Sex Roles

, Volume 40, Issue 5–6, pp 459–471 | Cite as

Women's Dress Fashions as a Function of Reproductive Strategy

  • Nigel Barber


Despite many speculations, there is no well-supported explanation for cycles of fashion in.women's dress and scholars cannot agree whether fashions reflect societal changes. Generalizing from cycles of bodily attractiveness for women, it was hypothesized that dress styles are reflective of reproductive economics. Using data from three studies of dress fashion extending from 1885-1976, the prediction was tested thatshortskirts (signaling sexual accessibility) would be correlated with low sex ratios (indicating limited marital opportunity for women), with increased economic opportunities for women and with marital instability. Predictions for narrowwaists and low necklines (which signal reproductive value) were opposite. These predictions received strong support indicating that dress styles, like standards of bodily attractiveness may be partly determined by marital economics.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecology of ideals of female body shape. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 197–227.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, N. (1998a). The slender ideal and e ating disorders: An interdisciplinary “telescope” model. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 295–307.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, N. (1998b). Secular changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in women: Tests of a reproductive model. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 449–454.Google Scholar
  5. Barber, N. (1998c). The role of reproductive strategies in academic attainment. Sex Roles, 38, 313–323.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, N. (1998d). Parenting: Roles, styles, and outcomes. Commack, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  7. Barber, N. (in press). Reproductive and occupational stereotypes of bodily curvaceousness and weight. The Journal of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  8. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  9. Dickemann, M. (1979). The ecology of mating systems in hypergynous dowry societies. Social Science Information, 18, 163–195.Google Scholar
  10. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women: The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Kleinke, C. L., & Staneski, R. A. (1980). First impressions of female bust size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 123–134.Google Scholar
  12. Liesner, T. (1991). One hundred years of economic statistics. New York: Facts on File.Google Scholar
  13. Lowe, E. D., & Lowe, J. W. D. (1990). Velocity of the fashion process in Women' s formal evening dress, 1789–1980. The Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 50–58.Google Scholar
  14. Mabry, M. A. (1971). The relationship between fluctuations in hemlines and stock market averages from 1921–1971. Unpublished master' s thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  15. Richardson, J., & Krober, A. L. (1940). Three centuries of women's dress fashions: A quantitative analysis. Anthropological Records, 5, 111–153.Google Scholar
  16. Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., Vogel, L., & Fantini, D. A. (1986). Possible causes of the thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 907–916.Google Scholar
  17. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-tohip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.Google Scholar
  18. Snyder, T. D. (1993). 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  19. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1975). Historical statistics of the U.S. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Department of He alth and Human Services. (1988). Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume 3: Marriage and divorce. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Weeden, P. (1977). Study patterned on Kroeber's investigation of style. Dress, 3, 9–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nigel Barber

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations