In the context of romantic attraction, beautification can increase assertiveness in women.

Can beautification empower women to act assertively? Some women report that beautification is an agentic and assertive act, whereas others find beautification to be oppressive and disempowering. To disentangle these effects, in the context of romantic attraction we conducted the first experimental tests of beautification-on psychological and behavioral assertiveness. Experiment 1 (N = 145) utilized a between-subjects design in which women used their own clothing, make-up, and accessories to adjust their appearance as they normally would for a "hot date" (beautification condition) or a casual day at home with friends (control condition). We measured implicit, explicit, and behavioral assertiveness, as well as positive affect and sexual motivation. Experiment 2 (N = 40) sought to conceptually replicate Experiment 1 using a within-subject design and different measures of assertiveness. Women completed measures of explicit assertiveness and assertive behavioral intentions in three domains, in whatever clothing they were wearing that day then again after extensively beautifying their appearance. In Experiment 1, we found that women demonstrated higher psychological assertiveness after beautifying their appearance, and that high sexual motivation mediated the effect of beautification on assertive behavior. All effects were independent of positive affect. Experiment 2 partially replicated Experiment 1. These experiments provide novel insight into the effects of women's appearance-enhancing behaviors on assertiveness by providing evidence that beautification may positively affect assertiveness in women under some circumstances.

Introduction

Women’s preoccupation with their physical appearance and their consumption of beauty products presents a paradox. On the one hand, scholars highlight that women are pressured to beautify their appearance from a very young age [1]. They also experience pressure to consider their physical attributes as representing their greatest value as a person [2]. These pressures are associated with numerous poor mental health outcomes [3], indicating that women’s preoccupation with their appearance can be both harmful and potentially disempowering. On the other hand, some women claim that beautifying their appearance, especially to enhance their attraction to potential romantic partners, makes them feel empowered, strong, and independent [4]. Whether these claims of empowerment are authentic, or are instead false reports, raises the question: Is beautification—the act of enhancing one’s physical appearance to look more beautiful—empowering or oppressive for women? In the current research, we attempt to shed light on this question by investigating the conditions under which beautification increases assertiveness in women.

The beautification paradox: Is beautification oppressing or empowering?

Two divergent perspectives attempt to explain the effects of beautification on female psychology. The dominant perspective derives from a sizeable body of work on objectification theory [2], which holds that beautification is oppressive and disempowering to women. Objectification theory posits that power imbalances between men and women create a cultural environment where women are constantly subject to a sexualized male gaze. In other words, women are constantly looked upon and evaluated for their sexual and physical attractiveness to men (sexually objectification; [2]). As a result of sexual objectification, women internalize a third-person perspective of themselves as objects, whose sole value derives from their physical characteristics (i.e., they self-objectify; [2]).

According to the framework of objectification theory, beautification can be one of many ways that women self-objectify. Self-objectification has numerous negative consequences for women, including habitual body monitoring, body shame and appearance anxiety, reduced peak motivational states, and diminished interoceptive bodily awareness [2,3]. These consequences have negative effects for women’s mental health, accounting for their higher rates of unipolar depression, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders, compared to men [2,5,6]. Because of these negative psychological and behavioral effects, objectification theory reasons that beautification is part of a broader phenomenon that ultimately harms women. The implication is that when women engage in beautification, they are not only risking psychological harm, but are internalizing cultural conditions where women hold lower status compared with men [7].

An alternative perspective considers whether beautification might empower women in some circumstances, and derives from sociometer theory [8]. Sociometer theory argues that an individual’s self-esteem depends upon the degree to which they are valued as a relational partner. People obtain high self-esteem when they perceive that they have been accepted by others in important domains. One domain where self-esteem is especially likely to be derived is the domain of physical attractiveness. Given the premium on female attractiveness across cultures [9], especially in the context of romantic relationships, this domain is especially relevant for women.

Studies indicate that nearly 25% of the variability in women’s global self-esteem derives from their physical appearance [10]. Thus, beautification may be empowering to women inasmuch as it raises women’s self-esteem in important domains. Consistent with this notion, recent work indicates that being sexually objectified by a romantic partner can have positive implications for women’s self-esteem over time [11], and that self-objectification can raise self-efficacy and wellbeing in domains unrelated to appearance [12]. This work implies is that there may be tangible psychological benefits to beautification that objectification theory has overlooked.

Beautification effects on women’s agency

How might we investigate whether beautification is empowering or oppressive? At the heart of this beautification paradox and second- and third-wave feminist disagreements on female beauty practices is whether women’s appearance-enhancement can be an authentic expression of female agency. Agency is a topic of investigation in a variety of psychological fields and refers to the capacity to exert control over the nature and quality of one’s life [13]. Agentic characteristics allow individualistic action aimed at self-protection, self-expansion, and self-assertion. They are expressed in achievement-oriented behavior associated with empowerment, such as competence and intentionality [14,15].

Focusing on whether beautification increases or decreases agency may provide needed insight into the beautification paradox. Agentic characteristics are directly related to feelings of empowerment and assertiveness, and people who are empowered behave more assertively and with higher agency [15]. Thus, if beautification empowers women as sociometer theory predicts, then beautification should be associated with characteristics reflective of high agency, such as assertiveness. However, if beautification disempowers and oppresses women as predicted by objectification theory, then beautification should be associated with characteristics of low agency, such as low assertiveness.

Very little previous research has examined the relationship between beautification and agency. Insights into their covariation; however, can be derived by examining the relationship between agency and phenomena related to beautification, such as self-objectification and self-sexualization (favoring sexual self-objectification; [16]). This body of work suggests that there is some support for the notion that beautification and agency positively covary. Yet, to confuse matters, there is also support for the notion that the covariance between the two phenomena is negative.

Evidence suggestive of a positive covariation between beautification and agency derives from some feminist scholarship, which argues that self-sexualization elevates agency by allowing women to transgress stereotypically chaste expressions of female sexuality [17]. Consistent with this notion, some women report that self-sexualizing makes them feel assertive and self-efficacious, as well as strong, independent, and powerful [4,18-20]. Enhancing one’s attractiveness through cosmetics also offers considerable social and economic benefits to women, including higher tips at work and perceptions of increased intelligence [21,22]. Likewise, tentative evidence suggests that attractiveness and assertiveness can co-occur [22], and that self-objectification can increase self-esteem in particular domains [12]. Taken together, these data suggest that appearance-enhancement, either through beautification, self-sexualization, or self-objectification, could elevate agentic characteristics and confer some benefits.

Yet not all prior research supports the notion that beautification might increase agentic characteristics. Although beautification can be associated with high agency, and self-objectification with domain-contingent self-esteem, self-objectification is also frequently shown to reduce women’s ability for agentic action [23]. Likewise, self-objectification is positively correlated with reduced cognitive performance under some circumstances [24], and perhaps more worryingly, with gender system justification [7]. Enjoying self-sexualization and using cosmetics are also both positively correlated with ambivalent sexism in some cultures [25,26]. These findings suggest that beautification ultimately disempowers women and exemplifies system-justifying behavior. They also raise the possibility that beautification-induced feelings of agency are false reports.

If beautification is in fact disempowering to women, as objectification theory suggests, why might some women report that beautification is empowering? The most probable explanation for these ostensibly false reports is that they may reflect elevated positive mood, rather than authentically high agency, per se. Both beautification and sexualization increase women’s ratings of their own attractiveness and ratings of how attractive they are to others [27,28], and it is well known that people experience considerable benefits from fulfilling cultural attractiveness ideals [9]. If women are reporting higher assertiveness and self-efficacy from beautification, but truly what they are experiencing is merely positive mood, it is important to ensure that measures of agency are disambiguated from mood. If a positive relationship between beautification and assertiveness is not robust to statistically controlling for positive mood, then this finding would support the notion that beautification does not increase agency. Alternatively, if the relationship between beautification and assertiveness is robust to mood, this would provide more convincing support of a positive relationship between the two phenomena.

