A Woman Is the Best Wingman (2): Your Desirability Is Decreed by Committee?
By Heath Shive

What did Dean Martin sing? 

You’re nobody till somebody loves you…

We tend to think of the heart as sacred – or fickle – but often the heart is really just a conformist. 

Romantic desire does not originate solely from inside us – but rather there are external cultural influences on who we want as well. 

In the last blog, the studies indicated that animals don’t just rely on their instincts to find a mate.  Animals also use social cues (external advice) to find out who is the best choice. 

Are humans any different?

To the science!

Desirability by Social Decree

In an article in Scientific Reports – an online super-journal of science – a team of researchers experimented on the effect of social cues on what a group of women found attractive.

It was a small study, involving 49 female subjects.  They were presented with pictures of men’s faces…and pictures of men’s hands, and of abstract art too. 

Faces are a typical reference for desire.  The hand-pictures were a way of exploring non-facial attractiveness.  The abstract art was used to measure attraction outside the sexual domain (unless that’s your thing?).

First, the subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of the picture.  Then – a short while later – subjects were asked to rate the picture again, but they were also shown the average rating of all the other participants in real time. 

Now the subjects knew what the group thought!

The results of the second rating?

On average, a participant changed their initial rating of the facial pictures by 13% towards the group rating! 

They moved in the direction of the group decree.

Conclusion

It should be noted that the subjects changed their initial ratings on the face-pictures and hand-pictures and abstract art by roughly the same amount (13% for hands, 14% for abstract art).

The study was really a reflection of the human tendency to conform.  People don’t just conform using their clothing styles or jargon.  Our ideas and beliefs conform as well. 

As noted in the previous blog, we don’t conform to just any old group. 

We conform to our specific group – whichever group we identify with. 

Conservative or liberal?  Religious or agnostic?  Old or young?  Male or female?  Professional versus blue-collar?

Group identity offers many advantages – networking, community resources, solidarity, protection, and support.  The group also controls how we will be measured too.

So we come back to same old conclusion as last week.  Guys, hang out with more women - because other women will notice.  And ladies, hang out with men to be seen as more approachable and social.

Who knows?  We might just learn to talk to each other!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Street, Sally E, Thomas J.H. Morgan, Alex Thornton, Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland & Catharine P. Cross.  Human mate-choice copying is domain general social learning.  Scientific Reports 8, 1715 (2018) – Accessed online 3 Feb 2019

Mom Lied!  Looks Do Matter! The Science of Superficial Judgments
By Heath Shive

The great entrepreneur Helena Rubinstein once said, “There are no ugly women, only lazy ones.”

Rubinstein’s words apply to men as well. 

Not all of us are born with the DNA of a bikini model or Adonis, but all of us can work at improving our appearance.

Because all of us will be judged on our appearance.   

I read Rubinstein’s quote in a book by Neil Strauss, author of the best-seller The Game – a book about the world of pick-up artists.    

Originally, Strauss had been a short, out of shape guy with thinning hair and bad clothes.  But Strauss exercised, lost weight, shaved his head for a bolder look, grew a beard to hide his weak chin, and bought trendier clothes. 

And his love life improved.

Why?

To the science of superficial judgments!

The Great Fudge-Poo Experiment of 1986?

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of experiments on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, subjects were offered a piece of high-quality square-shaped fudge. The subjects ate the piece and rated their desire to eat another piece. Then two additional pieces of the same fudge were presented – one fudge piece was shaped like a muffin and the other shaped like dog poop.

The experimenter truthfully told the subjects that the fudge was exactly the same.  The subjects rated their desire to eat more of each shape (muffin-shape first, then dog feces), indicated the one they preferred, and were then asked to take a bite from the preferred piece.

The subjects rated their preference on a 200-point scale.  A -100 was to describe the worst possible experience, 0 was neutral, and +100 was highest (most pleasurable) rating.

The subjects rated the poop-shaped fudge as 47 points worse than the original square fudge…even though it was the same fudge!

There were more experiments in this study – which should be used in every Psych 101 course – but Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff made their point. 

Humans have an instinct to judge everything based on appearances. 

Can any of us change our instincts?

Conclusion

My previous blog – The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit – discussed the amazing power of a business suit to enhance the social prestige of young black men on the streets of Chicago.

In another blog – The Science of Cars and Sex Appeal – a scientific study demonstrated how a sports car can enhance a man’s sex appeal to women. 

Appearances matter. 

Appearances do not change your morality, your ability, your kindness, or your work ethic. 

Appearances do change how people treat you.

That’s just reality. 

And since we live on world surrounded by 7 billion other people – all of whom will judge us at first based on what we look like – it behooves us to take our appearance seriously.

We may not be able to change our instincts.  However, we could try to master them to our advantage.   

LIKE SCHOLAFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit: The Primary Prejudice Is About Money?
By Heath Shive

In 2012, Trayvon Martin – a young black man – was wearing a hoodie as he walked home.  George Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious, so he accosted, fought, and fatally shot Martin. 

Would Martin be alive today if…he had worn a suit? 

In 2014, Eric Garner was strangled fatally when police arrested him for allegedly selling “loosies” on the street.  Would Garner still be alive if he had been wearing a suit? 

Both of these cases made national headlines with a media spotlight on race relations in America.

But was racism the real prejudice?

Justine Damond was shot and killed by a rookie police officer in Minneapolis in 2017. 
But, she was white, a woman, unarmed, and in an affluent neighborhood! 

Damond was wearing pajamas at the time of her shooting.  Would she be alive today if…she had been wearing a pantsuit?

To the science of a young black man in a suit!

The Chicago Study

In Chicago, researchers Uri Gneezy, John List, and Michael K. Price created an experiment.  In the experiment, a tester (working for the scientists) would walk around in Chicago and ask people for directions to a local landmark.  The study would measure 2 things: whether the people responded to the question, and how long they talked to the tester. 

There were 40 testers consisting of 8 groups of 5 each, divided by race (white and black), age (20 and 50), and gender (male and female). 

There were a total of 3,000 respondents and here are the results.

• 20-yr old black female: 60% of strangers responded for an average of 20 seconds  
• 20-yr old white female: 75% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 20-yr old black male: 31% responded; average of 13 seconds  
• 20-yr old white male: 52% responded; average of 16 seconds  
• 50-yr old black female: 63% responded; average of 20 seconds
• 50-yr old white female: 63% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 50-yr old black male: 61% responded; average of 20 seconds  
• 50-yr old white male: 59% responded; average of 20 seconds

A 20-year old white female had the highest response rate and response time.

A 20-year old black male had the lowest response rate and time.

True to stereotype, right?

But did you notice something non-stereotypical?

• A 20-year old white male had a lower response rate and time than a 20-year black female, 50-year old black female, and a 50-year old black male
• A 50-year old black male had a higher response rate and time than a 50-year old white male.
• And 50-year old white women and black women had the same response rates.

The prejudice in action was not simply about race. 

So the researchers went one step farther.

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit

The researchers sent the 20-year black male testers back into the streets for another test run. 

But this time, they didn’t wear hoodies.  The young black men wore…business suits.

The results?

In the words of Uri Gneezy and John List in their book The Why Axis: “Indeed, this time, the young black men were treated quite well and received the same quality information the young women had received.”

The young black men’s response rates and times roughly equaled the highest rates of the entire study!

All it took was a business suit!

Conclusion

Uri Gneezy and John List include this study – among many others – in their incredible book The Why Axis.  The book is about discrimination in all its economic aspects.  And some of their findings are not only relevant, but surprising as well.

Really, what is a suit?  A suit means a "successful" job at a "successful" wage.  It means money.  A suit carries a prejudice - it creates a standard appearance for success.  Without a suit, how important can you be?    

We talk about race a lot in this country, but do we dare to ask: what were they wearing?  Is the primary prejudice in this country an economic one? 

Clothes don’t make the man.  But clothes do change our perception.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Gneezy, Uri, & John List. The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life. PublicAffairs, 2013.       
 
 
 

There's a Formula for Self-Esteem?
By Heath Shive

Worried about your self-esteem?  You are not alone. 

The term “self-esteem” was coined by the great psychologist William James over a hundred years ago in his masterpiece Principles of Psychology. 

To James, your self-esteem could be determined by a simple equation: 
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions

So you could increase your self-esteem in two ways.  As Alain de Botton – author of the book Status Anxiety – writes, “On the one hand, we may try to achieve more; and on the other we may reduce the number of things we want to achieve.” (Italics added).

“Success” is usually defined as more money, more prestige, more status, more sex, more power, more influence, more fame, more achievements, etc.

For more self-esteem, you could increase your success.  Or…you could also reduce your pretensions. 

How so?

To the philosophy!

Pretensions and the F-word

Pretensions are simply what you think you should have. 

You drive a minivan, but you think you deserve a SUV (even though both just carry your butt to the same place).  You think your kids should be in private school (even though plenty of kids are going to public and doing just fine).  You think you should be promoted (even though your work performance isn’t the best). 

As Mark Manson – author of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck – writes: “It has become an accepted part of our culture today to believe that we are all destined to do something truly extraordinary.  Celebrities say it.  Business tycoons say it. Politicians say it.  Even Oprah says it (so it must be true).”

Even if people didn’t say such platitudes, then commercials, TV and movies would blast the same message at you anyway. Manson writes: “Everyone and their TV commercial wants you to believe that the key to a good life is a nicer job, or a more rugged car, or a prettier girlfriend…The world is constantly telling you that the path to a better life is more, more, more…”

According to James’ equation, as you increase  your pretensions you decrease your self-esteem!

So Manson advocated that people not give “a f*ck” (i.e., reduce your pretensions), then the “stress and anxiety of always feeling inadequate and constantly needing to prove yourself will dissipate” so that “the knowledge and acceptance of your own mundane existence will actually free you to accomplish what you truly wish to accomplish, without judgment or lofty expectations.”

Conclusion

Lowering your goals to the point where they are already met is the definition of the word "mediocrity." 

But James, Manson, and de Botton are not advocating mediocrity.  They are preaching independence.

Then, your self-esteem will be created, maintained, and fueled entirely by you.  This will probably not reduce work and pain – but it could decimate your anxiety. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
De Botton, Alain.  Status Anxiety.  Pantheon Books, 2004.

James, William.  The Principles of Psychology.  H. Holt and Company, 1918.

Manson, Mark.  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life.  HarperOne, 2016.                                   
 

The 4 Kinds of Drunks
By Heath Shive

Ian Fleming wrote a short story collection of James Bond adventures entitled Octopussy and the Living Daylights. According to one line from the book, there are 4 kinds of drunks:

1. Sanguine: the happy and social drunk
2. Phlegmatic: the sad and pitiful drunk
3. Melancholic: the pensive and brooding drunk
4. Choleric: the angry or violent drunk

You can be any one style of drunk.  Or you can be a different drunk at different times.

But why?

To the science!

This Is Your Brain on Booze
​
Alcohol is absorbed into your bloodstream.  Eventually the alcohol will reach your brain, where it gets absorbed by your cerebral cortex – the outer layer of the brain that processes sensory data, motor functions, and your perceptual experience of the world.

This is where the trouble begins.  Since alcohol is a depressant, it impairs the synaptic functions between the nerves in your brain.   

If you keep drinking, the alcohol begins to work through the cerebral cortex and into your limbic system. 

The limbic system of your brain is where all your emotions are!  

In the limbic system, the alcohol starts impairing the synapses – which in turn makes it harder for you to process and control your emotions!

