Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 24, Issue 11–12, pp 759–769 | Cite as

The role of cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment

  • Jane E. Workman
  • Kim K. P. Johnson
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of cosmetics use on attributions concerning the likelihood of provoking sexual harassment and of being sexually harassed. Subjects were 85 female and 76 male undergraduate volunteers. The study was a 3×2 between-subjects design with three levels of cosmetics use (heavy, moderate, no cosmetics) and two levels of sex of subject (male, female). Each subject viewed one of three colored photographs of a model wearing either heavy, moderate, or no cosmetics, and then indicated how likely the model was to provoke sexual harassment and to be sexually harassed. Data were analyzed using analyses of variance and the Newman-Keuls test. When the model wore heavy cosmetics, she was rated as more likely to provoke sexual harassment than when she wore moderate cosmetics. Similarly, when the model wore moderate cosmetics, she was rated as significantly more likely to provoke sexual harassment than when she was not wearing cosmetics. When the model wore either heavy or moderate cosmetics, she was also rated as more likely to be sexually harassed than when she did not wear cosmetics. In addition, male subjects rated the model as more likely to provoke and to be sexually harassed than did female subjects. Results are discussed in terms of sex role spillover.

Keywords

Social Psychology Male Subject Sexual Harassment Female Subject Colored Photograph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. (1987). The effects of clothing and sex dyad composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108–126.Google Scholar
  2. Allgeier, E., & McCormick, N. (1983). Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  3. Banner, L. (1983). American beauty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  4. Cash, T., & Cash, D. (1982). Women's use of cosmetics: Psychosocial correlates and consequences. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Cash, T., Rissi, J., & Chapman, R. (1985). Not just another pretty face: Sex roles, locus of control and cosmetics use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 246–257.Google Scholar
  6. Cash, T., Dawson, K., Davis, P., Bowen, M., & Galumbeck, C. (1989). Effects of cosmetics use on the physical attractiveness and body image of American college women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 349–355.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, C., & Glick, W. (1986). Resume evaluations and cosmetics use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51–58.Google Scholar
  8. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.Google Scholar
  9. Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, J. (1987, August 24–30). No laughing matter: Sexual harassment is serious problem for companies. Dallas Times Herald, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, J., & Jouhar, A. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person perception. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199–208.Google Scholar
  12. Gutek, B., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55–74.Google Scholar
  13. Horgan, D., & Reeder, G. (1986). Sexual harassment: The eye of the beholder. Journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 34, 83–86.Google Scholar
  14. Jensen, I., & Gutek, B. (1982). Attributions and and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121–136.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, K., & Lewis, L. (1988). Effect of dress, cosmetics, and sex of subject on impressions of victim personality. Texas Home Economist, 55, 6–7.Google Scholar
  16. Lerner, R., Karabenick, S., & Stuart, J. (1973). Relations among physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self-concept in male and female college students. Journal of Psychology, 85, 119–129.Google Scholar
  17. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1978). Identities and interactions. New York: Free Press-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. McKeachie, W. (1952). Lipstick as a determiner of first impressions of personality: An experiment for the general psychology course. Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 241–244.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. (1970a). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 241–243.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, A. (1970b). Social perception of internal-external control. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 103–109.Google Scholar
  21. Naugarten, D., & Shafritz, J. (1980). Sexuality in organizations: Romantic and coercive behaviors at work. Oak Park, IL: Moore.Google Scholar
  22. Nivea, V., & Gutek, B. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Roach, M., & Eicher, J. (1979). The language of personal adornment. In J. M. Cordwell & R. A. Schwarz (Eds.), The fabric of culture: The anthropology of dress and adorment. Mouton: The Hague.Google Scholar
  24. Supreme Court upholds EEOC position on sex harassment. (1986, August). Equal Times. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Vogelmann-Sine, S., Ervin, E., Christensen, R., Warmsun, C., & Ullman, L. (1979). Sex differences in feelings attributed to a woman in situations involving coercion and sexual advances. Journal of Personality, 47, 420–431.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, E. (1987). Adorned in dreams. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Workman, J., & Johnson, K. (in press). The role of cosmetics in impression formation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal.Google Scholar
  28. Zellman, G., & Goodchilds, J. (1983). Becoming sexual in adolescence. In E. A. Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane E. Workman
    • 1
  • Kim K. P. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Illinois UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasUSA

Personalised recommendations