Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder but rarely because of the beer
Tobias Otterbring a, c, *, Kristian Rolschau b
a
School of Business and Law, Department of Management, University of Agder, Universitetsveien 17, 4630 Kristiansand, Norway
b
Department of Management/MAPP, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark
c
Institute of Retail Economics, Kungsgatan 27, 11156 Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Across three studies, the present research examined beliefs and real-world responses pertaining to whether bar
Time patrons’ self-rated attractiveness would be higher later in the night. Contrary to beliefs held by lay people (Study
Closing time effect 1A) and researchers in relevant disciplines (Study 1B), the results of a field study (Study 2) revealed that patrons
Sex differences
perceived themselves as more attractive at later times, regardless of the amount of alcohol consumed. Rela­
Attractiveness
Relationship status
tionship status moderated this time-contingent finding, which only applied to patrons who were single. However,
Sexual strategies theory consistent with sexual strategies theory, this interplay was further moderated by the patrons’ sex. Men rated
themselves as more attractive later in the night irrespective of their relationship status, whereas this “pretty”
pattern only held for single women. Taken together, the current work highlights the concept of time in forming
consumers’ evaluative judgments and adds to the literature on the closing time effect.

“From a 2 at 10 to a 10 at 2.” perceived value because aspects that are difficult to obtain are seen as
Bar wisdom more attractive (Cialdini, 2009a; Lopes et al., 2019; Lynn, 1991). Mere
exposure effects postulate that people build preferences based on
While the notion that “people get prettier at closing time” might
repeated exposure, partially because familiarity breeds attraction (Fang
seem like an urban legend, several studies support this thesis. The
et al., 2007; Peskin & Newell, 2004; Zajonc, 1968). Yet, Gladue and
closing time effect, as the literature has coined it, proposes that bar
Delaney (1990) found women to be less likely than men to showcase the
patrons rate opposite-sex, but not same-sex, individuals as more
closing time effect, while Madey et al. (1996) found this effect to be
attractive during closing time than during earlier times of a bar’s
restricted to single patrons, thereby bringing forth questions about sex
opening hours (Johnco et al., 2010; Nida & Koon, 1983; Pennebaker
differences and relationship status that existing theories cannot neces­
et al., 1979). With the basis in Brehm’s (1972) reactance theory, Pen­
sarily explain.
nebaker et al. (1979) proposed that time restrictions will threaten the
A common critique of research on the closing time effect is the
freedom to choose a partner, which, in turn, will cause patrons to in­
amount of alcohol consumed. Indeed, another well-known phenome­
crease their attractiveness ratings of potential partners in such con­
non, referred to as the beer goggles effect, suggests that individuals’
sumption contexts. As the threat becomes bigger when the closing time
attractiveness perceptions are influenced by real or imagined alcohol
approaches, so will the magnitude of the reactance.
intoxication (Bègue et al., 2013;Jones et al., 2003; Lyvers et al., 2011).
However, later studies have presented conflicting results and offered
According to the beer goggles effect, people rate themselves (Bègue
other possible explanations for the effect. For instance, Johnco et al.
et al., 2013) and opposite-sex individuals (Jones et al., 2003; Lyvers
(2010) contended that reactance theory is not an adequate explanation,
et al., 2011) as more attractive when they are drunk. As bar patrons are
since they found patrons in relationships show the same effect as single
usually more intoxicated at closing time than earlier in the evening, the
patrons, despite that individuals without a partner should arguably have
confound with the closing time effect seems obvious.
a stronger desire to find one compared to those already in a relationship.
The present research aimed to examine the closing time effect from a
Johnco et al. (2010) contended that better explanations come from
new angle, while simultaneously considering the potential impact of the
commodity theory and mere exposure effects. Commodity theory gives
beer goggles effect. Contrary to previous studies investigating time-
the broader prediction that scarcity of a commodity increases its