The current experiments

Evidence associating beautification with female agency is mixed. We aimed to shed light on this phenomenon by experimentally disentangling the relationship between beautification and assertiveness. Because attractiveness in the domain of romantic relationships is a domain where women are especially likely to derive self-esteem [8,11], we focused on beautification in the context of a potential romantic relationship. Using between- and within-subjects designs, we tested the extent to which experimentally manipulated beautification increases assertiveness—a manifestation of agency—in women. To ensure our experimental tests were rigorous, we used explicit, implicit, and behavioral indicators of assertiveness. Given that some scholars posit that women may report empowerment from beautification, but actually may be experiencing higher positive mood and not actual empowerment [4], we also measured the effect of beautification on assertiveness when controlling for positive mood.

We also examined the relationship between beautification and assertiveness, controlling for sexual motivation. Theorists argue that some forms of beautification elevate agency because they are sexually empowering [29]. This idea, which is consistent with state assertiveness positively correlating with state sexual motivation in women [30], raises the possibility that beautification will only confer elevated agency to the extent that it increases women’s sexual motivation. To see if the effect of beautification on assertiveness was due to increased sexual motivation, in Experiment 1 we examined the relationship between these variables in an exploratory fashion. In Experiment 2, we sought to reproduce and extend the findings from Experiment 1. Finally, to control for relevant individual differences, in Experiment 2 we examined and controlled for trait self-objectification. Scholars have noted a considerable conceptual murkiness between self-objectification and related phenomena [16], and we aimed to control for trait differences in the tendency to self-objectify to provide a crisper dissection of resulting effects.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 utilized explicit, implicit, and behavioral measures of assertiveness to test whether beautification—in the context of romantic attraction—elevated assertiveness in women. Participants altered their appearance to suit a “hot date” (beautification condition) or an afternoon at home with friends (control condition). We then examined assertiveness using explicit and implicit measures, and for a subgroup of the sample, we assessed their behavioral assertiveness in a mock job interview. Informed by sociometer theory [8] and objectification theory [2], we tested whether beautification would elevate assertiveness, sexual motivation, and positive affect, and whether the effect of beautification on assertiveness would be independent of positive affect.

Method

Participants and design

One hundred and fifty-eight women (MAge = 19.58, SD = 3.40) were recruited for a study on fashion and psychology from University of New South Wales Sydney as part of course requirements or in exchange for AUD$15. Pre-screening requirements were English language proficiency and 18–40 years of age. The University of New South Wales Sydney Human Research Advisory Ethics Panel approved the protocol. One participant was excluded due to extensive missing data, two for refusing to comply with study instructions, eight for failing the attention check, and two for receiving both sets of manipulation instructions, leaving N = 145 (MAge = 19.58, SD = 3.35). There were no other exclusions. Sample size was determined via an a priori power analysis in GPower 3.1.9.2 which showed that a sample of 142 participants achieved power at 0.80 to detect a medium effect for condition (d = 0.50, α = .05, two-tailed) and recruitment stopped when the required sample size, plus 10% leeway for withdrawals, was reached. Participants were randomly assigned to the control or beautification condition in a between-subjects design (nControl = 78, nBeautification = 67). The online pre-screening survey randomly allocated 113 women into the control condition and 106 women into the sexualized clothing condition. Differences in participation between conditions were non-significant, χ2 (1, N = 219) = 0.83, p = .363.

Thirty-four percent (33.8%) of participants were White, 5.5% were mixed White/Asian, 9% were Southern Asian, 40% were Eastern Asian, 3.4% were Middle Eastern, 7.6% were South-East Asian, and 0.7% were Polynesian. The majority of participants (81.4%) were Australian citizens. All participants provided written informed consent and were debriefed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All data and materials and correlations between variables are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/n7tyc/) and all measures and manipulations are also disclosed here. In addition to the measures listed below, we also measured estradiol both at baseline and at the completion of the experiment. We hoped to establish a biopsychosocial pathway to female assertiveness. Estradiol neither mediated nor moderated the effect of beautification on any assertiveness outcome (all mediation confidence intervals contained zero and all moderation p-values were > .10). Interested readers should consult the OSF (https://osf.io/n7tyc/) for further details.

Procedure and materials

After completing an online prescreening survey, participants were instructed to bring at least one additional clothing outfit to their laboratory session, depending on condition. Upon arrival to their session, participants were verbally briefed then escorted to a change-room where they were given 10–15 minutes to comply with the condition instructions. After this time elapsed, participants returned to the testing room and completed the explicit assertiveness measure, an affect scale, and the implicit assertiveness measure. They were then invited to participate in an additional task for extra credit or AUD$5 where they auditioned as a candidate for a hypothetical job in a video-recorded interview (the behavioral assertiveness measure).

Beautification manipulation

To manipulate beautification in the context of romantic attraction, participants were instructed to bring a full change of clothing (including shoes, jewelry, make-up, and accessories, if appropriate for them) to their laboratory session. Instructions were provided via email at the time of recruitment, then emphasized verbally on a scripted telephone call conducted one day prior to the experiment. The instruction email read: “Bring one entire outfit of your choice to your laboratory session that makes you feel attractive [comfortable]. This clothing should be consistent with what you would wear if you were going out to a party or spending or night out with someone you were romantically interested in [spending a relaxed day at home or with friends]”. On the telephone call we emphasized that participants in the beautification condition should bring an outfit and accessories that they would wear on a “hot date”, and control participants should bring an outfit and accessories (if appropriate for them) that they would wear relaxing at home with friends. We left voicemails and sent text messages to participants we were unable to reach verbally.

After arriving at the laboratory, participants were told that they would spend 10–15 minutes inside a private change-room to allow them to ‘get into character’ as if they were dressing for a hot date [a day at home with friends]. Inside the change-room, participants were provided a range of beauty tools including sterilized make-up (eye-shadow, lip-gloss, lipstick, blush), make up removal wipes, hair accessories (bobby pins, headbands, hair ties, hair clips, hairspray, dry shampoo), and a full-length mirror. We told all participants to use these beauty tools as well as their own beauty supplies only if it helped them get into character according to their condition instructions. We emphasized in both conditions that if they would not usually use beauty supplies to adjust their appearance for a hot date [a day at home with friends] then they should not use them now. Likewise, if they would usually remove their make-up for a day at home with friends [a hot date] then they should remove their `makeup now (and they could reapply it at the end of the session).

All instructions were identical in both conditions so participants were free to act according to their normal behavior in preparation for a hot date [a day at home with friends]. We provided all participants 10–15 minutes for the task and told them to leave the change-room whenever they felt they had fulfilled the condition instructions. Participants who finished early waited until 10 minutes had elapsed then began the next part of the study (and were informed of this protocol prior to entering the change room). Participants also completed a filler task and a 4-item assertiveness questionnaire 30 after the beautification manipulation. The filler task allowed us to standardize the timing of the estradiol measurement.

Manipulation checks

Upon completion of the experiment, participants answered the extent to which their outfit made them feel relaxed [attractive] and represented something they would wear while sitting at home on the couch [to a party or out on a date] (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). We also took photographs of participants in their outfits and three coders blind to condition rated the photographs on sexual attractiveness striving (“How sexually attractive is this person trying to be to others?”; 1 = not at all, 7 = very; ICC (2,3) = .90, F(143, 286) = 9.99, p < .001).

