Five studies from “Bust Size and Hitchhiking” author retracted 

A journal has retracted five papers about the appearance, sexual behavior and attractiveness of women. 

Nicolas Guéguen, a professor of marketing at the Université de Bretagne-Sud in France, was an author on each of the papers, published in the Sage journal Perceptual and Motor Skills (PMS) at least 15 years ago. All of the articles garnered expressions of concern in 2023, but Guéguen’s history of misconduct long precedes the PMS papers. 

Sleuths have been flagging Guéguen’s work for years for seemingly impossible results. In 2019, he was cleared of wrongdoing by his university, but since then has racked up at least four retractions, according to the Retraction Watch database. 

In 2020, his study claiming men who carried guitar cases were more attractive was retracted. He also lost a paper in 2022 regarding the “sexual intent” of women wearing red. In April 2024, he received four more expressions of concern. 

The studies retracted February 25 are:

1. Bust Size and Hitchhiking: A Field Study (published 2007, cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science)
2. Hitchhiking Women’s Hair Color (2009, cited 12 times)
3. Touch, Compliance, and Awareness of Tactile Contact (2007, cited 37 times)
4. Touch, Awareness of Touch, and Compliance with a Request (2002, cited 43 times)
5. Women’s Eye Contact and Men’s Later Interest: Two Field Experiments (2008, cited 1 time)

Five of the citations to “Touch, Compliance, and Awareness of Tactile Contact” came after the journal issued its expression of concern. The citations for the rest of the papers all came before the notices. 

The retraction notice cites work by critics such as researchers Nick Brown and James Heathers, who published a report of 10 Guéguen studies in 2017. The notice, signed by the editor-in-chief and assistant editor of the journal, refers to implausible research methods, lack of ethics approval and informed consent, and “implausible” or “incorrectly analyzed” data. 

Editors also listed “antiquated reference lists” as a reason for retraction, noting cited works predated the publications by an average of 10 to 20 years. 

Brown told us in an email he is “very pleased” with the retractions. “It is clearly implausible that any of these studies could have been carried out as described, and this problem affects dozens of Guéguen’s papers, perhaps even a hundred or more,” Brown said.

He did take issue with “antiquated reference lists” as a reason for retraction. “Perhaps the reviewers ought to have picked that up when the article was published,” he said. “But then perhaps they, or the editors at the time, ought also to have picked up on the implausible methods, lack of ethical approval, and erroneous statistics, all of which are right there in plain sight in the text of the articles.”

Neither the journal editors nor Guéguen responded to our request for comment. 

A spokesperson from Sage responded to us by restating the retraction notice, and told us they have been unable to reach the authors. 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].