Male-female estimates of opposite-sex first impressions concerning females’ clothing styles

Abstract

Men and women college students recorded their impressions of a model dressed either conservatively or in clothing judged to be sexually provocative, and also attempted to estimate the impressions of a typical member of the opposite sex. The results indicated a generally negative bias toward women wearing provocative clothing. The most striking finding was that females greatly overestimated the extent of male rape motivation.There is ample evidence that men and women tend to differ with respect to attitudes concerning love and sex. For example, Hendrick and Hendrick (1986), found that men were more likely to accept statements concerning ludus (i.e., concerning game-playing love), while women were more inclined to personally endorse statements in the areas of storge (friendship love), pragma (practical love), and mania (possessive, dependent love). No differences were found between the sexes regarding eros (passionate love) and agape (all-giving, selfless love). Abbey (1982) reports that males tend to misinterpret the social behavior of females as indicating sexual interest even when no such message is intended. In this study, a male and female participated in a 5-min conversation while observed by a concealed male and female. The results indicated that college-age male actors and observers rated the female actor as more promiscuous and seductive than she was rated by female actors and observers. Males also reported greater sexual attraction to the opposite-sex partner than did females, and were more likely to perceive sexual interest on the part of other males. The present investigation was designed to assess the accuracy with which men and women can estimate opinions of the opposite sex with respect to sexual-social issues as a function of variation in female clothing style. MEmODForty-four men and 81 women in introductory psychology classes were shown one of two slides. One slide featured a college-age caucasian female wearing slacks and a blouse that were judged to be somewhat conservative. The other slide featured the same model in a revealing dress that might be considered sexy or provocative. A previous study (Edmonds & Cahoon, 1986) had confirmed the assessments of the two clothing styles as sexy and nonsexy and had revealed no differences in ratings of the clothing sty les with the model's face obscured or with the photograph unaltered. The slides were therefore cropped at neck level in order to minimize cues related to facial expression. The same model was shown in both slides, and the two poses were similar. The subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire indicating their impressions of the female and also to estimate the opinions of a typical member of the opposite sex.Requests for reprints may be sent to Delwin D. Cahoon, Department of Psychology, Augusta College, Augusta, Georgia 30910. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe results were analyzed by means of an analysis of variance classified by sex of rater, style of garment, and own opinion versus estimated opposite-sex opinion. A summary of this analysis ...

Predicting Objectification: Do Provocative Clothing and Observer Characteristics Matter?

“…Different types of clothing send different messages (e.g., Satrapa et al 1992). Clothing embellishes, enhances, or decorates the body (Entwistle 2000), and the type of clothing worn can sway first impressions (Cahoon and Edmonds 1989). For example, professors dressed more casually were viewed as more approachable and flexible (Lukavsky et al 1995).…”

Sex as a source of power? Backlash against self-sexualizing women

“…On the contrary, there is evidence that women risk backlash for self-sexualization. For example, women are judged more negatively by both genders when wearing provocative (e.g., low-cut blouse, high-heeled shoes) compared with conservative clothing (e.g., buttoned-up blouse, flat shoes; Abbey, Cozzarelli, McLaughlin, & Harnish, 1987;Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989), and they are perceived as more qualified for secretarial rather than managerial roles (Glick et al, 2005;Wookey, Graves, & Butler, 2009). How might backlash against self-sexualizing women be explained?…”

“…

AbstractAlthough women are thought to possess sexual power, they risk social and economic penalties (i.e., backlash; Rudman, 1998) when they self-sexualize (i.e., assert their power; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989;Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Branstiter, 2005). Why?

…”

Defusing the Objectification of Women by Other Women: The Role of Competence

“…Previous research has shown that a woman who is dressed more provocatively will be viewed as more sexual and more likely to use sex as a tool to get what she wants (Cahoon and Edmonds 1989). It has also been shown that women who dress more provocatively are seen as less intelligent and less capable than those who dress modestly in both professional (Glick et al 2005) and athletic (Gurung and Chrouser 2007) contexts.…”

“…Another study observed similar judgments applied to a female target when she was dressed provocatively versus when she was dressed conservatively. Cahoon and Edmonds (1989) found that when a woman was dressed provocatively (i.e., a revealing dress) she was seen as more attractive, sexually exciting, promiscuous, and more likely to use sex as a tool to get what she wanted than when she was dressed conservatively (i.e., blouse and slacks).…”