Explicit assertiveness

Thirty-four people in a pilot study read a description of the concept of assertiveness then scored 40 traits on assertiveness then desirability on two 7-point scales (1 = very non-assertive/undesirable, 7 = very assertive/desirable; from 30). One-sample t-tests confirmed that 15 traits were significantly higher than the scale mid-point (ps ≤ .001). The traits were: clever, creative, conscious, single-minded, pushy, controlling, autonomous, self-centered, intentional, relentless, efficient, competent, dominant, active, and independent. To measure explicit assertiveness, participants rated the extent to which each of the 40 traits represented them on the day of testing. We then computed partial within-subject correlations between the self and these traits by correlating participants’ ratings for the 15 traits with the assertiveness scores of those traits from the pilot study, controlling for their desirability scores (Mr = -0.17, SDr = 0.34, range r = -0.72 to 0.75). We controlled for the traits’ desirability to minimize the effect of positive affect on this measure.

Sexual motivation

Participants rated the extent to which the traits ‘seductive’, ‘flirtatious’, ‘sexually open’, ‘sensuous’, and ‘promiscuous’ characterized them on the day of testing (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Reliability was acceptable and scores were averaged (α = .80, M = 3.02, SD = 1.26).

Positive affect

In the Expanded Positive and Negative Affect Schedule [31], participants indicated the extent to which they felt 60 words and phrases that describe different emotions (e.g., bold; 1 = very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely). We computed the general positive affect subscale for our measure of positive affect [31].

Implicit assertiveness

We used a Single Category Implicit Association Task to measure implicit assertiveness [30]. Twenty-six people read a description of the concept of assertiveness then rated 61 traits on assertiveness on a 7-point scale (1 = very non-assertive, 7 = very assertive). High assertiveness was characterized as an ability to assert and expand one’s self, affect one’s environment, and perform actions. Low assertiveness was characterized as unassertiveness. The top and bottom eight traits formed the high and low assertiveness words for the SC-IAT and showed significant group differences on assertiveness, t(25) = 7.95, p < 0.001, MLowAssertiveness = 2.29, SD = 1.18, MHighAssertiveness = 5.59, SD = 1.52, d = 1.48. The high assertiveness words were: decisive, driven, go-getter, self-aware, persistent, independent, productive, and strong-minded. The low assertiveness words were: dependent, meek, hesitant, apathetic, idle, inactive, unconcerned, and scatterbrained.

Participants categorized these traits with seven words characteristic of the self (me, my, mine, self, myself; and the participant’s own first name and nickname [or, if they had no nickname, their name again]). Implicit associations were assessed by asking people to press the same response key for low assertive + self and to press the opposite response key for high assertive + self. These associations were then reversed and the order in which participants performed these trials was counterbalanced. The SC-IAT effect is the difference in response latency between low assertive + self and high assertive + self. We calculated D scores following 32 [32] and higher scores indicate stronger associations of the self with assertiveness.

Assertive behavior

Of the entire sample, 20 participants were not able to participate in the assertive behaviour task because they arrived late to their experimental session and it ran over time (and another participant was waiting to start their session). Of the remaining 125 participants, 63 agreed to participate. They were given a blank worksheet to prepare a 30 second monologue response to the generic question: “Why are you a competent employee and a good choice for a job where you will lead others?” We chose this question to measure assertive behavior because competence is a key dimension of agency [14,15], and the task required that participants assert their competence and worth in the job interview. We told participants that the video would be shown to others, but in reality, all videos were converted to audio-only for coding judgements. We did not specify the sex of the person judging the job interview tapes, and all experimenters were female. Coders rated the audio clips without video so we could remove the potential confound of clothing on coders’ judgements of women’s assertiveness [33], but retain the effect of the manipulation on assertive behavior during the interview.

Participants had a maximum of five minutes to prepare their monologue and sat facing the video camera to present it. All participants were allowed to record multiple takes if desired, but the vast majority of participants completed one take only. The monologue was coded by one woman and one man, both blind to condition. Raters used a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) to rate assertiveness (“How assertive is this person?” then “To what extent does this person strive to affect their environment?”). Agreement between coders was strong and items were averaged, ICC (2,2) = .94, F(62, 186) = 16.12, p < .001, M = 4.75, SD = 1.29.

To confirm that the women who elected to complete the assertive behavior task were not a distinct subgroup, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs comparing those who opted to take part in the job interview with those who did not (controlling for condition) on all the variables in Table 1. There were no significant differences for any variable between women who opted to take part in the job interview and those who did not (ps ≥ .138). We also examined whether beautification affected women’s willingness to participate in the job interview (i.e., a selection effect). The effect of the manipulation was not significant, χ2(1, N = 125) = 0.01, p = .94, meaning that women were equally likely to participate in the job interview in both conditions.

Table 1

Differences between control and beautification conditions on the dependent variables in Experiment 1.

Variable	Mean (SD)		T	df	p	d
	Beautification	Control
Explicit assertiveness	-0.09 (0.35)	-0.24 (0.32)	2.64	143	.009**	0.44
Implicit assertiveness	0.03 (0.18)	-0.04 (0.14)	2.48	140	.015*	0.41
Assertive behavior	4.90 (1.27)	4.64 (1.31)	0.81	61	.421	0.21
Sexual motivation	3.36 (1.25)	2.73 (1.20)	3.10	143	.002**	0.60
Positive mood	3.03 (0.69)	2.75 (0.69)	2.49	143	.014*	0.41

Note.

† p < .10.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Data analysis

To investigate the effect of beautification on women’s assertiveness, we first ran a series of independent samples t-tests on the dependent variables. To test whether the effects of beautification were robust to the inclusion of positive affect, we regressed explicit and implicit assertiveness onto condition and positive affect. We excluded standardized residual outliers greater than or equal to ± 2 for regression analyses (<4.22% of cases), and z-score standardized all predictors; none were significantly skewed (ps ≥ .109). Zero-order correlations are in Table A in S1 Appendix.

Results

Manipulation checks

Ninety-five percent (94.7%) of control condition participants and 98.4% of beautification condition participants indicated that the outfit they wore was consistent with their condition instructions. Eight participants who scored below the mid-point were excluded from further analysis (as noted in the Participants section). An independent samples t-test confirmed that outfits in the beautification condition (M = 5.17, SD = 0.96) gave the impression of significantly greater sexual attractiveness striving than those in the control condition (M = 3.40, SD = 1.04) and that the corresponding effect size was large, t(142) = 1.51, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.77.

Beautification effects

There were significant differences between conditions on implicit and explicit assertiveness, as well as sexual motivation and positive affect; see Table 1. Compared to women in the control condition, women in the beautification condition explicitly reported that high assertiveness words described them better and implicitly associated themselves more strongly with assertiveness. Participants in the beautification condition also reported more sexual motivation and positive affect than women in the control group. There was no direct effect of beautification on assertive behavior in the mock job interview.

Three control participants chose pajamas as the clothes that they would wear at home with friends. As a sensitivity analysis, we re-ran all analyses excluding these women; Effect sizes and significance levels were consistent with those reported herein. For the 4-item assertiveness questionnaire, a grammatical mistake meant that this questionnaire asked participants about their past assertive behavior (on days prior to the experiment) instead of their assertiveness on the current day. Beautification did not affect reports of past assertive behavior (p = .478, d = 0.11).