* Corresponding author at: School of Business and Law, Department of Management, University of Agder, Universitetsveien 17, 4630 Kristiansand, Norway.
E-mail addresses: tobias.otterbring@uia.no (T. Otterbring), krro@mgmt.au.dk (K. Rolschau).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110921
Received 6 November 2020; Received in revised form 9 April 2021; Accepted 10 April 2021
Available online 10 May 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau
related effects on opposite-sex attractiveness, we test predictions on self-
rated attractiveness. The closing time effect has focused on bar patrons’
attractiveness perceptions of potential partners (commonly conceptu­
alized as opposite-sex individuals) but has neglected investigations of
individuals’ self-rated attractiveness. For example, Johnco et al. (2010)
concluded that the closing time effect only occurs for potential partners,
since increases in attractiveness were found for ratings of opposite-sex,
but not same-sex, individuals. However, such a result does not rule
out potential effects on self-ratings. Clearly, one’s own attractiveness
plays a prominent role in attracting a partner (Buss, 1985; Jonason et al.,
2009; Schmitt et al., 2012; Walter et al., 2020), so positive changes in
self-rated attractiveness might be beneficial in attracting a mate. Thus,
to expand on the literature, the current work investigated whether the
closing time effect applies to self-rated attractiveness rather than
attractiveness ratings for opposite-sex individuals.
1. Theory and hypotheses
Pennebaker et al. (1979) was the first to document the closing time
effect. Since then, several studies have attempted to replicate the orig­
inal findings (Gladue & Delaney, 1990; Johnco et al., 2010; Madey et al.,
1996; Nida & Koon, 1983; Sprecher et al., 1984). For instance, Nida and
Koon (1983) partially replicated the effect by showing that male patrons
rated the attractiveness of “the women here tonight” more favorably
over the course of the night at a Country and Western bar, but not at a
campus bar. However, other studies have muddied the water by finding
conflicting results or offering alternative explanations. Sprecher et al.
(1984) found no evidence for the effect, and alcohol provides a
competing explanation as studies have shown alcohol to exert a com­
parable impact as time in similar settings (Jones et al., 2003; Lyvers
et al., 2011). A few studies have tried to remedy this issue by simulta­
neously investigating attractiveness perceptions as a function of both
time and alcohol. Gladue and Delaney (1990) found no support for the
thesis that increased attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex patrons is due
to alcohol consumption, but did find evidence of a closing time effect,
while Johnco et al. (2010) found opposite-sex, but not same-sex,
attractiveness to increase over three time periods at a pub, with
alcohol only explaining a small portion of the variance.
Undoubtedly, the closing time effect on opposite-sex ratings has
received a fair share of attention from researchers, perhaps causing time-
contingent examinations on self-rated attractiveness to be overlooked.
Given the importance of attractiveness in mating contexts (Buss &
Schmitt, 2019; Rhodes et al., 2005), especially in short-term ones (Buss
& Schmitt, 1993; Li & Kenrick, 2006), a boost in one’s self-rated
attractiveness should likely improve self-perceived mate value and,
consequently, should be adaptive in that it may facilitate approach be­
haviors towards potential mates. Indeed, positive self-perceived mate
value tends to be related to one’s attractiveness to others (Zeigler-Hill &
Myers, 2011) and has been shown to facilitate intimate interactions
(Nezlek, 1999). Therefore, in the bar context, an increase in self-rated
attractiveness should improve one’s confidence of finding a mate.
Together with research demonstrating that a temporary increase in self-
perceived mate value can shift preferences towards short-term mating
(Surbey & Brice, 2007), this suggests that the closing time effect on self-
rated attractiveness should mirror the previously documented effects on
ratings of opposite-sex individuals. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Bar patrons will rate their own attractiveness more
favorably at later versus earlier times of a bar’s opening hours.
Beyond the original findings by Pennebaker et al. (1979), Madey
et al. (1996) reported relationship status as a moderator of the closing
time effect, suggesting that the strength of association between time and
attractiveness ratings depends on whether the rater is single or in a
relationship. Specifically, Madey et al. (1996) hypothesized and found
2
Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921
that since people in a relationship should be less inclined than single
people to focus on finding a mate, the threat of not finding one due to the
closing time, as postulated by reactance theory, should not impact this
former group with respect to their attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex
others.
Self-perceived attractiveness is positively linked to psychological
well-being (Umberson & Hughes, 1987), even when altered surgically
(Margraf et al., 2013), and higher self-rated attractiveness is correlated
with multiple self-view-relevant traits, such as lower anxiety and higher
self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2005; Diener et al., 1995; Gupta et al.,
2015; Longo & Ashmore, 1995). This suggests that the “shaken self” of
being single may be meaningfully mitigated by amplifying one’s self-
rated attractiveness as a means of restoring self-view confidence (Gao