As Kevin Kampwirth writes in his Mental Floss article: “The limbic system, which would typically keep our emotions in check, now subjects us to mood swings and exaggerated states.” 

According to Fleming, these “exaggerated states” are classified as sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, or choleric.

But they all end in hangovers.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

The Banana Is Dead?  Long Live the Banana!
By Heath Shive

There are 1,000 varieties of bananas.  The banana we eat in America is the Cavendish banana – the world’s most popular banana. 

Dan Koeppel – author of the book Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World – had a dire prediction.  “There may be five or ten or thirty years left for our banana,” Koeppel wrote.    

He wrote that 10 years ago.

Global banana production reached a record peak of 117 million metric tons in 2015, up from 68 million tons in 2000.  Bananas are the world’s fourth most plentiful crop (after wheat, rice and corn). 

So how is our doomed Cavendish banana doing now?

To the science!

The Cavendish Banana

Americans eat more Cavendish bananas than apples and oranges combined!

The Cavendish is the world’s favorite banana too.  According to a FAO Report, Cavendish bananas make up 47 percent of global banana production – about 50 million metric tons every year!

The Cavendish banana has a magical mix of virtues.  The Cavendish is more resilient than most bananas, which made it great for shipping.  The Cavendish plant is shorter – so harvesting is easier and the plant more likely to survive tropical storm winds.  And it is a big producer: on average, one hectare can produce 40 to 50 metric tons of fruit. 

And it tastes great!

But once – according to legend – there was an even better banana.

The Gros Michel (“Big Mike”)

Before 1960, the Gros Michel (“Big Mike”) banana was the world’s favorite.  You can see the Gros Michel in old movies and TV shows.  Compared to the Cavendish, the Gros Michel was bigger, easier to ship, had a creamier texture, and the flavor was unbelievable! 

But it wasn’t immune to the Panama disease – a soil-tainting fungus – which destroyed whole plantations. 

By 1965, the Gros Michel had vanished from the world’s supermarkets. 

The Cavendish was more resilient…until recently. 

Trouble in Paradise

For two decades, Cavendish plantations have been struck down by a new variety of Panama disease called Tropical Race 4 (or TR4).  There’s no cure.  The fungus stays in the soil for decades.    

No wonder Koeppel made his dire prediction.

And there didn’t seem to be a new banana variety that could take the Cavendish’s place. 

The New Franken-Banana?

Koeppel did suggest – however reluctantly – a quicker solution.  The Cavendish could be genetically modified to be more resistant to the new TR4 fungus.  Genetically modified (GM) foods are unpopular globally, even banned in some countries.  But Koeppel felt that there was no choice. 

And behold, there’s a new GM Cavendish!

Last year, a group of scientists from Queensland University of Technology successfully created a stronger “transgenic” Cavendish.  They spliced a gene from a TR4-resistant, wild banana species unto the Cavendish genome. 

One line of GM Cavendish was disease-free for the 3 years of trials.  And 3 other lines of GM Cavendish had a mortality rate of only 20% after 3 years.  The normal Cavendish plants had a 67-100% mortality rate in the same time.

Conclusion

As bad as it sounds, losing the Cavendish wouldn’t be the end of America’s banana craving.  Nature (and business) abhors a vacuum.   

There are other sweet banana varieties in the world.  For example, there are the Lakatan, the Latundan, and the Red Banana.    

But I have loved the Cavendish my entire life.  And there is no love quite like your first love. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Koeppel, Dan.  Banana:  The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.  Hudson Street Press, 2008.
Queensland University of Technology. "Saving cavendish: Panama disease-resistant bananas." ScienceDaily, 15 November 2017.

Mother Nature Mostly Hates Men:  Mortality Science!
By Heath Shive
​
Back in 2000, psychiatrist Sebastian Kraemer wrote a paper for The British Medical Journal entitled “The Fragile Male.”  It created quite a stir. 

Men have a shorter average life expectancy than women.  But Kraemer thought a male was inherently more likely to die from the very beginning – even in his mother’s womb!

