Skip to main content
Log in

Slut-shaming on Facebook: Do Social Class or Clothing Affect Perceived Acceptability?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term “slut” is commonly used as a disparaging remark against women in the United States. The goal of this study was to examine how the use of that term affects perceptions of both the “slut” and the “shamer” as well as how clothing choice and social class of the targets, as well as feminist identity of the participant, affect these judgments. We presented 186 self-identified feminist and non-feminist female college students with a Facebook interaction in which one woman calls another woman a “slut.” The interaction included a photograph of the target, in which she was dressed either “provocatively” or “conservatively.” Her visible Facebook profile information suggested she was part of either a lower or higher socioeconomic class. Participants generally had negative perceptions about the “shamer,” but results showed that both social class and clothing had an effect on how women perceived both the “slut” and the “shamer.” Participants’ feminist identity also played a role in shaping perceptions: self-identified feminists were more willing to spend time with the “slut” and found the “shamer” less justified in her actions than did non-feminist participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html.

  2. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good girls”: Gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 100–122. doi:10.1177/0190272514521220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot grrrls; female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 233–247. doi:10.1080/09589230701562921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2010). Manisfesta: Young women, feminism, and the future. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bamberg, M. (2004). Form and functions of ‘slut bashing’ in male identity constructions in15-year-olds. Human Development, 47, 331–353. doi:10.1159/000081036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartow, A. (2009). Internet defamation as profit center: The monetization of online harassment. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 32, 383–429.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Citron, D. K. (2009). Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender harassment. Michigan Law Review, 108, 373–415.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Clayton, K. D., & Trafimow, D. (2007). A test of three hypotheses concerning attributions toward female promiscuity. The Social Science Journal, 44, 677–686. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2007.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, T., & Lauren, M. (1996). Status, communality and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25–38. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2013). Feminists who flaunt it: Exploring the enjoyment of sexualization among young feminist women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2341–2349. doi:10.1111/jasp.12183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Franks, M. A. (2012). Sexual harassment 2.0. Maryland Law Review, 71, 655–704.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and the future of women (1st ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176. doi:10.1037/a0027911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard: The influence of number of relationships and level of sexual activity on judgments of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 505–511. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00173.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Bransiter, H. (2005). Evaluation of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389–395. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00238.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Women’s perceptions of sexual exploitability cues and their link to sexual attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 999–1008. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0188-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–384. doi:10.1080/01972240290108186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jane, E. A. (2014). “Your a ugly, whorish, slut”: Understanding e-bile. Feminist Media Studies, 14, 531–546. doi:10.1080/14680777.2012.741073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  25. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 245–250. doi:10.1177/0963721411414654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lumsden, K., & Morgan, H. M. (2012). ‘Fraping’, ‘sexting’, ‘trolling’ and ‘rinsing’: Social networking, feminist thought and the construction of young women as victims or villains. Paper presented at the BSA Gender Study Group Conference, Leeds, UK. Downloaded from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/15756.

  27. Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–435. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum, 74, 46–66. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Montemurro, B., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). How clothes make the woman immoral: Impressions given off by sexualized clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16, 167–181. doi:10.1177/0887302X13493128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nier, J. A., Bajaj, P., McLean, M. C., & Schwartz, E. (2012). Group status, perceptions of agency, and the correspondence bias: Attributional processes in the formation of stereotypes about high and low status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 476–487. doi:10.1177/1368430212454925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Papp, L. J., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M. A., Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., et al. (2015). Exploring perceptions of slut-shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a reverse sexual double standard. Gender Issues, 32, 57–76. doi:10.1007/s12147-014-9133-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pew Research Center. (2014). Online harassment. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/.

  33. Poole, E. (2014). Hey girls, did you know: Slut-shaming on the internet needs to stop. University of San Francisco Law Review, 48, 221–260. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2400703.

  34. Rahimi, R., & Liston, D. D. (2009). What does she expect when she dresses like that? Teacher interpretation of emerging adolescent female sexuality. Educational Studies, 45, 512–533. doi:10.1080/00131940903311362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Renold, E. (2007). Girls, boys and junior sexualities: Exploring children’s gender and sexual relations in the primary school. London and New York: Routledge-Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14, 305–323. doi:10.1177/1464700113499853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2012). Slut shaming, girl power and ‘sexualisation’: Thinking through the politics of the international SlutWalks with teen girls. Gender and Education, 24, 333–343. doi:10.1080/09540253.2011.645023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schick, V. R., Zucker, A. N., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2008). Safer, better sex through feminism: The role of feminist ideology in women’s sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 225–232. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00431.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut!: Growing up female with a bad reputation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as a intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1631), 20130080. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 569–577. doi:10.1002/ab.20413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Valenti, J. (2007). Full frontal feminism: A young woman’s guide to why feminism matters. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000). The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 813–828. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00338-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Walker, R. (1995). To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.-Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Winkelman, S. B., Early, J. O., Walker, A. D., Chu, L., & Yick-Flanagan, A. (2015). Exploring cyberharassment among women who use social media. Universal Journal of Public Health, 3, 194–201. doi:10.13189/ujph.2015.030504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wookey, M. L., Graves, N. A., & Butler, J. C. (2009). Effects of a sex appearance on perceived competence of women. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 116–118. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.1.116-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zeisler, A. (2013). New media, new feminism: Evolving feminist analysis and activism in print, and on the Web and beyond. In H. Thornham & E. Weissmann (Eds.), Renewing feminisms: Radical narratives, fantasies and futures in media studies (pp. 178–184). London: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mindy J. Erchull.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this research involving human participants were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at our university and were found to be in accordance with the IRB standards as well as with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papp, L.J., Erchull, M.J., Liss, M. et al. Slut-shaming on Facebook: Do Social Class or Clothing Affect Perceived Acceptability?. Gend. Issues 34, 240–257 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9180-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9180-7

Keywords

Navigation