et al., 2009; Otterbring, 2020). Moreover, individuals in relationships
have been shown to unconsciously engage in defensive mechanisms
meant to maintain their current mate (Karremans & Verwijmeren,
2008), indicating that people who are single, as opposed to in a rela­
tionship, should be more motivated to perceive themselves in a favor­
able fashion as a function of time. Hence, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Relationship status will moderate the link between time
and self-rated attractiveness, with patrons who are single being more
inclined to rate themselves as attractive at later versus earlier times of a
bar’s opening hours compared to patrons who are in a relationship.
While relationship status should have implications for self-rated
attractiveness, so should bar patrons’ sex (Gladue & Delaney, 1990).
Sexual strategies theory postulates that men and women display sex-
specific responses in short-term mating contexts, with men typically
exhibiting more promiscuous sexual attitudes and behaviors (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993). For example, men are more likely to accept sexual in­
vitations, engage in casual sex, and have extradyadic sex (Baranowski &
Hecht, 2015; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Conley,
2011; Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010; Otterbring, 2021). These and other
sex differences are well-established, cross-culturally valid (Buss, 1989;
Lippa, 2009; Schmitt, 2003; Walter et al., 2020), and have been shown
to exert downstream effects on consumer responses (Griskevicius et al.,
2007; Otterbring et al., 2018; Sundie et al., 2011). Furthermore,
although men and women are more similar in their preferences for short-
term versus long-term mates and generally prioritize physical attrac­
tiveness in short-term mating contexts, the relative importance of
physical attractiveness still carries more weight for the short-term mate
appeal of women rather than men (Li & Kenrick, 2006). Women’s
relatively less promiscuous sexual attitudes and behaviors, combined
with findings documenting that physical attractiveness is more impor­
tant for the mate appeal of women even in short-term mating contexts,
suggest that relationship status should play a more prominent role in
shaping women’s self-rated attractiveness. Accordingly, single women
should be more likely to perceive themselves positively on the attrac­
tiveness dimension around closing time than partnered women. In
contrast, considering men’s relatively more promiscuous sexual atti­
tudes and behaviors, the impact of time on their self-rated attractiveness
should arguably be less influenced by their relationship status. In other
words, such time-contingent attractiveness ratings should be less
differentiated between men who are single and men who are in a rela­
tionship, although men, regardless of their relationship status, should
draw certain mating-relevant benefits by boosting their self-perceived
beauty. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3. The moderating role of relationship status on the link
between time and self-rated attractiveness will be contingent on pa­
trons’ sex and should be weaker for male than for female patrons.
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau
2. Overview of studies
Across three studies, we investigate the impact of time on bar pa­
trons’ self-rated attractiveness. Given that people’s common sense and
their roles as naïve or intuitive psychologists have been stressed as great
assets for theory building (Friestad & Wright, 1995; Furnham, 1988;
Heider, 1958; Ross, 1977), we initially combine two pools of partici­
pants to examine lay people’s (Study 1A) and researchers’ (Study 1B)
beliefs pertaining to such a time-specific effect, along with its attributed
cause. Specifically, we test whether people generally believe patrons to
rate themselves as more attractive later in the night and, if so, whether
this is mainly attributed to the closing time effect or the beer goggles
effect. Next, we examine the validity of these beliefs at a bar (Study 2).
Moreover, we test whether the presumed closing time effect is contin­
gent on bar patrons’ relationship status and sex, and whether alcohol
intoxication may impact this interplay.
3. Studies 1A–B: beliefs about the closing time effect
3.1. Purpose and participants
Studies 1A–B sought to shed light on individuals’ beliefs corre­
sponding to the impact of time on bar patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.
In addition, we aimed to investigate whether people mainly attribute the
effect to time or alcohol consumption, while also examining their level
of certainty in such beliefs. To this end, we conducted one study (Study
1A; N = 117; 64% male)1 on a mixed student/community sample rep­
resenting lay people (cf. Heider, 1958; Molden & Dweck, 2006;
Otterbring & Mitkidis, 2018). These responses were subsequently com­
plemented with the beliefs held by researchers in relevant disciplines
through another study (Study 1B; N = 55; 51% male, Mage = 44.93, SD
= 11.87) on attendees at the academic conference “Recent Advances in
Retailing and Consumer Services” (RARCS2019). The combination of
these studies enabled us to examine the robustness of the results across
sample types, settings, and study designs, as recommended in prior
research contrasting common-sense psychology with scientific psy­
chology (Friestad & Wright, 1995; Kelley, 1992).
3.2. Materials and procedure
Studies 1A-B used identical measures but implemented them in
slightly different ways. Participants in Study 1A completed an online