Kraemer argued that many obstetric maladies – perinatal diseases, deformities, stillbirths, etc. – afflicted males much more than females.  At birth, the ratio of males to females is roughly 105 to 100.  Kraemer believed that the ratio at conception started about 120 to 100 – and then Nature started to cull off males.

To the science!
​
But That Changed

Recently, a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that fetal mortality isn't so simple.

The scientists analyzed 140,000 embryos (conceived by IVF or other technologies) in the first days after conception. Male embryos were more likely to be abnormal and so die a week or two after conception.  At first, male mortality is higher. 

But data from about 800,000 amniocentesis tests showed that between weeks 10-15 more female embryos are miscarried.

In the third trimester, male mortality rates accelerate.

But overall, female fetus mortality rates were slightly higher.

To be more specific, there would seem to be “different windows of vulnerability” for males and females during development. 

Mortality by Gene-Based Behavior

After birth, male mortality rates exceed female rates – because of the consequences of risk-taking behavior.  Evolutionary psychologists – like Glenn Geher and Scott Kaufman in their book Mating Intelligence Unleashed – believed that such risk-taking behaviors were intrinsic to men, written on their DNA, to display strength and virility to women. 

Behaviors affect vulnerability to disease.  Zhang et al (1995) showed men were more likely to die from most diseases (“total cardiovascular disease and cancer”). 

In the U.S., homicide victims are 3 times more likely to be male than female.  According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide. 

Conclusion

Whether from genes or gene-based behavior, from the womb to the tomb, men seem to be….more expendable to Nature. 

According to a nursery rhyme, little boys are made of “snips and snails and puppy-dogs' tails.”  Whatever men are made of…it’s perilous stuff.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Kraemer S. (2000). The fragile male. British Medical Journal, 321, 1609–1612.

Geher, Glenn and Kaufman, Scott.  Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love.  Oxford University Press, 2013.

Lawlor D., Ebrahim S., Smith G. (2001). Sex matters: Secular and geographical trends in sex difference in coronary heart disease mortality.  British Medical Journal, 323, 541-545.

Orzack, Steven Hecht, J. William Stubblefield, Viatcheslav R. Akmaev, Pere Colls, Santiago Munné, Thomas Scholl, David Steinsaltz, and James E. Zuckerman.  The human sex ratio from conception to birth.  PNAS April 21, 2015. 112 (16) E2102-E2111

Zhang X., Sasaki S., Kesteloot H. (1995). The sex ratio of mortality and its secular trends.  International Journal of Epidemiology, 24, 720-729. 

The Rise of the Singles!  Alone But Not Lonely
by Heath Shive

More than 50 percent of American adults are single!  And roughly one in every seven adults lives…alone.

People who live alone make up 28 percent of all U.S. households.  More people live alone than in nuclear families, multigenerational families, or have roommates.

Sociologist Eric Klinenberg wrote a book on this phenomenon entitled “Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone.”

The Numbers

“Singletons” – as Klinenberg calls single people who live alone – are primarily women (about 17 million, compared to 14 million men).  Over 15 million are middle-age adults between the ages of 35 and 64.  The elderly make up 10 million.  Young adults (ages 18-34) number more than 5 million – but they are the fastest-growing segment of singletons.

The Rise of the Singleton

According to Euromonitor International, the number of people living alone in the world has increased dramatically.  In 1996, 153 million people lived alone.  By 2006, that number was 202 million – an increase of 33 percent in one decade!

In 1950, 22 percent of American adults were single, Klinenberg reports.  Today, that number is 50 percent.

In 1950, 9 percent of the population lived alone.  Today, 28 percent of America lives alone.

This isn’t just an American trend.

Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all have a greater proportion of one-person households than the United States!  So do Australia and Canada.

And the nations with the fastest growth in one-person households?

China, India, and Brazil. 

Is This a Problem?

Obviously, singletons are increasing.  But is this good or bad?