Beautification effect after including positive affect (sensitivity analysis)

The regression of implicit assertiveness onto condition and positive affect showed that the effect of beautification on implicit assertiveness (β = .05, p = .032) was robust to the inclusion of positive affect (β = .003, p = .828). Likewise, the regression of explicit assertiveness onto condition and positive affect showed that the effect of beautification on explicit assertiveness (β = .15, p = .004) was also robust to the inclusion of positive affect (β = .08, p = .039), though positive affect did significantly predict higher explicit assertiveness. Neither condition (β = .14, p = .676) nor positive affect (β = .22, p = .331) predicted behavioral assertiveness.

Exploratory mediation analyses for assertive behavior

We used the PROCESS macro model 4 [34] to run nonparametric bootstrapping analyses with 10,000 resamples to test mediation effects. In these analyses, mediation was significant if the 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effect did not include zero [34]. We found that the effect of beautification on assertive behavior was mediated by sexual motivation (Fig 1). To the extent that the beautification manipulation increased sexual motivation (β = .23, p = .045), women demonstrated more assertiveness in their job interviews, indirect effect = .07, CI95 [.002, .23]. The direct effect of sexual motivation on assertive behavior was significant and positive (β = .32, p = .027), and the direct effect of beautification (β = .03, p = .815) was not significant. As a sensitivity analysis, we added positive affect to the regression model as a covariate of assertive behavior. The indirect effect of beautification on assertive behavior via sexual motivation was still significant, indirect effect = .07, CI95 [.002, .23], and positive affect was not a significant predictor of assertive behavior (β = .08, p = .549).

Fig 1

Indirect effect of beautification on assertive behavior in Experiment 1.

Note. †p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. All coefficients are z-score standardized. Dashed paths are not significant, n = 63.

Discussion

After beautifying their appearance, women demonstrated higher explicit and implicit assertiveness. Beautification also affected assertive behavior, but this effect was contingent upon the degree to which beautification increased female sexual motivation. All effects were independent of positive affect, suggesting that assertiveness induced by beautification is not reducible to elevated positive mood.

One limitation of Experiment 1 was that our investigation of the relationship between sexual motivation and assertiveness was exploratory in nature. This exploratory intent raised questions about replicability. We thus conducted a conceptual replication to test for effects of beautification on assertiveness. In this study, we examined beautification effects using a within-subjects design.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we measured assertiveness in women at two time points in their own homes: once when they wore whatever they wanted, then again after they extensively beautified their appearance (again, in the context of romantic attraction). We used the same explicit assertiveness measure as in Experiment 1, but added an additional task measuring assertive behavioral intentions in three consumer domains: public consumer assertiveness in an appearance-related domain; private consumer assertiveness in an appearance-related domain; and consumer assertiveness in an appearance-unrelated domain. We hoped to determine whether beautification increased assertiveness in appearance-related as well as appearance-unrelated domains, and included public and private contexts because consumer behavior shifts when people believe they are under public scrutiny [35]. We also measured sexual motivation after beautification, to reproduce and extend the positive association between sexual motivation, beautification, and female assertiveness observed in Experiment 1.

Procedure

Women registered into a two-session online study investigating the effect of clothing on psychology. The order of the sessions was fully counterbalanced and there was a minimum three-day lapse between sessions. At the baseline session, participants completed measures of assertiveness and assertive behavioral intentions in whatever clothing they were wearing at the time, then completed a measure of trait self-objectification. At the experimental session, participants spent 15–20 minutes extensively changing their outfit (their entire clothing outfit, makeup, jewelry, hairstyle, shoes) into one that made them feel attractive. They then completed the same assertiveness and assertive behavioral intentions measures as the baseline session, as well as a state measure of sexual motivation.

To ensure participants followed the experimental instructions, they submitted a self-portrait “selfie” photograph of whatever they were wearing before being shown the beautification manipulation instructions. They were then shown the beautification manipulation instructions and submitted a second selfie after fulfilling the instructions and enhancing their appearance (15 to 20 minutes later). In both photographs, participants were instructed to hold up a randomly generated code-word in the photograph to ensure the photographs were taken during the experiment. Code-words automatically regenerated after 20 minutes. All photographs were reviewed by our research team for compliance (see “Beautification compliance check”). All data, materials, and correlations between variables are available on the OSF (https://bit.ly/2J0myLP) and all measures and manipulations are disclosed below.

Participants

One hundred and thirty women (Mage = 21.75, SD = 4.46) were recruited from the University of New South Wales Sydney first year psychology student pool (who participated for course credit) or a paid psychology pool of students from University of New South Wales Sydney and the London School of Economics (who participated for AUD$15). Data were excluded from two participants who did not leave sufficient time between completing both sessions, eight whose photos did not allow us to assess compliance; and 26 women who failed the beautification manipulation check (see below). We also excluded two women who were homosexual because lesbian beauty norms differ from heterosexual beauty norms [36], and we aimed to reduce this source of variance in the study. At the time of data collection, a limitation of our university’s online participation system was that participating in both parts of a two-part study was completely optional; participants could register and attend Part 1 even if they had no intention of completing Part 2. Thus, an additional 52 participants were withdrawn because they only registered for one session, leaving n = 40 women (Mage = 21.55, SD = 4.92). A power analysis in GPower 3.1.9.2 indicated that the remaining sample size provided statistical power at 0.93 to detect a medium effect in a two-session repeated design (f = .25; a = 0.05) with two orders (baseline first, experimental first). Exactly 20% of the sample stated that their cultural background was East Asian, 17.5% were South-east Asian, 17.5% were Australian-New Zealand/Asian, 15.0% were Australian-New Zealand, 12.5% were Australian-New Zealand/European, 7.5% were European, and the remainder were North American, Central American, Southern Asian, Western Asian, or of mixed Asian cultures (7.5%).

Materials

Beautification manipulation instructions

At the experimental session, participants were informed to: “Change your entire outfit into clothing that makes you feel attractive. By attractive, we mean the kind of thing you would wear if you were if you were going out on a hot date, spending a night out with someone you were romantically interested in, or going to a party where you might meet a potential romantic date. You must change your clothing, change your shoes, change your jewelry and accessories, as well as extensively change or "do" your make up (to suit you). Use the time to really "get into character", ensuring that you change your appearance just like how you would usually do if you were going on a date/out to a party. This is the most important thing about this experiment. We really want you to take the time so you feel your version of “very attractive”.”

Beautification compliance check

To check compliance of the beautification manipulation, one research team member viewed all before and after selfie photographs from the experimental session, answering the following: “Is it conceivable that this participant spent 15 minutes altering their appearance to fulfil the condition instructions?” on a binary yes/no scale. As noted above, all participants for whom it was inconceivable that they had spent 15 minutes enhancing their appearance (n = 26) were excluded from analysis. Retaining these women did not largely change the interpretation of results presented here (analyses are available on the OSF).

Explicit assertiveness, sexual motivation, and self-objectification

For explicit assertiveness and sexual motivation, we used the same measures from Experiment 1. We measured trait self-objectification using eight items from the Self-Objectification Questionnaire [37], each measured on a 7-point scale (e.g., “I rarely think about how I look”, 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; a = .72, M = 3.24, SD = 0.97). The score was z-standardized so that higher scores indicated more self-objectification.

