**Method** Researchers replicated Study 3 of Elliot et al. (2010) using the methods provided in the original manuscript. Since the methods of the original study and the current replication are so similar, the exact nature of any differences between them are separately noted following the description of the measures and procedures in general. **Participants** Undergraduate student researchers at a small liberal arts university in the Pacific Northwest invited participants to partake in the current study for class participation or extra credit using the psychology research participant pool of their university. As per Elliot et al. (2010)’s instructions for replication, researchers limited participation to heterosexual or bisexual females without applicable versions of color-blindness. In total, 122 females participated in the study, although all individuals who identified as homosexual (two participants), red-green colorblind (one participant), or guessed the purpose of the study (five participants) were excluded from the data as required in the original publications. One participant who was under the age of 18 was also excluded. The remaining sample was composed of 113 females ranging in age from 18 to 32. Participants most frequently reported their ethnic identity as Caucasian (73.5%), followed by Asian (10.6%), Hispanic (8.0%), African American (5.3%) and Native American (2.7%). Approximately 6.2% of the sample indicated an alternative identity under the category of “other”. Additionally, a majority of participants identified as heterosexual (95.6%), though approximately 4.4% selected bisexual. Relationship statuses of the participants also varied: 53.1% identified their status as single, 8.8% casually dating, 36.3% indicated a committed relationship. Less than 1% each selected either married or engaged.. Prior to collecting any data, researchers obtained approval from the HPRB of their university. All APA guidelines were upheld throughout the process. **Procedures** Researchers tested participants in a closed room. Depending on condition, each participant viewed a black and white paper copy of a male’s photograph mounted on a red, yellow or grey background for the duration of approximately five seconds. Subsequently, they completed Maner et al.’s (2003) perceived attractiveness measure, two items from Greitemeyer’s (2005) five-item sexual receptivity measure, and Jones et al.’s (2004) likability measure. Upon completion, researchers asked all subjects to provide relevant demographic information about themselves including sexual orientation, gender, and whether or not they were color-blind, as well as their best guess regarding the study purpose. Additionally, to track the possible influence of relationship status on the hypothesized effects, researchers asked participants to select a relationship status from five options at the very end of the questionnaire. Each experiment took approximately 10 minutes to complete in its entirety. **Materials** Researchers used a 4 x 6 inch photo of a Latino-American, college-age man to assess the attractiveness and likability perceptions of subjects in the study. The photograph contained the target’s face and upper torso covered in a simple striped sweater. Each study used the same male photograph, but the background color varied (red, yellow, or grey) depending on participant condition. Researchers digitally applied color variations for yellow to the original materials used by Elliot et al. (2010) and made no other alterations to the original materials provided. In concurrence with the measures used by Elliot et al. (2010), researchers utilized Maner et al.’s (2003) perceived attractiveness measure to assess the attractiveness perceptions of the female subjects, two items from Greitemeyer’s (2005) five-item sexual receptivity measure to analyze subject sexual desire in relation to the stimuli, and Jones et al.’s (2004) six-item likability measure to assess perceptions of likability. Maner et al.’s (2003) perceived attractiveness measure applied a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) scale to rate general items of attractiveness. These items included questions asking how pleasant the photographed man was to view and how attractive he appeared to be. This scale generated strong internal reliability for this sample (α = .89). With a similarly strong internal reliability, (α = .92), Greitemeyer’s (2005) scale assessed participant desire to kiss or date the man in the picture. Participants rated these items on a 1(no, definitely not) to 9 (yes, definitely) scale. Finally, Jones et al.’s (2004) likability measure used a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) scale to focus on perceptions of positive characteristics in the photographed man. This scale, too, yielded a strong degree of reliability (α = .90). **Known Differences between Original and Replication Studies** There are a few known differences between this replication attempt and the original study conducted by Elliot et al. (2010). However, the researchers do not believe that these differences are generally relevant to the comparability of the two studies. Notable differences are as follows: - The original study tested participants one at a time in a closed room. This replication allowed for up to 3 participants at a time, ensuring that none of the participants could view the other participants’ photographs. Any participant who listed color as a part of the study purpose was removed from analysis to ensure that results were not skewed by the presence of other participants. - The original study only utilized photographs with red or grey backgrounds. Based on the research of Valdez and Mehrabian (1994), the current researchers chose to include the background color of yellow. - To test for the possible influence of relationship status on female perceptions of attraction, the current survey also asked for participants to list their relationship status in relation to the following five categories: single, casually dating, in a committed relationship, engaged, or married.