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎⁎ .61⁎⁎⁎
t1:9 Partying .68⁎⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎⁎
t1:10 Flirty .60⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎
t1:11 Promiscuous friends .53⁎⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎⁎ .18 .44⁎⁎⁎
t1:12 Attention seeking .52⁎⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ .17 .39⁎⁎⁎
t1:13 Young .17 .31⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎
t1:14 Sleepy .25⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎
t1:15 Come hither look .35⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎ .27⁎⁎ .09 .26⁎⁎
t1:16 Revealing clothing .35⁎⁎⁎ .25⁎ .29⁎⁎ .07 .26⁎⁎
t1:17 Touching breast .15 .26⁎⁎ .14 .38⁎⁎⁎ .24⁎
t1:18 Open posture .38⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ −.02 .22⁎⁎
t1:19 Alone .18 .17 .11 .13 .16
t1:20 Ring (wedding/engagement) .23⁎ .14 .14 .09 .16
t1:21 Tight clothing .27⁎⁎ .14 .18 −.04 .15
t1:22 Friendly .11 .20⁎ .11 .11 .14
t1:23 Punk .17 .11 .21⁎ .01 .14
t1:24 Materialistic .24⁎ .09 .15 −.04 .13
t1:25 Touching body .09 .11 .07 .16 .11
t1:26 Tattoos .06 .08 .12 .13 .11
t1:27 Tucking hair .13 .10 .05 .10 .10
t1:28 At a wedding .15 .04 .00 .15 .09
t1:29 Over-shoulder look .06 .06 .05 .09 .07
t1:30 Fat .08 .10 .09 −.09 .06
t1:31 Touching face/hair .11 .09 .09 −.08 .06
t1:32 Short −.06 .06 .01 .15 .04
t1:33 Lip lick/bite .02 .04 .01 .01 .02
t1:34 Touching thigh .02 −.01 .03 .01 .01
t1:35 Touching knee .03 .05 −.04 −.02 .01
t1:36 Lying back .03 .00 .02 −.04 .01
t1:37 Laughing −.01 −.04 .03 .03 .00
t1:38
t1:39 Negatively correlated cues Seduce Pressure Deceive Assault Overall
t1:40 Intelligent −.63⁎⁎⁎ −.54⁎⁎⁎ −.59⁎⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎⁎ −.56⁎⁎⁎
t1:41 Shy −.53⁎⁎⁎ −.35⁎⁎⁎ −.42⁎⁎⁎ −.11 −.39⁎⁎⁎
t1:42 Age −.23⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ −.36⁎⁎⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ −.36⁎⁎⁎
t1:43 Old −.18 −.34⁎⁎⁎ −.32⁎⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ −.33⁎⁎
t1:44 Passed out −.26⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎ −.24⁎ −.24⁎ −.27⁎⁎
t1:45 Flushed face −.30⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎ −.26⁎ −.14 −.26⁎⁎
t1:46 Anxious −.30⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎ −.23⁎ −.03 −.23⁎
t1:47 Sucking on a straw −.21⁎ −.17 −.19 −.22⁎ −.21⁎
t1:48 Being touched −.21⁎ −.20⁎ −.21⁎ −.10 −.20⁎
t1:49 Standing near men −.16 −.19⁎ −.11 −.11 −.15
t1:50 Sad −.18 −.19 −.11 −.03 −.14
t1:51 Prostitute −.12 −.11 −.11 −.12 −.12
t1:52 Piercings −.15 −.07 −.16 −.02 −.11
t1:53 Skinny −.12 −.15 −.13 .04 −.10
t1:54 Tall .01 −.11 −.07 −.22 −.10
t1:55 Canted neck −.12 −.08 −.16 −.01 −.10
t1:56 Flushed neck −.13 −.08 −.10 −.05 −.10
t1:57 Dancing −.11 −.09 −.13 −.01 −.09
t1:58 Touching others −.15 −.09 −.14 .05 −.09
t1:59 Distressed −.13 −.13 −.06 .04 −.08
t1:60 Open legs −.10 −.09 −.09 −.02 −.08
t1:61 Asleep .00 −.10 −.08 −.09 −.07
t1:62 Crying .00 −.01 −.11 −.06 −.05
t1:63 Raised arms −.01 −.05 −.04 −.09 −.05
t1:64 Mostly with men .00 −.07 .00 −.05 −.03
t1:65 Ear piercing −.11 .03 −.04 .07 −.02
 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

