4.5 Article

Makeup usage in women as a tactic to attract mates and compete with rivals

Journal

PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110042

Keywords

Cosmetic usage; Appearance; Intrasexual competition; Mate value; Age; Sexual selection

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2018/16370-5]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Appearance alterations are an important part of human history, culture, and evolution that can serve many functions. Cross-culturally, women more than men use makeup as a specific, temporary, personalized, and relatively accessible technique for appearance alteration. Women wear makeup to attract attention and/or to mask their imperfections, and indeed, made-up women are on average perceived as more attractive, healthy, promiscuous, and as having higher prestige. Makeup use can thus be related not only to potential partner attraction but also to a rival competition. We aimed to test whether makeup usage in women is predicted by evolutionary relevant factors such as self-reported mate value or intrasexual competition. In total, 1344 Brazilian women responded online about frequency of makeup usage, money spent on makeup per month, and time spent applying makeup per day. They further reported their mate value, intrasexual competition, age, relationship status, reproductive status, sociosexuality, and income. Exploratory correlations and the final regression models indicate that age, intrasexual competition, and mate value positively predict makeup usage. Thus, makeup usage may have a dual evolutionary utility, serving as a behavioral tactic of both intersexual attraction -including alteration of age perception- and intrasexual competition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available