This paper was retracted soon after publication. The [text of the retraction][2] reads as follows: > *Retraction of “Women’s Preference for Attractive Makeup Tracks Changes in Their Salivary Testosterone”* > > At the request of the authors, the following article has been > retracted by the Editor and publishers of Psychological Science: > > Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2015). > Women’s preference for attractive makeup tracks changes in their > salivary testosterone. Psychological Science, 26, 1958–1964. > doi:10.1177/0956797615609900 > > The authors of this article have notified the Editor as follows: > > Our article reported linear mixed models showing interactive effects > of testosterone level and perceived makeup attractiveness on women’s > makeup preferences. These models did not include random slopes for the > term perceived makeup attractiveness, and we have now learned that the > Type 1 error rate can be inflated when by-subject random slopes are > not included ([Barr, Levy, Scheepers, & Tily, 2013][1]). Because the > interactions were not significant in reanalyses that addressed this > issue, we are retracting this article from the journal. > > Editor’s Note: I would like to add an explicit statement that there is > every indication that this retraction is entirely due to an honest > mistake on the part of the authors. > > **References** > > Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects > structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. > Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24403724 [2]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/03/0956797616630941.full