survey through Qualtrics and were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions using a single-factor between-subjects design (time: earlier,
later). Specifically, they received the following question, with the text in
the brackets representing the “earlier” condition and the contrasting
words outside the brackets representing the “later” condition:
How do you think bar patrons rate their own level of attractiveness at
later [earlier] times of a bar’s opening hours; in other words, around [far
away from] closing time?
Next, participants indicated their response on a single-item scale (1
= unattractive; 7 = attractive) and subsequently replied to the state­
ment: “The amount of alcohol consumed by bar patrons has a stronger
impact on how they rate their own level of attractiveness than the spe­
cific time at which they are present in the bar” (1 = strongly disagree; 7
= strongly agree).2 Finally, participants indicated their level of certainty
in their reply (1 = very uncertain; 7 = very certain).
1
Data on participants’ age were not collected in Study 1A.
2
An anonymous reviewer raised concerns regarding this item due to its
somewhat ambiguous nature, indicating that the results for this item should be
interpreted with appropriate caution. However, participants in Study 1B were
encouraged to ask questions to the first author distributing the surveys if they
found some items difficult to understand, and these participants did not express
any difficulties in understanding the item in question.
3
Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921
Participants in Study 1B completed a paper-and-pencil survey
distributed by the first author during the welcome reception of
RARCS2019, which is an academic conference for scholars in retailing,
hospitality, consumer behavior, and service research. Because no
explicit comparison existed for participants in Study 1A regarding the
attractiveness question and given that the estimated number of scholars
showing up at the welcome reception was estimated to be well below
100 according to the conference organizers (making a between-subjects
design under-powered), Study 1B used a within-subjects design. Thus,
the conference attendees received both attractiveness questions, with
the order of these questions (time: earlier, later) randomized through
two different sets of surveys that had been mixed arbitrarily prior to data
collection. This alternative design should have made it easier for par­
ticipants to make their attractiveness assessments, as they could
compare their beliefs on how bar patrons would rate their own attrac­
tiveness across two distinct time points.3 Following the two attractive­
ness items, participants then replied to the other items from Study 1A
using the same response formats.
3.3. Results
Across Studies 1A–B, participants thought that bar patrons would
rate their own level of attractiveness more favorably during later versus
earlier times of a bar’s opening hours; see Fig. 1. Indeed, one-way
ANOVAs, with time as a between-subjects factor in Study 1A and as a
within-subjects factor in Study 1B, consistently revealed a significant
difference between conditions in attractiveness responses among lay
people (Study 1A: F(1, 115) = 4.96, p = .028, η2 = 0.04) as well as re­
searchers (Study 1B: F(1, 52) = 11.75, p = .001, η2 = 0.18).
Participants also agreed with the statement postulating that alcohol
would play a larger role than time in influencing bar patrons’ self-rated
attractiveness, as evidenced by one-sample t-tests, which showed
significantly higher agreement scores than the scale midpoint of 4
(Study 1A: M = 5.51, SD = 1.43, t(116) = 11.44, p < .001; Study 1B: M
= 5.10, SD = 1.42, t(49) = 5.49, p < .001). Finally, participants
expressed certainty in these predictions, with one-sample t-tests
demonstrating significantly higher certainty ratings than the neutral
response option indicated by the scale midpoint of 4 (Study 1A: M =
5.32, SD = 1.32, t(116) = 10.75, p < .001; Study 1B: M = 4.80, SD =
1.59, t(49) = 3.56, p < .001), with 76.1% (Study 1A) and 62.0% (Study
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lay People Researchers
Early Late
Fig. 1. Assumed time effects on patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.
Note – Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.
3
We thank an anonymous reviewer for making this remark.
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau
1B) of participants indicating some level of certainty (i.e., slightly
certain, certain, or very certain).4
3.4. Discussion
Studies 1A–B demonstrate that people believe bar patrons to rate
their own attractiveness higher at later times of the bar’s opening hours.
This result holds across study settings and designs (between-subjects
versus within-subjects) and independent of whether lay people or re­
searchers in relevant disciplines are asked. Furthermore, the attributed
cause for this effect, expressed with certainty, is the amount of alcohol
consumed rather than the specific time at which patrons are present in
the bar, suggesting that people generally perceive a “beer goggles”-ac­
count as more plausible than a “closing time”-account.
4. Study 2: field study on the closing time effect
4.1. Purpose and participants
Study 2 aimed to examine whether the beliefs and the attributed
cause concerning bar patrons’ self-rated attractiveness, as displayed by
participants in Studies 1A-B, could be validated under real-world con­
ditions in a bar. The study included 475 bar patrons (67% male; Mage =
28.74, SD = 8.07), of whom 176 were single and 299 were in a
relationship.
4.2. Materials and procedure
Study 2 was conducted during four consecutive weekends at a Danish