t1:66 Table 1 (continued)

t1:67 Positively correlated cues Seduce Pressure Deceive Assault Overall
t1:68 Confident .12 .02 .02 −.22⁎ −.01
t1:69 Smiling .01 −.05 .02 −.01 −.01
t1:70 Finger on lips .00 .00 .04 −.05 .00
Note. Of the 315 correlations presented in Table 1, 66 correlations were significant beyond the .001 level, where b1 would be expected by chance alone; 89 were
significant beyond the .01 level, where 4 would be expected by chance alone; and 111 were significant beyond the .05 level, where 16 would be expected by
t1:71 chance alone.
t1:72 ⁎⁎⁎pb.001; ⁎⁎pb.01; ⁎pb.05.

277 each viewed a randomized set of 37. Each group constituted (2008) for eliminating cues with low reliability, we 321
278 approximately one third of the total participant sample. calculated the average intraclass correlation coefficient 322
(ICC) for each cue to ensure agreement among the raters. 323
279 2.2. Materials Twenty-five cues had an average measures ICC less than .70 324

280 2.2.1. Cue Selection and were eliminated, leaving 30 cues with an average 325

281 We determined hypothesized cues based on a literature measures ICC ranging from .70 to .90 (mean=.79). To 326

282 search and an act nomination procedure (Buss & Craik, calculate the rating means, rater's responses were averaged 327

283 1983). The act nomination procedure is useful because it can for each of these 30 traits. If one rater indicated he or she 328

284 provide novel information by pooling the collective insights could not provide a rating for a particular photograph, the 329

285 of large samples of observers—insights that may not yet average was computed from the three other raters. If two or 330

286 have been explored in the literature and that researchers may more raters could not provide a rating, that photograph was 331

287 not have been able to theoretically generate themselves a excluded from analyses for that particular trait. These 30 332

288 priori. An initial set of 194 (103 male, 91 female, age range cues, along with the 33 cues coded as present or absent by 333

289 18–52, M=21.63±5.96) participants nominated specific the researchers, resulted in the final assessment of 63 cues in 334

290 actions, cues, body postures, attitudes, and personality our set of images. 335

291 characteristics in three categories: indicators of sexual 2.2.3. Participant measures 336
292 exploitability, indicators of sexual interest toward one Participants (N=76) responded to seven questions asses- 337
293 person, and indicators of general sexual availability or sing each woman's perceived mate attractiveness and 338
294 openness to sexual activity. Because the study's goals exploitability. The three mate attractiveness questions 339
295 included examining aspects of sexual attractiveness other assessed the women's overall attractiveness (“How attractive 340
296 than just sexual exploitability, we retained cues from all is this woman overall?”), short-term mate attractiveness 341
297 categories in the final list. After combining similar cues and [“How attractive would this woman be to a man as a short- 342
298 eliminating cues not assessable from a photograph (e.g., term mate (e.g., one-night stand, casual sex, etc.)?”], and 343
299 feminine voice), these cues were added to a list of cues long-term mate attractiveness [“How attractive would this 344
300 generated via literature search. This list totaled 88 cues. woman be to a man as a long-term mate (e.g., committed 345

301 2.2.2. Photograph selection romantic relationship, wife, etc.)?”]. The four exploitability 346

302 Researchers collected photographs from publically avail- questions asked about the four proposed sexual exploitation 347

303 able sources on the Internet (i.e., sites that did not require a tactics. Participants were first asked, “How easy it would be 348 Q2

304 password or login). We used a search engine to find images of for a man to seduce this woman into engaging into sexual 349

305 women displaying varying levels of the hypothesized cues. intercourse?” The next two questions used the same verbiage, 350

306 The researchers independently gathered photos and together but the word “seduce” was replaced with “pressure” in the 351

307 selected images of 110 women displaying varying levels of second exploitability question and with “deceive” in the third. 352

308 the cues of interest (see supplementary photographs, The fourth question read, “How easy it would be for a man to 353 Q3

309 available on the journal's website at [Link]). sexually assault this woman?” Participants responded to all 354

310 Photographs were coded to determine the degree to which questions using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) rating scale. 355

311 each woman displayed each of the 88 cues. Two of the We phrased questions in the third person rather than first 356

312 researchers independently coded cues that could be objec- person to avoid underreporting due to the sensitive and taboo 357

