Mean Girls: Provocative Clothing Leads to Intra-Sexual Competition between Females

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate indirect aggression between females from an evolutionary perspective, considering indirect aggression as a mechanism of intra-sexual competition. Previous research suggests that females who are dressed provocatively, or appear 'sexually available', are more likely to be victims of indirect aggression from other females. Investigating this notion via an empirical measure and a word-selection task, this study involved a female confederate posing as a participant, who was dressed provocatively in one condition and conservatively in the other. Sixty-five females completed an intra-sexual competition scale and a word selection task in which they were able to select complimentary or derogatory phrases to describe the confederate. Making derogative comments is a common form of indirect aggression; therefore, those who selected derogatory phrases could be considered to be exhibiting indirect aggression. Consistent with our hypotheses, participants in the provocative condition obtained significantly higher intra-sexual competition scores and selected more derogatory words than those in the conservative condition, indicating that females dressed provocatively are indirectly aggressed against to a greater extent than those that are not. This paper adds further support to the notion that indirect aggression is used by females as a method of intra-sexual competition, particularly towards provocatively dressed females.

A brief report on the role of self-perceived mate value in attitudes towards sunbed use

“…Consistent with evolutionary psychology, due to the fact that men value attractiveness in a mate far more than women, women do compete with one another on attractiveness, which may lead to attractiveness enhancing practices (Bhogal, Galbraith & Manktelow, 2018;Keys & Bhogal, 2018), hence why the sample for our study was female. This competition can be explained by intra-sexual competition, which is defined as members of the same sex competing on characteristics which are attractive to the opposite sex (Keys & Bhogal, 2018), in this case, competing to be attractive through the use of sunbeds.…”

Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and men are prejudiced towards sexually-accessible women, but only women inflict costly punishment

“…Male control theories propose that men suppress women's sexuality to achieve status (Travis & White, 2000), increase paternity certainty (Buss, 2003), or maintain property rights for male heirs (Coontz & Henderson, 1986). Female control theories suggest that women suppress their own sexuality to maintain a price floor Baumeister & Vohs, 2004), or as a form of intrasexual competition (Keys & Bhogal, 2016;Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011). Although useful, it is unlikely that either theoretical approach captures the complexity of female sexual suppression.…”

“…Although useful, it is unlikely that either theoretical approach captures the complexity of female sexual suppression. Instead, a review of the literature suggests that both men and women are prejudiced toward sexualised women, but in different contexts (e.g., Rudman & Mescher, 2012;Blake et al, 2018b;Keys & Bhogal, 2016;Vaes et al, 2011).…”

“…In species where males invest in offspring, females may compete for high-quality mates (Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). In our own species, intrasexual competition among women can take the form of competitor derogation (Fisher et al, 2003;Keys & Bhogal, 2016), malicious gossip about a rival's promiscuity (Buss et al, 1990;Laidler & Hunt, 2001), and aggression (Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011). Consequently, women should demonstrate prejudice towards sexually-accessible women (prediction 1b).…”

“…Three female models were recruited to produce experimental stimuli. For the sexually-accessible condition, all women wore bold, red outfits (Prokop & Pazda, 2016;Keys & Bhogal, 2016), copious make-up (Coutinho et al, 2007), tight-fitting clothes (Goetz et al, 2016), and -in one photographbore a tattoo (Swami & Furnham, 2007). In the sexually-restrictive condition, women wore neutral colours, natural make-up, did not have a visible tattoo, and wore loose clothing.…”