bar that accommodates approximately 100 patrons at peak hours. A
confederate posing as a bartender asked patrons to report in a brief
paper-and-pencil survey how many beers they had consumed, their age,
sex, relationship status, and the time at which they completed the sur­
vey. The patrons also rated how attractive (1 = unattractive; 7 =
attractive) and drunk (1 = sober; 7 = drunk) they perceived themselves
to be at that point in time (Brown et al., 1992; Cornil et al., 2017).
Single-item scales were used to reduce the intrusiveness of the survey
per wishes of the bar manager, and with the validity of such scales in
mind (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Attractiveness was not specified as
physical attractiveness as in, for instance, Johnco et al. (2010) and
Sprecher et al. (1984), but in a more generic sense (Dunn & Hill, 2014;
Dunn & Searle, 2010). This was done to capture variance from more
than just physical appearance in the measure and because physical
attractiveness, viewed in isolation, is not always a good predictor of
mate value (Fisher et al., 2008).
4.3. Results
Responses were classified as a function of whether they were made
during afternoon, evening, or night according to common definitions for
these time-specific daily events (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2019;
Learner’s Dictionary, 2019). To this end, and to have a roughly equal
number of responses per time category, all responses made from 12.00
am to 5.59 pm (n = 182; 38%) were categorized as “afternoon” re­
sponses, all responses made from 6.00 pm to 8.59 pm (n = 152; 32%)
4
Interestingly, the lay people involved in Study 1A reported significantly
higher certainty levels in their predictions than the researchers involved in
Study 1B (F(1, 165) = 4.71, p = .031, η2 = 0.03), supporting the general
conclusion of the “Dunning-Kruger effect,” with unskilled people typically
being more inclined to overestimate their abilities (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
Due to missing data in Study 1B, we got 53 usable responses for the later versus
earlier questions and 50 usable responses for the other two items (i.e., whether
alcohol was thought to have a stronger impact than time on bar patrons’ self-
rated attractiveness and the degree of certainty in this belief).
4
Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921
were classified as “evening” responses, and the remaining responses,
made from 9 pm to closing time (2.00 am) were categorized as “night”
responses (n = 141; 30%).5 The nature and significance of our results
remain unchanged if we analyze the data on a minute-by-minute basis in
a multiplicative moderation analysis (PROCESS Model 3), indicating
robustness of the findings.
We conducted a 3 (time: afternoon, evening, night) × 2 (relationship
status: single, in a relationship) × 2 (patron sex: male, female) between-
subjects ANOVA on self-rated attractiveness to test our hypotheses. This
analysis revealed a significant main effect of time on bar patrons’ self-
rated attractiveness (F(2, 463) = 4.93, p = .008, η2p = 0.02). Consis­
tent with Hypothesis 1, planned contrasts revealed that patrons rated
themselves as more attractive during the night than during the afternoon
and evening (t(472) = 2.20, p = .028), whereas self-rated attractiveness
did not differ significantly between the afternoon and evening (t(472) =
1.60, p = .111); see Fig. 2.
In line with Hypothesis 2, a two-way interaction between time and
relationship status emerged (F(2, 463) = 3.53, p = .030, η2p = 0.02). For
patrons in a relationship, time did not impact self-rated attractiveness (F
< 1). However, among single patrons, time had a significant impact on
self-rated attractiveness (F(2, 173) = 4.44, p = .013, η2p = 0.05). Planned
contrasts revealed that single patrons evaluated themselves as more
attractive during the night than during the afternoon and evening (t
(173) = 2.72, p = .007), whereas self-rated attractiveness did not differ
significantly among single patrons between the afternoon and evening (t
(173) = 1.13, p = .261); See Fig. 3.
Corroborating Hypothesis 3, the three-way interaction between time,
relationship status, and patron sex was also significant (F(2, 463) = 4.12,
p = .017, η2p = 0.02). Male patrons rated themselves as more attractive
later in the night, regardless of their relationship status, as evidenced by
the significant main effect of time (F(2,311) = 3.15, p = .044, η2p = 0.02).
Planned contrasts revealed that male patrons’ self-rated attractiveness
was marginally higher during the night than during the afternoon and
evening (t(314) = 1.82, p = .070), and marginally higher during the
evening than during the afternoon (t(314) = 1.90, p = .059). There was
no interaction between relationship status and time on male patrons’
self-rated attractiveness (F < 1) and the main effect of relationship status
was also non-significant (F < 1). For female patrons, the main effect of
time on self-rated attractiveness was marginally significant (F(2, 152) =
2.90, p = .058, η2p = 0.04). Crucially, although the main effect of rela­
tionship status was not significant (F(1, 152) = 2.07, p = .153, η2p =
0.01), the interaction between time and relationship status emerged (F
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Afternoon Evening Night
Fig. 2. Time effects on patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.
Note – Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.
5
The proportion of male and female patrons who were single versus in a
relationship did not differ for any of these time categories (all χ 2 < 1).
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921