Assertive behavioral intentions

Three vignettes were created to measure assertive behavioral intentions in three consumer domains. The first vignette measured public assertiveness, operationalized via participants’ willingness to revisit a shoe store to return a faulty item. The second vignette measured assertiveness that was private (i.e., the willingness to call a beauty salon whom they believed over-charged them to clarify the bill). The third vignette measured assertiveness in a non-appearance related domain, operationalized via their willingness to contest a bill from a mechanic who completed work on their automobile without informing them (neither public nor private was specified). Measures were on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all likely, 7 = very likely), with higher scores indicating more assertive intentions.

A series of repeated-measures ANCOVAs tested whether beautification increased assertiveness, and whether the effect of beautification on assertiveness was moderated by trait self-objectification or state sexual motivation. We entered the main effect of time (Time 1: baseline session; Time 2: experimental session) into the ANOVA, along with z-standardized covariates of self-objectification and sexual motivation. Where interactions between time and self-objectification or sexual motivation were significant, we computed a difference score by subtracting baseline assertiveness scores from experimental assertiveness scores, such that high scores indicated more assertiveness after beautification. We then analyzed partial correlations between this difference score and self-objectification or sexual motivation, controlling for the other predictor. Zero-order correlations are in Table B in S1 Appendix.

Descriptive statistics and model results are in Table 2. For explicit assertiveness, the main effect of time was not significant and was not qualified by a time (Time 1: baseline session; Time 2: experimental session) × self-objectification interaction. However, there was a time × sexual motivation interaction, F(1, 37) = 4.31, p = .045, ηp2 = .10. The partial correlation between the explicit assertiveness difference score and sexual motivation was rp (37) = .32, p = .045, indicating that higher sexual motivation after beautification was positively correlated with increased explicit assertiveness.

Table 2

The effect of beautification (time), sexual motivation, and self-objectification on explicit assertiveness and assertive behavioral intentions in three domains in Experiment 2.

Variable	Predictor	BaselineM (SD)	ExpM (SD)	F	p	ηp2
Explicit assertiveness	Time	.07 (.36)	.08 (.38)	0.04	.844	< .01
	Time × Sexual motivation			4.31	.045*	.10
	Time × Self-objectification			0.11	.739	< .01
Public consumer assertiveness	Time	3.48 (1.74)	3.90 (1.77)	3.63	.064†	.09
	Time × Sexual motivation			1.09	.302	.03
	Time × Self-objectification			0.96	.335	.03
Private consumer assertiveness	Time	4.38 (1.85)	4.70 (1.71)	1.95	.171	.05
	Time × Sexual motivation			3.66	.063†	.09
	Time × Self-objectification			5.70	.022*	.13
Appearance unrelated consumer assertiveness	Time	5.35 (1.55)	5.50 (1.47)	0.54	.467	.01
	Time × Sexual motivation			0.83	.369	.02
	Time × Self-objectification			0.02	.869	< .01

Note.

† p < .10.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Exp = experimental. All degrees of freedom are (1, 37). The means are estimated marginal means, controlling for covariates evaluated at the mean.

For public consumer assertiveness, a main effect of time trended toward conventional levels of significance, F(1, 37) = 3.63, p = .064, ηp2 = .09. Women reported a willingness to engage in somewhat greater public consumer assertiveness after beautification, see Table 2, and there was no time × sexual motivation or time × self-objectification. For private assertive consumer behavior, the main effect for time was not significant, but there was a time × self-objectification, F(1, 37) = 5.70, p = .022, ηp2 = .13), and a marginally significant time × sexual motivation interaction F(1, 37) = 3.66, p = .063, ηp2 = .09). Partial correlations indicated that women were more likely to report a willingness to engage in private consumer assertiveness after beautification if they were higher on trait self-objectification, rp (37) = .37, p = .022, and to some extent, if they felt more sexually motivated, rp (37) = .30, p = .063. For consumer assertiveness in an appearance-unrelated domain, neither the main effect of time nor the time × self-objectification and time × sexual motivation interactions were significant.

Using a within-subjects design, we found that beautification increased explicit assertiveness to the extent that beautification increased women’s sexual motivation. For assertive consumer behavioral intentions, findings were mixed. Beautification had a direct effect on increasing willingness to endorse public consumer assertiveness, but the effect did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. Beautification also elevated endorsement of private consumer assertiveness, but the effect was moderated by trait self-objectification. The more women tended to self-objectify, the more they reported willingness to engage in private consumer assertiveness after beautification. This effect was also moderated by sexual motivation, showing the same pattern. We found no effect of beautification, self-objectification, or sexual motivation on consumer assertiveness unrelated to appearance.

General discussion

Research derived from objectification theory has emphasized the negative consequences of beautification and related practices, highlighting that they harm women and are derived from a cultural context that disempowers them [1,5-7,24]. An alternative perspective, derived from sociometer theory, holds that beautification can benefit women by raising their self-esteem in important domains [8,11,12]. We added clarity to this research area by experimentally manipulating beautification through within- and between-subject designs, and subsequently measuring multiple indicators of assertiveness, as well as positive mood, sexual motivation, and self-objectification. Our results suggest that beautification can increase assertiveness in women, but that the effect may be domain-specific. These findings shed light on a key tension in female psychology by challenging the notion that beautification and related appearance-enhancing phenomena are necessarily disempowering.

Many of our effects were dependent on beautification increasing sexual motivation, with beautification elevating assertiveness only when it also elevated sexual motivation. This finding is consistent with previous research [30], and suggests that the effect of beautification on assertiveness depends upon the degree to which beautification increases the subjective feeling of sexual attractiveness. By including measures of behavioral assertiveness (Experiment 1) and assertive behavioral intentions in three domains (Experiment 2), we intended to distinguish whether beautification-induced assertiveness was domain-specific or domain-general. Unfortunately, results were inconclusive: We did not find a significant effect for beautification in our appearance-unrelated consumer assertiveness vignette, however, we did find that beautification increased assertive behavior in the mock job interview in Experiment 1 (to the extent that it also increased sexual motivation). Future work teasing out these effects would help to clarify the conditions under which beautification can increase assertiveness, and whether that increase is specific to the appearance domain, or whether effects might transfer to unrelated domains.

Beautification interacted with sexual motivation to increase explicit assertiveness in women, regardless of trait self-objectification. Surprisingly, trait self-objectification was positively associated with a beautification-induced willingness to act assertively in one of our vignettes. This finding is supportive of parallel work showing that self-objectification and its antecedents can raise women’s self-esteem in particular contexts [11,12]. Though these effects warrant replication, they suggest that conceiving of self-objectification as an entirely deleterious phenomenon may mischaracterize its psychological effects. The degree to which self-objectification may translate into enhanced female empowerment in some conditions is perplexing, yet it is also a worthwhile topic for future research.

Implications for understanding self-objectification

These results provide further insight into understanding women’s motivation for appearance- modifying behaviors, including self-objectification and self-sexualization. Many of these phenomena are motivated by desires to elevate attractiveness to new or existing romantic partners [38,39]. However, our findings suggest that women may also engage in these behaviors to increase assertiveness as well as mood. Thus, a desire for feeling empowered may partially account for women’s beautification practices and consumption of appearance-enhancing products. This conception offers a unique perspective on why women are more beauty-focused when the economy declines (the lipstick effect; [40]). Beautification may provide an affordable way to elevate the subjective experience of empowerment in ecological conditions that often constrain agentic action [41].

