Abstract: Women’s intrasexual competition has received significant attention only in the last decades, with even less work investigating women’s defenses against such aggression. Yet, we should expect that women can (a) grasp which perceptually-salient cues evoke same-sex aggression and (b) strategically damp the display of (some of) those cues when aggression risk is greatest, thereby avoiding the potentially high costs of victimization. Women selectively aggress against women displaying cues of sexual permissiveness (e.g., revealing dress) and/or desirability (e.g., physical attractiveness). We find that (a) women (and men) anticipate greater intrasexual aggression toward women dressed revealingly versus modestly, especially if targets are attractive. Employing behavioral and self-report measures, we also find (b) women create outfits baring less skin, select more modest clothing, and intend to dress less revealingly to encounter other women, flexibly damping permissiveness cues depending on individual features (physical attractiveness) and situational features (being a newcomer) that amplify aggression risk.
Keywords: evolutionary psychology, intrasexual aggression, female sociality, female aggression defenses
General Discussion
In four experiments, we find (1) women (and men) expect
women—and especially physically attractive women—to
evoke greater indirect (but not direct) intrasexual aggression
when revealingly versus modestly dressed; (2) women dress
more modestly for encountering same- versus mixed-sex
groups—across contexts (professional, social); (3) more physically
attractive women, who may be at greater risk of incurring
intrasexual aggression, demonstrate an exaggerated tendency
to do this; and (4) this effect is apparent only when such women
dress to meet a prospective (but not existing) female friend.
Findings are consistent with theorizing that women are not only
aware that certain perceptually-salient cues (e.g., revealing
clothes, physical attractiveness) render them more likely targets
of intrasexual aggression, but also that women might thus
seek to avoid such aggression by strategically manipulating
their appearance—specifically, by damping their outfit provocativeness.
Importantly, this damping is flexibly engaged when
aggression risk is highest: by individuals who may already be
frequent targets (physically attractive women), and in situations
when aggression is more likely (when women are
newcomers).
Our focus on women’s interactions with other women was,
in part, to address the fact that the majority of research on
women’s clothing and consumption has focused on women’s
male audiences and the possible benefits associated with
attracting such audiences (e.g., Buss, 1988; Durante et al.,
2011; Elliott et al., 2013; Haselton et al., 2007; Padza, Elliott,
& Greitemeyer, 2012; Saad, 2013; Sacco, Bermond, & Young,
2016; but see Blake, Fourati, & Brooks, 2018; Hudders, De
Backer, Fisher, & Vyncke, 2014). We would not argue that
other women are always the sole intended audience for
women’s sartorial cues and/or signals, and even when other
women are the intended audience, we would not expect that
women’s sartorial choices are always calibrated only toward
avoiding intrasexual aggression. Rather, because attracting and
maintaining same-sex friends can confer numerous important
benefits for women (e.g., Campbell, 2002), future work could
benefit from exploring how women might manipulate their
appearances to establish and maintain same-sex friendships—
as well as to avoid same-sex aggression. For example, donning
the baggy sorority t-shirts and short shorts common to young
women on some college campuses may communicate not only
the wearer’s on-campus status but also her dedication to her
coalition.
Similarly, we do not assume that attracting the attention of
male audiences yields only opportunities (and not also threats).
Our data imply that women are attuned to the possible benefits
and costs of male attention, damping provocative dress when
encountering prospective male friends (but not romantic partners),
whose unwanted sexual interest could be threatening.
In all, findings suggest that women’s sartorial behavior is
attuned to multiple factors, including women’s own attractiveness,
the social context, and several audience features (e.g.,
audience gender composition, familiarity with their audience).
Future work might further investigate these and other nuances
(e.g., Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Branstiter, 2005).
This work adds to literature suggesting that features cuing
women’s intentions to attract men (e.g., provocative dress) can
evoke aggression, but so too can features cuing women’s ability
to attract men (e.g., physical attractiveness). This implies
that some women might attract intrasexual aggression without
having engaged in behavior to prompt it. That is, women might
be aggressed against for being competitive (e.g., for desirable
romantic partners), even if those women were not actively
competing. One might speculate that, in contrast, men are
unlikely to evoke intrasexual aggression without having
actively provoked it. Whereas past work has uncovered sex differences
in tactics of intrasexual aggression, future work might
benefit from systematically exploring possible sex differences
in what features evoke intrasexual aggression.
We also note some limitations. One might speculate that stimulus
effects drove the results of Experiment 1. This is
possible; Experiment 1 used one stimulus per condition, and
this can be problematic for issues of validity and generalizability.
Perhaps somewhat mitigating these concerns, findings were
consistent with previous research examining actual aggression
toward those stimuli (Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011); women
were more indirectly aggressive to an average-weight, revealingly
(versus modestly) dressed target, and we find that people
expect the average-weight, revealingly dressed target to
receive heightened intrasexual indirect aggression. Additionally,
we knowingly confounded sex composition and social
context in Experiment 2, which could also have suffered from
demand characteristics given its within-subjects design. To
address this, Experiment 3 conceptually replicated Experiment
2, setting sex composition orthogonal to social context,
and using a between-subjects design.
Check also Women made more negative attributions about, & experienced diminished desire to affiliate with, female targets wearing (vs. not wearing) cosmetics. This penalty was specific to female observers, mediated by decreases in perceived trustworthiness, & driven by less desirable women.
DelPriore, D. J., Bradshaw, H. K., & Hill, S. E. (2018). Appearance Enhancement Produces a Strategic Beautification Penalty Among Women. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/03/women-made-more-negative-attributions.html
No comments:
Post a Comment