1
Afternoon Evening Night

Single In a relationship

Fig. 3. Time × relationship status effects on patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.

Note – Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

(2, 152) = 6.60, p = .002, η2p = 0.08). For female patrons in a relation­
ship, time did not influence their self-rated attractiveness (F < 1).
However, time had a strong and significant impact on self-rated
attractiveness among female patrons who were single (F(2, 55) =
6.93, p = .002, η2p = 0.20). Indeed, planned contrasts revealed that they
rated themselves as significantly more attractive during the night than
during the evening and afternoon (t(55) = 3.48, p < .001), although
their self-rated attractiveness did not differ between the afternoon and
evening (t(55) = 1.46, p = .151); see Fig. 4.
Controlling for the number of beers consumed and/or how drunk the
patrons felt when completing the survey did not change the nature and
significance of these findings, and none of these alcohol-linked variables
were significantly associated with self-rated attractiveness. However,
the more objective measure of alcohol intake (i.e., the number of beers
consumed) showed a stronger association with self-rated attractiveness
(r = 0.08, p = .091) than the subjective sense of alcohol intoxication (r =
0.02, p = .599). This leaves some, albeit relatively weak, support for the
beer goggles effect.
Generally, both male (M = 5.36, SD = 1.25) and female patrons (M =
5.27, SD = 1.18) rated their own attractiveness as significantly above the
scale midpoint of 4 (tmale(316) = 19.42, p < .001; tfemale(157) = 13.48, p
< .001), consistent with a self-serving bias account (Kruger & Dunning,
1999).
4.4. Discussion
Study 2 verified the main prediction made by participants in Studies
1A-B, as bar patrons rated their own level of attractiveness more
favorably at later times of a bar’s opening hours. However, while par­
ticipants in Studies 1A–B attributed such self-centered attractiveness
perceptions to increased alcohol consumption rather than the specific
time at which patrons are present in a bar, Study 2 found that time, but
not alcohol intake or the subjective sense of alcohol intoxication, pre­
dicted bar patrons’ self-rated attractiveness. Therefore, the findings
from Study 2 provide stronger support for the closing time effect than
the beer goggles effect. Importantly, although patrons showed a general
increase in their self-rated attractiveness around closing time, this ten­
dency was moderated by their relationship status and, in turn, their sex.
Female patrons perceived themselves as more attractive at later times
only if they were single, while such a pattern applied more generally
among men, irrespective of their relationship status.
5. General discussion
As far as can be ascertained, this is the first scientific work to
investigate the validity of the closing time effect with respect to self-
rated attractiveness. Studies 1A–B found that lay people and scholars

Panel A - Men Panel B - Women

7
7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3

2 2

1 1
Afternoon Evening Night Afternoon Evening Night

Single In a relationship Single In a relationship

Fig. 4. Sex-specific time × relationship status effects on patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.

