There was a "research study" recently that claimed that women found the same men more "physically attractive" when they had a better job title attached to their picture. Now, I personally believe this to be nonsense and I will say why.

What I think happened was that the researchers confused "willing to date" (which is a rational choice) with "find physically attractive" (which is a raw and uncontrollable feeling). Humans have been around for around 200 000 years. Only in the past 10 000 years have money or social status been a thing. That is too little time to cause an evolutionary change. From 200 000 years ago to 10 000 years ago, the ONLY indicator of attractiveness for men and women was physical attractiveness. This is because in a primitive and basic society, there was no money, there were no people with social status. The only thing that could possibly indicate that a man COULD have high social status or money/resources was how physically attractive he was, as determined by his muscles. In such a primitive society, the only way to have social status and accumulate more resources ("money" in this case) was through violence and strength, so big muscular men aka physically attractive men were attractive to women.

So I highly doubt that if 2 guys who look identical are put side by side, and one has high social status and/or is rich, and the other has less social status/money, that women will find the higher social status one more "attractive." They will CHOOSE to DATE/BE with him (by making a rational choice: more social status and more money means a better life, it has nothing to do with attraction to the man), but that doesn't mean that they "find" him any more "attractive" than the other identical looking guy.

Men on the other hand, actually care about personality even from an evolutionary perspective. This is because they want an empathetic and nice woman who will take care of the offspring.