313 tively observed as present or absent (e.g., tattoos, being nature of the questions being asked. Participants also 358

314 touched by others). There were no discrepancies between the completed a brief demographics questionnaire. 359

315 two researchers' judgments of these 33 cues. Four raters 2.3. Procedure 360
316 blind to the study's hypotheses rated the other 55 cues. The
317 raters were asked, “How much do each of the following A research assistant assigned the participant to a computer 361
318 characteristics describe the individual in the picture?” Raters terminal with a prepared slideshow of the photographs. The 362
319 responded using a 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) rating scale. research assistant instructed the participant on how to advance 363
320 Following a procedure similar to Vazire and colleagues' through the slideshow of images and record his responses on a 364
 6 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx

t2:1 Table 2 Table 2 (continued) t2:65

Correlations between hypothesized cues to sexual exploitability and mate Positively correlated cues Short-term mate Long-term mate t2:66
t2:2 attractiveness
Ear piercings −.02 .01 t2:67
t2:3 Positively correlated cues Short-term mate Long-term mate Confident .17 −.04 t2:68
t2:4 “Easy” .65⁎⁎⁎ −.60⁎⁎⁎ Smiling .12 −.23 t2:69
t2:5 Immature .62⁎⁎⁎ −.62⁎⁎⁎ Finger on lips −.01 −.02 t2:70
t2:6 Intoxicated .49⁎⁎⁎ −.40⁎⁎⁎ Note. Of the 126 correlations presented in Table 2, 27 correlations were
t2:7 Reckless .58⁎⁎⁎ −.69⁎⁎⁎ significant beyond the .001 level, where b1 would be expected by chance
t2:8 Promiscuous .63⁎⁎⁎ −.64⁎⁎⁎ alone; 38 were significant beyond the .01 level, where 2 would be expected
t2:9 Partying .51⁎⁎⁎ −.46⁎⁎⁎ by chance alone; and 45 were significant beyond the .05 level, where 7
t2:10 Flirty .54⁎⁎⁎ −.37⁎⁎⁎ would be expected by chance alone. t2:71
t2:11 Promiscuous friends .54⁎⁎⁎ −.49⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎⁎pb.001; ⁎⁎pb.01; ⁎pb.05. t2:72
t2:12 Attention seeking .49⁎⁎⁎ −.56⁎⁎⁎
t2:13 Young .25⁎⁎ −.12
t2:14 Sleepy .24⁎ −.17
t2:15 Come hither look .29⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎ provided grid, and then left the room to allow the participant to 378
377
376
375
374
373
372
371
370
369
368
367
366
365
t2:16 Revealing clothing .47⁎⁎⁎ −.48⁎⁎⁎ privately record his responses. To avoid fatigue effects, after 379
t2:17 Touching breast .00 .06 25 min, the research assistant reentered the room with the 380
t2:18 Open body posture .39⁎⁎⁎ −.29⁎⁎
demographics questionnaire and instructed the participant to 381
t2:19 Alone .09 −.07
t2:20 Ring (wedding/engagement) .10 .01 complete it before viewing the remaining images. Participants 382
t2:21 Tight clothing .36⁎⁎⁎ −.33⁎⁎ were thanked and debriefed upon completion. 383
t2:22 Friendly .08 .30⁎⁎
t2:23 Punk .19⁎ −.45⁎⁎⁎
t2:24 Materialistic .24⁎ −.30⁎⁎
3. Results 384
t2:25 Touching body −.05 .15
t2:26 Tattoos −.01 .02
t2:27 Tucking hair .14 −.13 To ensure that there were no systematic differences in 385
t2:28 At a wedding .15 −.07 attractiveness or exploitability ratings based on which of the 386
t2:29 Over-shoulder look .15 −.09 three groups of pictures was viewed, we conducted a one- 387
t2:30 Fat −.11 .02
way analysis of variance to compare means between the 388
t2:31 Touching face/hair .06 −.03
t2:32 Short .07 .07 three groups for each measure of mate attractiveness and 389
t2:33 Lip lick/bite −.02 −.09 exploitability. There were no significant group differences 390
t2:34 Touching thigh −.07 .08 for any of the dependent measures except for the questions 391
t2:35 Touching knee .07 .18 about seducing (Group 1: M=3.09±.46; Group 2: M=3.18± 392
t2:36 Lying back −.07 −.06
.39; Group 3: M=2.89±.38; F2,109=4.73, pb.05) and 393
t2:37 Laughing .14 −.24⁎
t2:38 pressuring into sex (Group 1: M=2.95±.46; Group 2: 394
t2:39 Negatively correlated cues Short-term mate Long-term mate M=2.87±.39; Group 3: M=2.66±.43, F2,109=4.49, pb.05). 395