Note – Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

5
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau
in relevant disciplines believe bar patrons rate their own level of
attractiveness more favorably at later times of a bar’s opening hours due
to increased alcohol consumption. Contrary to this belief, Study 2 found
time, but not alcohol intoxication, explained patrons’ responses in an
actual field setting. Specifically, patrons perceived themselves as more
attractive at later times of a bar’s opening hours, regardless of the
amount of alcohol consumed or how drunk they felt. Relationship status
moderated this time-contingent finding, which only applied to patrons
who were single. However, consistent with sexual strategies theory
(Buss & Schmitt, 1993), this interaction was further moderated by the
patrons’ sex. Men rated themselves as more attractive the later they
responded, regardless of their relationship status, whereas this pattern
held only for single women. Notably, the present article offers a novel
approach of testing the closing time effect on self-rated attractiveness
rather than the previous focus on opposite-sex ratings.
At a general level, the current research highlights the concept of time
in forming consumers’ evaluative judgments. In particular, the results
suggest that merely spending time in consumption contexts associated
with a time-restricted market for mating may boost certain individuals’
perceptions of their own attractiveness in a way that likely facilitates
approach behaviors towards potential mates and mirrors sex differences
in short-term mating strategies (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 2019;
Schmitt, 2003).
While we found support for our theorizing under ecologically valid
conditions, as called for by scholars in psychology and consumer
research (Cialdini, 2009b; Otterbring et al., 2020), other factors cannot
be explicitly ruled out as alternative accounts. It could be that patrons
entering bars at later hours simply constitute more attractive crowds,
according to themselves or others, but they may also represent a
segment that wears fancier clothes and more alluring accessories than
patrons entering at earlier hours, given that such style-based strategies
seem to play a prominent role in mating contexts (Hill et al., 1987;
Townsend & Levy, 1990). Furthermore, “night owls” (i.e., individuals
with an eveningness disposition) are more likely to have narcissistic
personality traits (Jonason et al., 2013), which is positively (and meta-
analytically) related to physical attractiveness (Holtzman & Strube,
2010) as well as short-term mate appeal, including interest as a short-
term romantic and sexual partner (Dufner et al., 2013). People with
narcissistic tendencies also perceive themselves more positively and are
particularly prone to display self-presentation tactics, such as altering
their appearance to obtain social gains, wearing expensive, conspicuous
clothing, and, among women, wearing makeup and showing cleavage
(Back et al., 2010; Fox & Rooney, 2015; Vazire et al., 2008). Therefore,
future research on the closing time effect should collect data on patrons’
dress style and level of narcissism, since these factors may partially
explain the findings reported herein.
A final suggestion for future research is to uncover the specific psy­
chological process explaining our results. The present findings appear to
contradict the predictions proposed by Johnco et al. (2010) stemming
from mere exposure effects and commodity theory. Mere exposure ef­
fects can theoretically explain increases in opposite-sex ratings over time
(Halberstadt et al., 2003). However, such exposure effects are unlikely
to explain the current findings on self-rated attractiveness. Similarly,
commodity theory can explain a general increase in attractiveness rat­
ings of opposite-sex individuals as a function of time, since the scarcity
of potential partners due to time restrictions may increase their
perceived attractiveness (Cialdini, 2009a; Lynn, 1992), but seems
implausible in explaining a rise in patrons’ self-rated attractiveness.
Moreover, commodity theory cannot explain why the closing time effect
should be restricted to patrons who are single (Madey et al., 1996).
Among the previous explanations for the closing time effect, reactance
theory, as originally suggested by Pennebaker et al. (1979), appears best
suited to explain why it occurs and why it might differ depending on bar
patrons’ relationship status. However, reactance theory cannot easily
explain why men and women should be differentially influenced by the
effect depending on their relationship status. As such, the theory that
6
Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921
offers the most parsimonious explanation for precise pattern of results
seems to be sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Future
research should try to replicate the current findings, while simulta­
neously investigating if the psychological mechanism underlying the
closing time effect differs as a function of whether the attractiveness
ratings relate to opposite-sex individuals or self-evaluations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tobias Otterbring: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Kristian Rolschau: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a grant awarded to the first author from
the Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF). The authors are
grateful to Jessica Li, Jill Sundie, and Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair for
helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
References
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132–145.
Baranowski, A. M., & Hecht, H. (2015). Gender differences and similarities in receptivity
to sexual invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 44(8), 2257–2265.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Exploding the self-
esteem myth. Scientific American, 292(1), 84–91.
Bègue, L., Bushman, B. J., Zerhouni, O., Subra, B., & Ourabah, M. (2013). “Beauty is in
the eye of the beer holder”: People who think they are drunk also think they are
attractive. British Journal of Psychology, 104(2), 225–234.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus
single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2),
175–184.
Brehm, J. W. (1972). Responses to the loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels:
Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62(5), 717–727.
Buss, D. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in
fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable.
American Scientist, 73(1), 47–51.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral
manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.
Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Men, women, and infidelity: Sex differences in
extradyadic sex and jealousy. In The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and
commitment (pp. 103–120).
Cambridge English Dictionary. (2019). Meaning of afternoon in English Accessed at: htt
ps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/afternoon. (Accessed 6
November 2020).
Cialdini, R. B. (2009a). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston: Pearson Education.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009b). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1),
5–6.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender
differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100(2), 309–329.
Cornil, Y., Chandon, P., & Krishna, A. (2017). Does Red Bull give wings to vodka?
Placebo effects of marketing labels on perceived intoxication and risky attitudes and
behaviors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 456–465.
Diener, E., Wolsic, B., & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 120–129.
Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Czarna, A. Z., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Are narcissists
sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 870–882.
Dunn, M. J., & Hill, A. (2014). Manipulated luxury-apartment ownership enhances
opposite-sex attraction in females but not males. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology,
12(1), 1–17.
Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both
sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 69–80.
T. Otterbring and K. Rolschau
Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for
