**Results** In order to examine the effects of color, relationship status, and the possible interaction of these two factors on female assessments of attraction, sexual desirability and likability, researchers conducted a 3X2 between subjects MANOVA in which color (red, yellow or grey) and relationship status (in a relationship or not) acted as independent variables. Averaged scores of sexual desirability, attraction, and likability represented three dependent variables. Additionally, researchers defined participants as “in a relationship” if their selected status was “in a committed relationship”, “engaged”, or “married” and “not” if they indicated their status as either “single” or “casually dating”. However, as per Elliot et al. (2010)’s instructions, only participants who did not accurately guess the purpose of the study were included in this analyses, resulting in the exclusion of five data points. The remaining sample provided an analysis that addressed the three main hypotheses through an examination of two main effects and one interaction effect. Regarding the first hypothesis that participant attractiveness ratings of the man in the photograph would differ depending on the color background on which the photograph was presented, no significant main effect was found for physical attraction, F(2, 112) = .28, p = 0.75, η2 = .005; sexual attractiveness, F(2, 112) = .28, p = 0.76 η2 = .005; general attractiveness, F(2, 112) = .19, p = .83, η2 = .003; or likability, F(2, 112) = .20, p = 0.004 η2 = .05. This indicated that, on average, women provided similar ratings for the target’s sexual desirability, attractiveness and likability regardless of the color background on which the photograph was presented. These results diverge from the original hypothesis by demonstrating that the backgrounds of red, yellow and grey were rated equally across measures of attraction rather than grey being perceived as comparatively lower on these scales. Additionally, no statistically significant main effect was found between groups that were defined as “in a relationship” and those that were not. This held true in relation to overall attractiveness, F(1, 112) = 0.00, p = 0.991, η2 = .00; sexual desirability, F(1, 112) = .17, p = 0.681, η2 = .002; physical attractiveness, F(1, 112) = 0.28, p = 0.597, η2 = .0003; and likability, F(1, 112) = 1.70, p = 0.195, η2 = .195. These findings also diverge from the original hypothesis because the relationship status of participants appeared to have no main effect on the attraction and likability ratings provided. Finally, when both of these factors, background color and ethnicity, were considered, analyses revealed no significant interaction effect on participant sexual desirability ratings, F (2, 112) = 1.40, p = 0.25, η2 = .025, physical attractiveness, F (2, 112) = 0.94, p = 0.39, η2 = .017; or general attractiveness, F (2, 112) = 1.40, p = 0.25, η2 = .025. However, there was a significant interaction for likability ratings, F (2, 112) = 3.16, p = 0.05, η2 = .056. Specifically, individuals who received a grey background rated the man as more likable if they were not in a relationship (M = 7.31, SD = .70) as opposed to in a relationship (M = 6.56, SD = .78). **Discussion** The results of the present study did not support the original hypothesis that participant attractiveness ratings of the man in the photograph would differ depending on the color of the background of the photo. Instead the researchers found no difference between how the participants rated the photo of the man for physical attraction, sexual attraction, general attraction or likability. While Elliot et al. (2010) similarly demonstrated that color did not affect likeability judgments, the rest of the original findings suggested statistically significant differences in attraction ratings across the colors, while the present research does not. Our findings also do not support our secondary hypothesis that participant perceptions of attractiveness would differ based on their relationship statuses. However, when considering the background color of the photo and relationship status together, the results did suggest that individuals who were not in a relationship and were in the gray background condition, rated the man as more likable for this condition than individuals in relationships. While we did hypothesize a difference in the ratings based on relationship status, we did not estimate that the effect would be significant only when the gray background was present. In fact we considered the opposite to be more likely. The present findings therefore do not match those published by Elliot et al. (2010), and researchers were unable to find a red effect in regards to attraction. Our findings neither support the idea that the color red has a biological and social link to attraction for women, nor the idea that warm colors create a link between the two concepts. Furthermore, contrary to Little and Hill’s (2007) suggestion that the signal properties of colors, such as red as a signal of attraction, are fundamental to humans and don’t require a social context, our findings appear to suggest that social context is important. For this reason, our results may coincide with the findings from Wen, Zuo, Wu, Sun and Liu (2014). Specifically, the color red may not affect the participants decision when rating photos for attraction because the association between the color red and males has so many meanings, such as anger, aggression, attraction, dominance, and status (Wen et al. 2014). Due to the multi-faceted meaning of the color, and the fact that some of the associations with red are negative, such as anger or aggression, without a social context, the participants would not perceive the man in the photo with a red background as more attractive than any other color background. Instead, the color may have a neutral effect on the participants because it lacks a social context to guide the impression. Finally, when examining the limitations of this particular study, one potential factor is researcher error. During some of the sessions, both the researcher and the file selector were in the room with the participants. Not only did this create an inconsistency in how the study was run across the sessions, but it also could have created demand characteristic effects. For instance, the participants could have received non-verbal cues from the researchers-- despite the fact that the researcher who filled the files had no actual contact, verbal or physical, with the participants-- and responded accordingly, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the overall study. Although the researchers think this effect is highly unlikely, it cannot be ruled out as a source of potential experimenter error.