Recently, an article entitled “Intolerance of Sexy Peers: Intrasexual Competition among Women” was published in Aggressive Behaviour. The research was a result of collaboration between Tracy Vaillancourt and Aanchal Sharma of the University of Ottawa and McMaster University, respectively. Their study aimed to shed more light on women’s passive aggression towards other women, termed indirect aggression, which the authors argued was due to a woman’s need to secure a mate.
The research was divided into two studies. Study 1 involved pairing study volunteers with a stranger or with a friend (group 1). These volunteers, who stemmed from varied ethnic backgrounds, were informed the study was about conflict resolution among women in friendships to maintain the study’s anonymity. To monitor the discussions, the same research assistant would come into the room, dressed either conservatively or provocatively. The conservative attire consisted of a short-sleeved, crew neck T-shirt, and corduroy jeans while the provocative clothes were a short-sleeved V-neck T-shirt, mini-skirt and long black boots. A second group composed of mostly Caucasian women rated the taped reactions of group 1 toward the assistant. The authors provided group 2 with the colloquial term “bitchy” and gave them a list of associated behaviours that would go with such word such as ‘death stares’, ‘back biting’ or ‘fake smiles’ among others so they could describe the conduct of group 1. All the women who participated in this study were 19-23 years old to represent women in the “height of their reproductive value.” The authors found that women did not react adversely or, as they put it, ‘bitchy’ to the conservatively dressed assistant, but reacted in an antagonistic manner toward the same assistant when dressed provocatively. They also found that this was exacerbated in the presence of a friend, while reactions were diminished when with a stranger.
In study 2, volunteers were aged 17-28 years old and were also from different ethnic backgrounds. In this study, the participants were given 3 photos: one where the assistant was conservatively dressed, another where she was provocatively dressed, and a final photoshopped picture where the image of the provocatively dressed assistant was manipulated so she would look overweight. The authors labeled the pictured women as ‘conservative’, ‘sexy’ and ‘sexy-fat’ throughout their article. The volunteers were asked a series of questions, which they would provide in an answer with a scale of 1-10. The volunteers were asked the following questions about each of subjects in the pictures: “How cute is she?”; “How sexy is she?”; “How likely would she be a friend of yours?”; “How likely would you let your boyfriend spend time alone with her?” and “How likely would you introduce her to your boyfriend?” Their data for this study showed that the volunteers would less likely be friends with either of the provocatively dressed females no matter their appearance than with the conservatively dressed assistant. The volunteers were also more inclined to introduce and let their current/future boyfriends spend time alone with the conservative rather than the provocatively dressed assistants.
Compared to study 1, study 2 seems to be the only indication of sexual competition in this project because a mate is made apparent. However, whether colloquial or not, the authors’ choice of wording to describe the pictures and the reactions of the volunteers was deplorable and not fit for a scientific journal. The article also showcased many flaws in methodology. First, many valuable controls were missing from study 1, making study 1 look more like social ostracism rather than sexual competition. It would have been interesting to see the male equivalent of the conservative vs. provocative dichotomy. In addition, to eliminate the possibility of social ostracism, I think it would have been important to monitor reactions from a male audience in the presence of conservative and provocative assistant. Above all, the set-up of study 1 is misleading, given that, using the authors’ words, “most research assistants (the role played by the confederate in Study 1) would likely not be dressed in such a sexy manner.” Because of this fact, it becomes hard to distinguish between sexual and social contexts.
A major problem with both studies was the inconsistency in volunteer backgrounds. For instance, in study 1, group 1 consisted of varying ethnic backgrounds while group 2 was mainly Caucasian. This is troublesome because their nationalities and amount of time spent living in Canada were not stated. Someone who is not originally from Canada might have found the provocative researcher’s choice of clothes disrespectful. To control for this, no matter the ethnicity, all volunteers should have been 2nd or 3rd generation Canadians, at least. Furthermore, the authors failed to make a comparison to women of other ages to see if indirect aggression decreases with age (and subsequently, fertility) or continues to be the same. Unlike other studies, the authors did not monitor whether women were ovulating, which would correlate sexual competition with indirect aggression better.
Although this study had the potential to be really interesting, there were many gaps in the methodology that need to be addressed in future studies. The fact that CIHR provided them with a grant to conduct these series of experiments should have prompted the authors to make something more compelling and conclusive.
References
Sharma, A and Vaillancourt, T. (2011) Aggressive Behaviour 37(6): 569-577. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.20413/abstract;jsessionid=4029E0BC0F21C309ABBF528293BB47CC.d02t02
Comments