t2:40 Intelligent −.60⁎⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎⁎

Because there was no reason to believe that these differences 396

t2:41 Shy −.48⁎⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ would affect interpretation of the study's results and because 397
t2:42 Age −.27⁎⁎ .12 the majority of our measures were void of between-group 398
t2:43 Old −.22⁎⁎ .11 differences, we proceeded with analyses as planned. 399
t2:44 Passed out −.12 .20⁎ To determine which cues were diagnostic of exploitabil- 400
t2:45 Flushed face −.15 .06
t2:46 Anxious −.18 −.05
ity, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between 401

t2:47 Sucking on a straw −.26⁎⁎ .07 the rating means for each cue and the mean of participant 402
t2:48 Being touched −.21⁎ .03 responses for each exploitability measure for each picture 403
t2:49 Standing near men .00 −.05 (Table 1). Because the exploitability measures were highly 404
t2:50 Sad −.17 −.14 correlated with one another (M=.90, range: .79–.97), a 405
t2:51 Prostitute −.10 .18
t2:52 Piercings −.18 .26⁎⁎
measure of overall exploitability was calculated by averag- 406

t2:53 Skinny .10 −.10 ing the means of the four exploitability measures for each 407
t2:54 Tall −.08 .00 picture and correlating those averages with the cue ratings 408
t2:55 Canted neck −.18 .12 means. The participant means were also correlated with the 409
t2:56 Flushed neck −.16 .10 dichotomous cues coded by the researchers. Overall 410
t2:57 Dancing −.04 .12
t2:58 Touching others −.12 −.09
attractiveness was strongly correlated with long-term 411

t2:59 Distressed −.05 −.23⁎ mate attractiveness [r(108)=.91, pb.01] and short-term mate 412
t2:60 Open legs −.12 .16 attractiveness [r(108)=.95, pb.01], but not with most 413
t2:61 Asleep .00 −.07 measures of exploitability [seduce: r(108)=.15, p=.12; 414
t2:62 Crying .14 .01 pressure: r(108)=.09, p=.36; deceive: r(108)=.09, p=.36; 415
t2:63 Raised arms −.07 .02
t2:64 Mostly with men .08 −.10
assault: r(108)=.41, pb.01]. Because the goal was to 416
independently isolate each cue's relationship with 417
 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx 7

418 exploitability and mate attractiveness, we partialed out look, “easy,” flirty, immature, intoxicated, open body 430
419 participants' ratings of overall attractiveness when calculat- posture, partying, promiscuous, promiscuous friends, reck- 431
420 ing the correlations. Because each correlation between the less, revealing clothing, sleepy, and young. To test the 432
421 specific cues and the exploitability and attractiveness ratings prediction that cues positively correlated with exploitability 433
422 represents a test of an independent prediction and because the would be positively correlated with short-term mate 434
423 number of significant correlations far exceeds what would be attractiveness but not correlated with, or negatively corre- 435
424 expected by chance alone (see Notes, Tables 1 and 2) and lated with, long-term mate attractiveness, we correlated each 436
425 were predicted a priori, we report the data without applying a cue with participants' measures of mate attractiveness. 437
426 statistical correction. All 14 of these cues conformed to the pattern of also being 438
427 Fourteen cues were significantly positively correlated positively correlated with short-term mate attractiveness while 439
428 with at least three of the four measures of exploitability and being either negatively or not significantly correlated with 440
429 with overall exploitability: attention seeking, come hither long-term mate attractiveness (Table 2). The following cues 441

Pearson r's
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Easy

Immature

Intoxicated

Reckless

Promiscuous

Partying

Intelligent

Flirty

Prom Friends
Corr w/ ST
Shy
Seduce
Pressure Attn-Seeking
Deceive
Age
Assault
Corr w/ LT Old

Young

Sleepy

Passed out

Come Hither Look

Reveal Clothes

Flushed Face

Anxious

Open Posture

Being touched

Fig. 1. Cues significantly correlated with exploitability.