Unfortunately, as Klinenberg writes, when there is a public debate about the rise of living alone, “commentators tend to present it as an unmitigated social problem, a sign of narcissism, fragmentation, and a diminished public life.”

What is driving the widespread rise in living alone?  Simply put, more people live alone because they can afford it.

But something is being lost, right?  Not necessarily.  The four countries with the highest rates of living alone are Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark – where roughly 40 to 45 percent of all households have just one person.  By investing in each other’s social welfare and affirming their bonds of mutual support, the Scandinavians have freed themselves to be on their own.

The pioneer sociologist Emile Durkheim talked about the “cult of the individual,” which he said grew out of the transition from traditional rural communities to modern industrial cities.

But Durkheim also argued that the modern division of labor would bind citizens organically!  In other words, you cannot live alone in a vacuum – society must have the institutions (family, economy, effective state policy) to create this environment.  Singletons must invest in a strong society for their own sake.

Isn’t this what we see in growing gentrification?  The renaissance of America’s downtowns?

Conclusion

How many of the divorced and separated have told you this truth?  It is lonelier to live with the wrong person than to live alone.

The evidence suggests that people who live alone compensate by becoming more socially active than those who live with others, and that cities with high numbers of singletons enjoy a thriving public culture.

You can be alone, but you don’t have to be lonely.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Klinenberg, Eric.  Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone.  Penguin Press, 2012. 
Vespa, Jonathon, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider. United States, U.S. Census Bureau.  America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012.  Issued August 2013. 
 
 

You Only Know 150 People!  This Is Good for Your Wedding List
By Heath Shive

According to The Knot 2016 Real Wedding Study, a wedding’s average size is 141 guests.  It was 136 guests in their 2014 Real Wedding Study, down from 149 guests in 2009. 

In fact, you should probably just round up to 150.  Why?

Because you only really “know” about 150 people in your life.

It’s called Dunbar’s number.

Don’t believe me?

To the science!

Dunbar’s Number

In the 1990s, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar studied primates and found that there was a correlation between the size of the primate’s neocortex and how large their group size was.  Using data from 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human “mean group size” of 148 (casually rounded to 150).

So according to Dunbar, a human can comfortably maintain only 150 stable relationships.  Dunbar explained it informally as “the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.”

Dunbar’s number suggests that there’s an upper limit to how many people you can form stable social relationships (i.e., you maintain the relationship).

Number History

Dunbar went on to connect his number with historical antecedents.  For example, 150 is the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village.  The upper limit of a Roman century was 150.  The size of a modern infantry company is 150. 

And the size of an average wedding is around 150. 

Malcolm Gladwell discusses Dunbar’s number in his best-selling book “The Tipping Point.”  Gladwell used the company W.L. Gore and Associates (best known for Gore-Tex) as an example.  The company’s management found that if more than 150 employees worked in one building, social problems began to multiply.  So W.L. Gore and Associates operates company offices in buildings that have a 150 employee limit.  When the office gets too big, they just set up the next 150 employees in another building!

Conclusion

We tend to think of the brain as infinite and boundless.  But we’re only human.  There is a limit to what we can do and maintain in our brains. 

There’s only so much time to involve your life with only so many people. 

Aren’t weddings bad enough to plan already?  Keeping that number down to who you really love (and who love you) isn’t just about numbers.  It’s about good living. 

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!

Sources
Dunbar, Robin.  Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language.  Harvard University Press, 2000.
Gladwell, Malcolm.  The Tipping – How Little Things Make a Big Difference.  Little, Brown and Company, 2000.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1992).  “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.”  Journal of Human Evolution.  22 (6): 469-493. 
The Knot Wedding Study numbers for 2016 were taken from XOGroup Inc.  https://xogroupinc.com/press-releases/theknot2016realweddings_costofweddingsus/
The Knot Wedding Study data was taken from PRSNewswire: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-knot-the-1-wedding-site-releases-2014-real-weddings-study-statistics-300049675.html