The negative effects of self-objectification—including usurping women’s attentional and cognitive resources and increasing the likelihood of mental health problems—usually result from intermediary processes, such as elevated body shame and body surveillance [3]. Our findings raise the possibility that beautification may not always elicit these intermediary processes, and our work suggests that beautification can elicit sexual motivation as well. A defining difference between whether beautification and related phenomena empower or disempower women, then, may depend upon which intermediary processes are elicited. For example, if beautification elicits appearance anxiety or body shame, it may reduce assertiveness; If beautification elicits sexual motivation or high self-esteem, it may heighten assertiveness. Future investigation into the intermediary processes induced by appearance-relevant behaviors on positive and negative psychological outcomes would be a welcome contribution to future work.

Contextual effects—such as the person a beautified woman believes is judging her [42]—are also likely to be important. We focused on beautification in one situation only, and it is unclear whether mandatory beautification in other contexts (e.g., stipulated by an employer for an important meeting) would show similar effects. Women often become targets of backlash when they act assertively, especially in domains that are stereotype-inconsistent [43], and attractive women may be especially likely to be targeted. Women who engage in beautification and appearance-enhancing phenomena can also become targets of aggression by others, men and women like [33,44-47]. Thus, although increases in beautification may engender benefits to women, in certain contexts it may also engender costs. The contexts under which women may express assertiveness and beautify without suffering backlash effects, or the contexts under which women experience beautification as especially disempowering are important future research topics.

The paradox of sexualized beautification and female agency

Although the current work provides evidence for a conditional effects of beautification on female assertiveness, our findings appear to be inconsistent with work showing that men and women perceive that women in attractive, revealing clothing lack agency [33,48,49]. Why is it that people perceive that women in such clothing lack agency, whereas the women themselves may potentially feel and behave in a more assertive manner? Compelling evidence demonstrates that people derogate those who act counter to the status quo [50]. Perceptions that women who engage in beautification lack agency may thus function to penalize women who threaten notions of demure and passive femininity through asserting sexual power [43,51]. Perceiving that these women lack agency may also support male dominance by discrediting the agency that some women demonstrate via beautification.

Equating beautification or self- sexualization with low agency may also reflect the cultural suppression of female sexuality, an ever-present albeit culturally variable phenomenon that sanctions women’s sexual self-expression more heavily than men’s. Although the drivers of the cultural suppression of female sexuality remain controversial [52-54], evidence supports the idea that competition between women can encourage them to suppress the sexuality and attractiveness-enhancing efforts of other women. Derogating such women as cultural dupes, who misunderstand female agency and how they are perceived by others, may thus function to reduce the occurrence of competition amongst women by elevating anxiety in potential competitors. Ultimately, such a process may function to diminish the threat of another woman’s physical and sexual attractiveness.

Perceptions that sexualized women lack agency may also function to motivate sexual approach in men. Evidence suggests that some men find cues of sexual vulnerability and low agency in women to be alluring [55]. From a functional perspective, perceiving low agency in such women may be attractive to men because it reduces the threat of rejection, female infidelity, and paternity uncertainty associated with female sexual agency. It is also plausible that low agency women are perceived as less likely to rebuff sexual advances and easier to monopolize [30]. For these reasons, men’s perceptions of low agency in women may be a cognitive bias that engenders sexual approach, akin to the robust bias men show to over-estimating women’s sexual intent [56,57]. Future work investigating these notions would provide valuable insight into the constancy of patriarchal culture over time and provide. Research could also clarify the paradoxical nature of men’s views of women’s agency, and women’s view of their own agency.

Limitations and future directions

We aimed to provide a rigorous test of the effects of beautification on assertiveness by employing explicit, implicit, and behavioral indicators of assertiveness, ecologically valid designs, and by testing the importance of theoretically relevant mechanisms and confounds (i.e., sexual motivation, positive affect). That being said, our findings are limited in several ways. Although patterns of variation in Experiment 2 were generally consistent with Experiment 1, two effects from Experiment 2 did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. Likewise, in Experiment 2, we failed to replicate the direct effect of beautification on explicit assertiveness, finding instead that the effect was dependent on beautification eliciting sexual motivation. This latter finding highlights the importance of sexual motivation to the beautification–assertiveness link, but it weakens our ability to draw conclusions about the overall relationship between the two phenomena. Likewise, whether assertiveness effects are domain-general, or specific to appearance-relevant domains only, was unresolved by the current work. Based on sociometer theory, we speculate that beautification-induced assertiveness may be strongest in appearance-related domains, and weaker, albeit present in other domains.

A further limitation is that the instructions in the beautification condition were multi-faceted. The instructions informed women to dress for a night out where they might meet someone they were romantically interested in, a hot date, and a party. We emphasized “hot date” in the verbal instructions most frequently both before and during the experimental sessions, and parties are locations where young people commonly meet romantic partners. We did so because the aim of our study was to focus on beautification in the context of romantic relationships, and attractiveness in the domain of romantic relationships is a domain where women are especially likely to derive self-esteem [8,11]. The multi-faceted nature of these instructions; however, may have introduced unnecessary noise in our experimental manipulation, weakening our ability to detect effects.

Another limitation is that design differences between Experiments 1 and 2 may account for some variability in our findings. Experiment 1 occurred in the laboratory, meaning that participants were seen by the experimenter after they changed their clothing and makeup. In contrast, Experiment 2 occurred online, and participants completed the experimental session in their home. We utilized this design difference so participants in Experiment 2 had the choice of their entire wardrobe and all of their own beauty products at their disposal. Unfortunately, this distinction between public and private may have weakened findings in Experiment 2. It is possible that the element of being seen in public after one enhances their sexual appearance strengthens the effect of beautification on female assertiveness, resulting in stronger effects in public versus private settings. Such an interpretation would account for weaker effects in Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1.

A final limitation is that we only controlled for one individual difference in our analyses. Although trait self-objectification was highly relevant, many other individual differences affect women’s willingness to beautify, self-objectify, and self-sexualize. For example, recent work indicates that ideological components related to higher order personal values are especially relevant [58]. Testing whether findings reported here are sensitive to these differences, and the individual differences predictive of beautification, would strengthen our conclusions.

Conclusion

We found positive effects of beautification on women’s implicit, explicit, and behavioral assertiveness. Some of these effects depended on beautification increasing sexual motivation. The current work challenges the assumption that beautification is necessarily disempowering to women. It provides novel insights into the positive psychological effects of beautification on women, highlighting the conditional relationships between beautification, sexual motivation, and expressions of female assertiveness.

Appendix for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-16746

Sexually Motivated Beautification Can Increase Assertiveness in Women

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Blake,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Whilst one reviewer suggested minor revisions, the second reviewer has more substantial concerns and thus recommends a major revision.

I enjoyed reading your manuscript, but as I share some of the concerns, I invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the points raised in the reviews.

Similar to Reviewer 2, one of whose main points concerns the theoretical foundation, I think that a more comprehensive framework will help you reach the main goal of your study stated in the introductory paragraph. In essence, you attempt to show that women’s preoccupation with their physical appearance may not inevitably present a paradox by investigating the conditions under which beautification may increase assertiveness in women. In other words, although it has been shown that it can be a harmful, potentially disempowering pressure on women, beautification may yield positive outcomes in certain circumstances.

Given the important contribution such findings might make to current scientific and societal debates, a considerably more careful theoretical treatment of the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of beautification is warranted.

For instance, an important question arises in light of Choi and DeLong’s (2019) tenet that “sex appeal” had become so greatly valued in Western society that young women voluntarily imposed sexualisation to the self and of Rollero and De Piccoli’s (2017) findings that personal values (e.g., self-enhancement, self-transcendence, openness to change) influence the degree to which people self-objectify. Notwithstanding a discussion of the relationships between self-objectification and self-sexualisation (see Reviewer 2’s comments on the need of putting your main concepts in perspective), this suggests that person variables beyond trait self-objectification may influence the beautification-assertiveness relationship, but that do not feature in your current theory section.