 8 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx

442 were significantly negatively correlated with at least three of effectively captured their importance. Video or in-person 495
443 the four measures of exploitability and with overall exploit- interactions may be required for men to perceive these cues 496
444 ability: age, anxious, being touched, flushed face, intelligent, and relate them to exploitability. In-person interactions may 497
445 old, passed out, and shy. Only three of these did not conform to be particularly important if it is relative difference in 498
446 the predicted pattern: flushed face and anxious were not formidability that matters. Additionally, we only included 499
447 significantly correlated with either short-term or long-term the physical cues of tall, short, skinny, and fat. Other cues, 500
448 mate attractiveness, and passed out was not significantly such as low levels of muscularity, athleticism, and physical 501
449 correlated with short-term mate attractiveness but was formidability, may be more strongly associated with 502
450 positively correlated with long-term mate attractiveness. perceptions of sexual exploitability. 503
451 In summary, 22 cues were significantly correlated with The second purpose of this study was to test the 504
452 three of the four measures of exploitability as well as hypothesis that cues to exploitability represent previously 505
453 overall exploitability. Nineteen of these 22 cues also unexamined indicators of sexual attractiveness. Nineteen of 506
454 supported the central hypothesis: that cues correlated with the 22 cues correlated with sexual exploitability were also 507
455 exploitability would be linked with perceptions of sexual correlated with women's sexual attractiveness, strongly 508
456 attractiveness (Fig. 1). supporting this hypothesis. Furthermore, many of the cues 509
that were not correlated with exploitability also did not 510
correlate with short-term mate attractiveness. This suggests 511
457 4. Discussion that the correlations with short-term mate attractiveness were 512
not driven by men simply relaxing their preferences when 513
458 We investigated cues from three broad categories to evaluating women as short-term mates. The present findings 514
459 determine which were diagnostic of sexual exploitability. contribute novel insights to the burgeoning literature on the 515
460 Cues from two of these categories, psychological traits and science of attraction and attractiveness (Sugiyama, 2005; 516
461 cues to incapacitation, were strongly correlated with sexual Swami & Furnham, 2008). In addition, these findings 517
462 exploitability. Specifically, psychological traits indicative of provide circumstantial support for one hypothesized function 518
463 ease of mental or emotional manipulation (e.g., intelligence, of the emotion of sexual attraction—to motivate men to 519
464 immaturity), flirtatiousness and promiscuity (e.g., promiscu- pursue women for exploitative, short-term mating opportu- 520
465 ous, flirty, having promiscuous friends, wearing revealing nities when there are cues suggesting that exploitative 521
466 clothing), and recklessness (e.g., reckless, partying) were strategies are likely to be effective. 522
467 significantly linked with perceptions of exploitability. Cues to
468 currently being incapacitated, such as sleepy and intoxicated, 4.1. Limitations and future directions 523
469 were also correlated with perceptions of sexual exploitability.
470 These findings suggest that men are sensitive to cues in a Although our sample was limited to university students, 524
471 variety of domains when assessing the sexual exploitability of we expect the ability to detect cues to sexual exploitability to 525
472 women. Past research on the psychology of male sexual be universally present. Future research should include men 526
473 aggressors has focused on the effect of individual differences from different age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds. 527
474 and situational contexts on likelihood of committing sexual One benefit from using a young, university-attending sample 528
475 aggression (e.g., Abbey, Jaques-Tiura, LeBreton, 2011; is that these men may be particularly sensitive to cues to 529
476 Malamuth, 1996). This research instead expands our knowl- exploitability because (1) they are frequently in contact with 530
477 edge of victim-related cues that may activate mechanisms for younger women who exhibit more of these cues because of 531
478 exploitation. Focusing on the function of exploitative tactics their youthful appearance and (2) they have lower status and 532
479 reveals new cues in several domains that predict perceptions of fewer resources and may experience more difficulty attract- 533
480 sexual exploitability. Our results highlight the utility of ing a high-quality mate through nonexploitative means. 534
481 examining cues that, from a man's perspective, suggest an The use of photographs provided consistent stimuli to 535
482 exploitative strategy may be successful. examine cues to exploitability; however, some cues may not 536
483 Although cues indicating physical weakness were pre- be assessable in a photograph. This may explain why some 537
484 dicted to indicate sexual exploitability, none of those cues of our hypothesized cues to exploitability were not correlated 538
485 were significantly correlated with the measures of exploit- with measures of sexual exploitability. Many behavioral 539
486 ability. It is possible that the strength difference between men cues (e.g., touching body, touching others, crying) may be 540
487 and women is so large (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009) that size and more salient in in vivo social interactions. Future research 541
488 strength differences among women are irrelevant when could profit from using dynamic stimuli or live interactions 542
489 assessing their exploitability. Gunns et al. (2002) found that to further expand knowledge about exploitability cues and to 543
490 weight was a predictor of ease-of-attack for male targets, but assess their relationship with sexual attractiveness. 544
491 not for female targets, suggesting that female size, contrary to Also needed is research that directly examines sexual 545
492 our initial expectation, may not be a cue to exploitability. It is attraction as a motivator for pursuing exploitable women. 546
493 also possible that the current methodology did not present or Investigating men's approach likelihood or arousal level 547
494 ask about cues related to physical formidability in a way that when exposed to women displaying cues to exploitability will 548
 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx 9

549 shed light on the behavioral output that results from this Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: strategies of human mating. 602
550 attraction. Furthermore, it is possible that the experience of Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books. 603
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to 604
551 sexual attraction overrides the guilt or remorse men would personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126. 605
552 feel from using a set of tactics that, while beneficial from a Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group 606
553 fitness perspective, are morally reprehensible, some of Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 53–62. 607
554 which are criminal (e.g., rape). Future work also could Campbell, L., Cronk, L., Simpson, J. A., Milroy, A., Wilson, C. L., & Dunham, 608
555 profitably examine men's conscious awareness of the B. (2009). The association between men's ratings of women as desirable 609
long-term mates and individual differences in women's sexual attitudes 610
556 relationship between perception of cues to exploitability and behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 509–513. 611
557 and the sexual attraction they experience, as well as the Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adaptations designed for 612
558 potentially conflicting emotions they experience when social exchange. In D. M. Buss, Ed. The handbook of evolutionary 613
559 presented with the opportunity to engage in a sexually psychology (pp. 584–627). New York: Wiley. 614
560 exploitative strategy. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human 615
cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 616
561 Generally, a cue's correlations with the four measures of 1–25. 617
562 exploitability were very similar. However, for some cues, the Figueredo, J., Corral-Verdugo, V., Frias-Armenta, M., Bachar, K. J., White, 618
563 correlations with perceptions of ease of sexual assault J, McNeill, P. L., Kirsner, B. R., & del Pilar Castell-Ruiz, I. (2001). 619
564 differed from the other three exploitability measures—most Blood, solidarity, status, and honor: the sexual balance of power and 620
spousal abuse in Sonora, Mexico. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 621
565 were weaker than correlations with the other three measures.
293–328. 622
566 Perhaps cues to sexual exploitability are better characterized Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial 623
567 dichotomously—cues that suggest that a woman can be attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 624
568 sexually assaulted versus cues that suggest that she could 154–158. 625
569 be sexually exploited in another way. This distinction may be Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical 626
570 driven by individual differences in men's likelihood of attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523–548. 627
Gottschall, J. (2004). Explaining wartime rape. The Journal of Sex 628
571 implementing these strategies. Only certain men may be Research, 41, 129–136. 629
572 motivated to implement strategies that require violence, such Greene, D. M., & Navarro, R. L. (1998). Situation-specific assertiveness in 630
573 as sexual assault (Lalumière et al., 2005; Malamuth, 1996). the epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women. 631
574 Future research could fruitfully examine which men in which Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 589–604. 632
575 social circumstances adopt which exploitative tactics. Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and 633
kinematics: a point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal 634
576 Indeed, some tactics might be deployed in a hierarchical of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129–158. 635
577 fashion, with increasingly cost-inflicting tactics being used Haselton, M., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, 636
578 only if milder forms of sexual exploitation fail. and strategic interference: the psychology of deception between the 637
579 This study provides a first step towards understanding the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3–23. 638
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating 639
580 psychological mechanisms underlying men's sexually ex-
evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: effect of 640
581 ploitative strategies. By examining the specific design gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. 641
582 features of mechanisms for sexual exploitation, this research Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. 642
583 reveals particular cues that activate these mechanisms, Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, 643
584 allowing the prediction of which cues put women at risk traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental 644
585 for sexual exploitation. The link between cues to exploit- investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–117. 645
Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E. (2005). The 646
586 ability and sexual attractiveness paves the way for future causes of rape: understanding individual differences in the male 647
587 studies of sexual attraction as a mechanism motivating men's propensity for sexual aggression. Washington: American Psychological 648
588 tactics of sexual exploitation. Association. 649
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-free 650
muscle mass in men: relationship to mating success, dietary re- 651
589 Supplementary Materials quirements, and native immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 652
322–328. 653
590 Supplementary data to this article can be found, online at Malamuth, N. M. (1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: 654
feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In D. M. Buss, & N. M. 655
591 doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.12.004.
Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: evolutionary and feminist 656
perspectives (pp. 269–295). New York: Oxford University Press. 657
592 References Moore, M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: context and 658
consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237–247. 659
593 Abbey, A., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Risk factors for Moore, M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception. Perceptual 660
594 sexual aggression in young men: an expansion of the confluence model. and Motor Skills, 94, 97–105. 661
595 Aggressive Behavior, 37, 450–464. Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Punitive sentiment as an 662
596 Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 663
597 (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human 23, 203–231. 664
598 Behavior, 29, 211–218. Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2006a). Person perception through gait 665
599 Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: information and target choice for sexual advances: comparison of likely 666
600 evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain targets in experiments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 667
601 Sciences, 12, 1–49. 63–85. 668
 10 C.D. Goetz et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xx (2012) xxx–xxx