the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 97–103.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate
value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168.
Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors
of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality
and Individual Differences, 76, 161–165.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: Lay people’s and researchers’
beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1),
62–74.
Furnham, A. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Gao, L., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2009). The “shaken self”: Product choices as a means
of restoring self-view confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 29–38.
Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness
of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 378–391.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T.
(2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives
elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1),
85–102.
Gupta, N., Etcoff, N. L., & Jaeger, M. M. (2015). Beauty in mind: The effects of physical
attractiveness on psychological well-being and distress. Journal of Happiness Studies,
17(3), 1313–1325.
Halberstadt, J., Rhodes, G., & Catty, S. R. (2003). Subjective and objective familiarity as
explanations for the attraction to average faces. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in
psychology research (pp. 91–106). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers
of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453–458.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hill, E. M., Nocks, E. S., & Gardner, L. (1987). Physical attractiveness: Manipulation by
physique and status displays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8(2), 143–154.
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2010). Narcissism and attractiveness. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44(1), 133–136.
Johnco, C., Wheeler, L., & Taylor, A. (2010). They do get prettier at closing time: A
repeated measures study of the closing-time effect and alcohol. Social Influence, 5(4),
261–271.
Jonason, P. K., Jones, A., & Lyons, M. (2013). Creatures of the night: Chronotypes and
the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 538–541.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “booty call”: A compromise between
men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 460–470.
Jones, B. T., Jones, B. C., Thomas, A. P., & Piper, J. (2003). Alcohol consumption
increases attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces: A possible third route to risky
sex. Addiction, 98(8), 1069–1075.
Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others:
The role of romantic relationship status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34
(7), 939–950.
Kelley, H. H. (1992). Common-sense psychology and scientific psychology. Annual
Review of Psychology, 43(1), 1–24.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in
recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
Learner’’s Dictionary. (2019). Parts of the day: Early morning, late morning, etc Accessed
at: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/parts-of-the-day-early-morning-late-mor
ning-etc. (Accessed 6 November 2020).
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
(3), 468–489.
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53
nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 38(5), 631–651.
Longo, L. C., & Ashmore, R. D. (1995). The looks-personality relationship: Global self-
orientations as shared precursors of subjective physical attractiveness and self-
ascribed traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), 371–398.
Lopes, A., Skoda, K., & Pedersen, C. L. (2019). Smartphone battery levels and sexual
decision-making among men who have sex with men. Sexuality and Culture, 23(4),
1301–1314.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity
theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43–57.
Lynn, M. (1992). The psychology of unavailability: Explaining scarcity and cost effects
on value. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 3–7.
Personality and Individual Differences 179 (2021) 110921
Lyvers, M., Cholakians, E., Puorro, M., & Sundram, S. (2011). Beer goggles: Blood alcohol
concentration in relation to attractiveness ratings for unfamiliar opposite sex faces in
naturalistic settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 151(1), 105–112.
Madey, S. F., Simo, M., Dillworth, D., Kemper, D., Toczynski, A., & Perella, A. (1996).
They do get more attractive at closing time, but only when you are not in a
relationship. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(4), 387–393.
Margraf, J., Meyer, A. H., & Lavallee, K. L. (2013). Well-being from the knife?
Psychological effects of asthetic surgery. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(3),
239–252.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203.
Nezlek, J. B. (1999). Body image and day-to-day social interaction. Journal of Personality,
67, 793–817.
Nida, S. A., & Koon, J. (1983). They get better looking at closing time around here, too.
Psychological Reports, 52(2), 657–658.
Otterbring, T. (2020). Appetite for destruction: Counterintuitive effects of attractive faces
on people’s food choices. Psychology & Marketing, 37(11), 1451–1464.
Otterbring, T. (2021). Evolutionary psychology in marketing: Deep, debated, but fancier
with fieldwork. Psychology & Marketing, 38(2), 229–238.
Otterbring, T., & Mitkidis, P. (2018). Commentary: Folk-economic beliefs: An
evolutionary cognitive model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1120.
Otterbring, T., Ringler, C., Sirianni, N. J., & Gustafsson, A. (2018). The Abercrombie &
Fitch effect: The impact of physical dominance on male customers’ status-signaling
consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(1), 69–79.
Otterbring, T., Sundie, J., Li, Y. J., & Hill, S. (2020). Evolutionary psychological
consumer research: Bold, bright, but better with behavior. Journal of Business
Research, 120, 473–484.
Pennebaker, J. W., Dyer, M. A., Caulkins, R. S., Litowitz, D. L., Ackreman, P. L.,
Anderson, D. B., & McGraw, K. M. (1979). Don’t the girls get prettier at closing time:
A country and western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 5(1), 122–125.
Peskin, M., & Newell, F. N. (2004). Familiarity breeds attraction: Effects of exposure on
the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception, 33(2), 147–157.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior:
Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2),
186–201.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests
from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.
Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N., &
Qudrat, A. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies
reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 135–139.
Sprecher, S., DeLamater, J., Neuman, N., Neuman, M., Kahn, P., Orbuch, D., &
McKinney, K. (1984). Asking questions in bars: The girls (and boys) may not get
prettier at closing time and other interesting results. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 10(3), 482–488.
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J.
(2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a
sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4),
664–680.
Surbey, M. K., & Brice, G. R. (2007). Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes
a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 513–522.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and
physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. The Journal of Psychology,
124(4), 371–389.
Umberson, D., & Hughes, M. (1987). The impact of physical attractiveness on
achievement and psychological well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3),
227–236.
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a
narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42(6), 1439–1447.
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., …
Amjad, N. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-
scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Myers, E. M. (2011). An implicit theory of self-esteem: The
consequences of perceived self-esteem for romantic desirability. Evolutionary
Psychology, 9(2), Article 147470491100900.