Pointing to potential context effects, Yilmaz and Bozo’s (2019) experimental study of women’s state self-objectification, body shame, and negative mood suggests that the processes underlying beautification effects seem to be rather complex. In that study, women’s own look at their body in a swimming costume impacted self-objectification and negative mood significantly more than being looked at by other women or men and there wasn’t a difference between female and male gazes; differences became insignificant, however, for the same women wearing jeans and jumper. Discussing the system of such context effects could help address Reviewer 2’s concerns that you chose an ecologically valid way to assess assertiveness, given that the participants were “compelled to beautify by the experimenters”. I concur that contextual constraints most likely play a substantial part although I wouldn’t see a problem with your experimental manipulation. What assertiveness effects would one expect, however, if beautification were ‘mandatory’, e.g. if stipulated by a women’s employer for an upcoming important client meeting?

In sum, a more detailed discussion of the interplay of person and context factors would help specify the conditions that co-determine the potential pressurising and empowering facets of one’s preoccupation with physical appearance and beautification.

I am confident that you will find both reviewers’ comments helpful in improving your manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. We note that several details from the Methods section have been blinded for peer review. Please note that PLOS ONE does not offer double blind peer review. We would be grateful if you could update your Methods section to include all the information previously redacted from the manuscript.

Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. For example: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate).

4. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "The UNSW Ethics Committee approved Study 1 (HREAP 2556) and Study 2 (HREAP 2906). Written consent was obtained for both studies.".

a.Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b.Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

5.  We note that Figure 1 includes an image of participants in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-19-16746

The present work, “Sexually Motivated Beautification Can Increase Assertiveness in Women” addresses the question of whether beautification can empower women to act assertively, doing so via two experiments. I find this research question to be an important one, and, to my knowledge, this work provides some of the first experimental evidence to address the authors’ focal question. Additionally, the work is generally well written, the experimental evidence is somewhat convincing, and the authors take care to not make greater claims than their data can or to sensationalize the claims they do make. I also appreciate the authors’ dedication to open science practices. This work is worthy of eventual publication in PLOS ONE. Below, I make some suggestions for improving the manuscript.

First, let me expand a bit on the important contributions that this work makes to the literature on women and female agency. I see this work as part of a nascent trend in research to question some of the assumptions that many people—especially those of us in liberal-leaning university settings—might hold about women’s behavior. For example, Andrea Meltzer’s recent work (2019, PSPB) challenges whether women are always harmed by being valued for their beauty (as many might assume they are), and Tarran, Muggleton, and Fincher (2019, EHB) challenge whether the suppression of women’s sexually is always enacted by men (as many might assume it is). Here, the authors question whether making oneself more physically attractive can be empowering for women (as many might assume it is not or should not be), and they use an experimental design to explore this. This is paper thus contributes to a larger trend that seeks to describe and understand how women actually think, feel, and behave (and not how many might assume women would or should think, feel, and behave).

This paper also engages with some feminist literature, and treats that work and related findings fairly. My main suggestion for improving the work is that the authors lean further into the two sides of the “feminist debate” that they mention on p. 3 in framing their Introduction. There is the possibility to really highlight the diverging perspectives—both with some empirical support—that beautification harms and/or empowers women. The two papers I mentioned above both highlight the two sides of their respective debates very nicely; they could be used as models, especially the former. Focusing the Introduction more the two sides of a debate—which their research question gets to the heart of—will make the paper a more enthralling read for both researchers and lay the public.

I would also ask that the authors take a bit more text to delineate agency, assertiveness, beautification and (self-)objectification. At first read, we all think that we know what each of these terms means, but they have some useful nuances. A merit of the paper is that is draws all of these terms together, and something as simple as a parenthetical definition—perhaps even from the work they are citing at the moment (e.g., Liss et al., 2011 on self-objectification)—would do.

I also share some more minor suggestions. Most of these suggestions are to add further nuance and/or further speculation as to the causes and consequences of the effect.

- It would be beneficial if the authors would speculate a bit more as to how and why beautification might have this effect. That is, what is the proximate and/or ultimate logic? For example, for women, beauty might be considered a source of power for reasons consistent with ultimate logic (a la Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2009). This might also be a place to mention Leary’s (2005) sociometer work; that is, perhaps the effect lies in the fact that other people treat more attractive women more favorably—and/or women expect that other people will do so—which could influence women’s assertiveness.

- Related, I’m wondering whether it is the act of beautification, the feeling of having become more beautiful, and/or the expectation that others will find them more beautiful that is perhaps driving this effect.

- People might often assume that this effect is solely positive for women. (They might immediately think: A step toward gender equality maybe? Yay!). But increased beautification is likely to engender not only possible benefits (assertiveness), but also possible costs. Indeed, the authors discuss this in the GD (e.g., p. 24-25). There are additional costs they might note. For example, assertiveness might also have some costs, especially for women. Moreover, women who engage in beautification might also receive more aggression from other women (e.g., Leenaars, Dane, & Marini, 2008; Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011).

- Related, for the discussion of beauty and agency on p. 26-27, see also Arnocky et al.’s (2019) recent Psychological Science paper.

- I would have expected the assertiveness to be a bit more domain-specific, mating-related, and primarily confined to less formal interactions with men. Some of the DVs from Experiment 2 (vignettes) and the use of a more formal interaction (i.e., the mock job interview) might begin to probe this a bit. (I’ll confess that I did not think the vignettes were the most solid operationalizations of private/public.) Then again, beauty might cue benefits beyond mating (e.g., Eisenbruch, Lukaszewski, & Roney, 2017), so perhaps it might also increase assertiveness beyond mating domains. I think some speculation regarding women’s audience(s) and to whom/in which situations this assertiveness might be most expected would be useful. (For the job interview, please provide a bit more information in the main manuscript. E.g., Was the interviewer male, an experimenter who simply gave the P the sheet, …?)

- As the author of a number of papers that focus on women’s psychology and behavior, I won’t require the authors here to speculate as to how this same process might play out among men; men were not their focus and for theoretically-sound reasons. (Still, in the West, men have increasingly become objects of the human gaze, and this might have serious practical implications for approximately 50% of the population.)

- One final minor comment (not minor suggestion): This paper, and the feminist debate with which it engages, calls to mind an interesting problem. Beautification might make women feel bad about themselves, might diminish women, might require women to spend finite time and money on hair products (meaning that time and money cannot be spent on “better” pursuits). But beautification might also make women more assertive in some instances. But then again, this increased assertiveness might owe to the fact that women live in a society where they are valued for their beauty, so is this “authentic” assertiveness? (The authors deal with this briefly on p. 5.) Who gets to say what is “authentic” assertiveness that “genuinely” empowers women? Do scholars? Do women themselves? Again, the experimental, empirical aspect of this paper provides meaningful contribution, in part by cutting through this.

Reviewer #2: Research reveals links between women’s beautification and a variety of outcomes, both positive and negative. The current work extends this empirical literature by testing for effects of women’s beautification on their assertive attitudes, behaviors, and intentions. Despite notable strengths of this work related to its aim and experimental rigor, I have concerns related to the theoretical foundation, how key constructs were operationalized, and potential factors that covary with the beautification condition. I detail these concerns and other questions, and provide suggestions that I hope will be helpful, below.