669 Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2006b). Personality correlates with Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. 681
670 frequency of being targeted for unexpected advances by strangers. London: Routledge. 682
671 Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 948–968. Testa, M., & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual 683
672 Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: coercion and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548–561. 684
673 role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. P. (2000). A natural history of rape. Cambridge, 685
674 65, 293–307. MA: The MIT Press. 686
675 Stillman, T. F., & Maner, J. K. (2009). A sharp eye for her SOI: perception Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. 687
676 and misperception of female sociosexuality at zero acquaintance. Campell, Ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 688
677 Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 124–130. (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine. 689
678 Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspec- Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait 690
679 tive. In D. M. Buss, Ed. The handbook of evolutionary psychology of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. 691
680 (pp. 292–343). New York: Wiley. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1439–1447. 692
693
694
Photo 1.

Photo 2.

Photo 3.

Photo 4.

Photo 5.

Photo 6.

Photo 7.

Photo 8.

Photo 9.

Photo 10.

Photo 11.

Photo 12.

Photo 13.

Photo 14.

Photo 16.

Photo 17.

Photo 18.

Photo 19.

Photo 20.

Photo 21.

Photo 22.

Photo 23.

Photo 24.

Photo 25.

Photo 26.

Photo 27.

Photo 28.

Photo 29.

Photo 30.
Photo 31.

Photo 32.

Photo 33.

Photo 34.

Photo 35.

Photo 36.

Photo 37.

Photo 38.

Photo 39.

Photo 40.

Photo 41.

Photo 42.

Photo 43.

Photo 44.

Photo 45.

Photo 46.

Photo 47.

Photo 48.

Photo 49.

Photo 50.

Photo 51.

Photo 52.

Photo 53.

Photo 54.

Photo 55.

Photo 56.

Photo 57.

Photo 58.

Photo 59.
Photo 60.

Photo 61.

Photo 62.

Photo 63.

Photo 64.

Photo 65.

Photo 66.

Photo 67.

Photo 68.

Photo 69.

Photo 70.

Photo 71.

Photo 72.

Photo 73.

Photo 74.

Photo 75.

Photo 76.

Photo 77.

Photo 78.

Photo 79.

Photo 80.

Photo 81.

Photo 82.

Photo 83.

Photo 84.

Photo 85.

Photo 86.

Photo 87.

Photo 88.
Photo 89.

Photo 90.

Photo 91.

Photo 92.

Photo 93.

Photo 94.

Photo 95.

Photo 96.

Photo 97.

Photo 98.

Photo 99.

Photo 100.

Photo 101.

Photo 102.

Photo 103.

Photo 104.

Photo 105.

Photo 106.
Our reference: ENS 5749 P-authorquery-v10

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal: ENS Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to:
Jill Shepherd
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
Tel: 352-483-8113
Article Number: 5749 Fax: 352-483-3417

Dear Author,

Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen
annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than
Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please
return your corrections within 48 hours.

For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult [Link]

Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in
the proof. Click on the ‘Q’ link to go to the location in the proof.

Location Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go

in article Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof
Q1 Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly.

Q2 Please check if this should be changed to qwould itq.

Q3 Please check if this should be changed to qwould itq.

Thank you for your assistance.

Page 1 of 1