1. The authors frame this work as addressing a paradox related to women’s beautification efforts. Although this is a question of potential practical importance, the authors do not present a theoretical framework to guide the statistical tests presented within the manuscript. As is, it is not clear that the current tests were designed with resolving this paradox in mind. (For example, boundary conditions related to the potential positive vs. negative effects of these efforts are not considered). An organizational theoretical framework, or the presentation of competing theoretical frameworks, would bring clarity and structure to this work. An explicit theoretical framework might also address questions related to the selected measures and instruction sets, as described below.

In sum, the theoretical (and practical, see below) implications of this work should be more clearly elucidated. Without a clear theoretical framework, it is difficult to discern the importance of the present analyses. (For instance, analyses pertaining to individual differences in sexual motivation were presented as exploratory in Experiment 1, but become a focal analysis in Experiment 2. The theoretical and/or practical reason(s) for this change in perspective is not articulated.) This work would benefit from a more explicit specification of the guiding theoretical framework(s), and a clear delineation of which results would support (or refute) this view.

2. The conceptual overlap between measured constructs, as well as the interchangeable use of labels made it difficult to discern some of what the authors were attempting to assess and test. This broad concern was reflected in construct operationalization, measurement, and interpretation. For instance:

The authors use the terms “sexualization” and “beautification” nearly interchangeably throughout the manuscript. It is unclear if their primary hypotheses concern beautification effort or sexualization of one’s appearance (or perhaps sexual motivation). One might make different predictions regarding the potential effects of beautification versus sexualization on assertiveness (as well as the boundary conditions, moderating and mediating factors). This seems like a critical distinction to make, given this was the primary independent variable in the current work.

The authors also use the words agency and assertiveness in overlapping ways. It would be helpful to clearly operationalize the key outcome of interest in this work. Related to this point, it seems that the measure of positive affect used in Experiment 1 contains items that substantially overlap with feelings of assertiveness (e.g., confident, active, fearless, daring, strong, attentive, bold, lively, determined; NOT timid or afraid). It seems important to clearly define and operationalize key constructs, use consistent labels when referring to these constructs, and avoid overlap in the measurement of these constructs.

Finally, and related to Point #1, I wondered why the “behavioral intentions” assertiveness measure included in Experiment 2 focused exclusively on consumer domains. Assertive behavior, it is reasonable to assume, could be assessed across many domains. (That is, there seems to be no theoretical rationale for predicting that the enhanced assertiveness should only be expressed in consumer domains.) Further, it is unclear why the distinction between public vs. private, and appearance-related vs. not, was important to assess here.

3. I also had concerns and questions related to the instructional sets presented to participants (and subsequent participant exclusions) and potential confounds related to post-experiment plans.

Regarding the instruction sets, it is unclear why participants in the beautification/sexualization condition were prompted to ready themselves for a “hot date.” This seems likely to have primed mating motivations among most participants. This also seems methodologically-inappropriate if this work was intended to test the effects of beautification per se (rather than sexualization or mating motives) on assertiveness. Beautification efforts can certainly take place in the absence of explicit mating motivations. Related to this point, why were participants excluded based on non-heterosexual orientation? There is no explicit theoretical or empirical rationale provided for the relevance of women’s sexual orientation in understanding the link between beautification and assertiveness. (Non-heterosexual women also engage in appearance enhancement.) Further, I am unsure if this is an ecologically valid way to assess potential empowerment (or assertiveness) effects that might derive from women choosing to beautify, given that the female participants were compelled to beautify by the experimenters.

Across Experiments 1 and 2, I wondered if participants were told that they would be expected to return to their baseline state of attractiveness (e.g., “unbeautify”) before leaving (or ending the session). If participants were not required to do this, any effects that took place during the experimental session could be due to differences in plans among participants who engaged in beautification efforts vs. did not. It is reasonable to assume that participants who left the experiment wearing the outfits displayed in Figure 1, Panel A, would be more likely than the control participants to seek out social interactions with a variety of partners after the session (e.g., after investing this effort, they might have decided they would actually meet up with someone for a “hot date”). From this view, one could interpret any between groups differences as deriving from the thoughts, feelings, and expectations of women’s post-session plans. Of course, there is no way to know this was the case. However, this possibility cannot be ruled out if participants were not instructed to return to their baseline state.

4. Experiment 2 was presented as a replication of Experiment 1. However, there were important differences between these two experiments (beyond the within- vs. between-person design). First, as noted above, the analyses in Experiment 2 focused heavily on sexual motivation and self-objectification as moderators of the relationship between beautification and the varied measures of assertiveness. However, it is unclear why these moderators became a central focus. A clear theoretical rationale for these tests was not provided. Further, the analyses related to sexual motivation were presented as exploratory in Experiment 1 but were then emphasized in Experiment 2 based on the significant mediation analysis in Experiment 1, even though (again), a clear rationale for why this variable was important (other than the significant finding) was not presented. Finally, sexual motivation was tested as a mediator in Experiment 1 and a moderator in Experiment 2. If the point was to replicate Experiment 1, why wasn’t sexual motivation tested as mediating the relationships between beautification and assertiveness? (That is, sexual motivation should have been assessed at both timepoints, with the difference score tested as a mediator in Experiment 2.)

5. In addition to the dubious theoretical implications of this work, the practical implications could be debated. One might assume that assertive attitudes are practically important insofar as they motivate assertive behavior. Experiment 1 failed to find a direct effect of beautification on assertive behavior, and Experiment 2 implications were limited by an exclusive focus on consumer assertiveness.

6. In the abstract, the authors state that this work “provides important, novel insight into motivations that underlie women’s appearance-enhancing behaviors.” The current work does not provide much insight into the motivations underlying women’s attractiveness enhancement, given that women were explicitly instructed to beautify for a hot date. (That is, there is no variation in their motivation to self-beautify given that they all beautified in response to experimental instructions.)

7. Based on cell sizes, it appears that participant exclusions were not randomly distributed across conditions (i.e., there were fewer participants in the beautification condition in Experiment 1). Have the authors considered if (and how) this could have affected their results? For instance, is it possible that less assertive participants were less able or willing to follow the instructions in the beautification condition?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Oct 2019

Please see Response to Reviewers document

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 4.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Jan 2020

In the context of romantic attraction, beautification can increase assertiveness in women

PONE-D-19-16746R1

Dear Dr. Blake,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #2 was unfortunately not available to review your revision. In light of your comprehensive and convincing revision and detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, we decided to accept based on Reviewer #1's recommendation and my own reading of your paper.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I won't go on needlessly here. I see this paper as fit for publication in PLOS ONE.

In my first review of this manuscript, I underscored the importance of this new brand of work that takes women as they are, in all their complexity, and not as anyone might wish they were. Women can be good, bad, ugly---just as can men. Women can aggress, seek status, and so on---just as can men. I continue to see this work as another step in the direction of better understanding female cognition and behavior---again, how woman are, regardless of how any theoretical, political, or ideological framework holds that they ought to be.

This paper does the important work that experiments must do: It uses the experimental method to test cause and effect. Moreover, related to my point above, it thus lets women's cognition and behavior speak for itself.

I appreciate the authors' responses to my comments. The authors did a thorough job in their revisions. For example, I believe the tweaked framing, which now sees them to pit against one another some ideas derived from objectification theory and some from a sociometer theory, has strengthened the paper.

I would hate for it to come across as if this short review were not extremely enthusiastic. Indeed, if other reviewers disagree, I'm happy to fight for the paper with much more text and evidence. Given the extensive attention that the authors paid to other reviewers' requests, I doubt that that will be the case.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

21 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-16746R1

In the Context of Romantic Attraction, Beautification can Increase Assertiveness in Women

Dear Dr. Blake:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE