Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8 Standards of Beauty
8 Standards of Beauty
974
ARGO AND DAHL 975
standards of beauty that the mannequin signals, rather than consumers low in appearance self-esteem. To achieve this
to the mannequin itself. Indeed, we demonstrate that the we explore two different moderators to better understand
normative information made accessible by the mannequin how self-threat operates in the context of mannequins.
signals global societal standards (related to beauty), as the First, using an established psychological procedure for
effects we identify are realized for both female and male demonstrating the presence of self-threat (i.e., a self-
consumers alike; thus, the generalized standards of beauty affirmation task; Steele 1988), we find that buttressing the
that the mannequin makes salient have a relatively broad self-worth of consumers with low appearance self-esteem
applicability. Our finding that the social comparison is oc- results in a more positive evaluation of the product associ-
an environmental or situational cue (Berkowitz 1972; We further argue that these signals do not influence all
Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno 1991; Schwartz 1977). The consumers equally. Specifically, we expect that consumers
number of social norms that direct and guide our behaviors who are vulnerable to appearance-related information (i.e.,
is vast, ranging from rules on an individual’s responsibility consumers low in appearance self-esteem) will be more
in maintaining a clean society (e.g., littering; Cialdini, susceptible to the effects we identify.
Reno, and Kallgren 1990) to expectations of behaviors dur-
ing interpersonal exchanges (e.g., norm of reciprocity;
Cialdini 1984) to the standards for what is valued with re- Appearance Self-Esteem
Discussion 3
deviation below the mean for the mean-centered index of ap- FIGURE 2
pearance self-esteem (Aiken and West 1991; Preacher,
Curran, and Bauer 2006) and spotlight analysis was con- IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
ducted. Spotlight analysis revealed that participants with low PRODUCT TYPE ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
appearance self-esteem evaluated the product significantly
less favorably when the product was displayed on the manne- 7 appearance-related
quin as compared to pinned to the wall (b ¼ –.34, t(191) ¼ non-appearance-related
2.89, p < .01). In contrast, participants with high appearance 6
5
STUDY 3A
0 Driven by substantive considerations we elected to di-
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
minish the beauty of the mannequin in two ways observed
in the retail context we study. First, a mannequin’s beauty
can be reduced through visual changes to its attractiveness.
In fact, such changes are likely to be realized in a typical
0, no affirmation coded as 1; b ¼ .554, t(78) ¼ 3.68, p < retail environment over time. For example, physical dam-
.001). No differences arose for product evaluations as a age, markings, and lost parts are common consequences of
function of appearance self-esteem when consumers were typical wear and tear experienced by mannequins through
first affirmed (no affirmation coded as 1, yes affirmation continued usage in store displays. Thus, appearance flaws,
coded as 0; b ¼ .009, t(78) ¼ .065, p > .90). whether flaws of commission (e.g., marks or scratches) or
omission (e.g., missing or damaged parts), alter the manne-
WTP. Similar linear regression analysis, with the same quin’s ability to effectively convey society’s standard of
predictors and coding, was conducted with WTP as the de- beauty, and the threat this standard once presented will be
pendent variable. Again, results revealed a significant ef- mitigated.
fect for appearance self-esteem (b ¼ 2.33, t(78) ¼ 2.37, p Second, partial mannequins, which are incomplete by
< .05, partial g2 ¼ .067) and a significant two-way interac- design (e.g., headless, torso only, leg only), are also often
tion between appearance self-esteem and self-affirmation featured in the retail environment in an effort to highlight a
(b ¼ –2.03, t(78) ¼ 2.08, p < .05, partial g2 ¼.052; see specific type of product and as a cost-saving vehicle.
figure 3B). Consistent with participants’ product evalua- However, drawing from research on product design
tions, spotlight analysis revealed that participants with low (Hekkert 2006; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998) and catego-
appearance self-esteem were willing to pay significantly rization (Barsalou 1983, 1985), we argue that a partial (i.e.,
less when they had not been affirmed as compared to incomplete) mannequin is less prototypical of the manne-
affirmed (b ¼ 3.89, t(78) ¼ 2.72, p < .01), while the WTP quin category and thus does not represent a fulsome exem-
of participants with high appearance self-esteem did not plar of the beauty standard. Indeed, a central theme in
differ regardless of whether they were first affirmed or categorization research is that categories are assumed to
not (b ¼ –.332, t(78) ¼ 0.23, p > .82). Finally, when have a graded structure (Barsalou 1983, 1985) and that
participants lower in appearance self-esteem were not consumers categorize based on how representative or typi-
self-affirmed, they were willing to pay less compared to cal an object is of its category. In the context of full-bodied
participants higher in appearance self-esteem (b ¼ .468, mannequins, it would thus follow that an incomplete man-
t(78) ¼ 3.08, p < .01); when participants self-esteem were nequin is deemed as less typical of the category and will
self-affirmed, the differences in WTP for participants with not be seen as threatening normative information about
low and high appearance self-esteem were mitigated (b ¼ beauty standards.
.032, t(78) ¼ .217, p > .80). In both of these cases, a consumer low in appearance
self-esteem is unlikely to feel a threat from a flawed or an
incomplete mannequin, as it no longer fully communicates
Discussion the normative standard of beauty, and that consumer would
Results of this study provide evidence that the negative no longer need to denigrate the product the mannequin is
reactions of consumers with low appearance self-esteem to displaying. In contrast, given that we do not expect the
ARGO AND DAHL 983
FIGURE 4A FIGURE 4B
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND MISSING IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND FACIAL
HAIR VS. NO FLAW ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS MARK VS. NO FLAW ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 no flaw 7 no flaw
missing hair facial mark
6 6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
mannequin to be a threat to consumers high in appearance (WTP), and completed all of the appearance self-esteem
self-esteem, the presence of a flawed or incomplete manne- measures (a¼ .83).
quin should not influence these consumers. We focus on
marring a mannequin’s attractiveness in study 3a and using
an incomplete mannequin in study 3b.
Results
Product Evaluation Index. Linear regression analysis
Method that included a dummy-coded variable for missing hair
(missing hair coded as 1, others coded as 0), a dummy-
Participants and Design. This study used a 3 (nature of coded variable for facial mark (facial mark coded as 1,
the flaw: facial mark vs. missing hair vs. no flaw) ap- others coded as 0), continuous mean-centered appearance
pearance self-esteem between-subjects experimental de- self-esteem, and the two-way interactions was conducted
sign. One hundred thirty-six undergraduates (males ¼ 73, with the product evaluation index as the dependent vari-
females ¼ 63) from a large North American university able. Results revealed a significant effect for appearance
completed the study in exchange for $10.00.1 self-esteem (b ¼ .646, t(130) ¼ 4.98, p < .001, partial g2
Procedure. Upon arrival participants were told that the ¼ .01), a significant two-way interaction between appear-
research involved the evaluation of three storefront dis- ance self-esteem and the missing hair dummy variable
plays. Two of the storefronts served as decoys and did not (b ¼ –.378, t(130) ¼ 3.50, p ¼ .001, partial g2 ¼ .09; see
contain any mannequins, while the third storefront con- figure 4A), and a significant two-way interaction between
tained our focal mannequin, which was wearing the target appearance self-esteem and the facial mark dummy vari-
product (i.e., a black cotton dress). To achieve the flaw ma- able (b ¼ –.426, t(130) ¼ 3.93, p < .001, partial g2 ¼ .11;
nipulation, the female mannequin had a black mark on her see figure 4B). No other effects were significant (ps >
face (facial mark), no wig (missing hair), or no flaws. After .20).
exposure to the storefronts, participants completed items Regression lines were plotted for one standard deviation
related to the cover story, evaluated the product using the above and one standard deviation below the mean for the
same items described in study 1a (a¼ .91), indicated the mean-centered index of appearance self-esteem. Spotlight
amount of money they were willing to pay for the product analysis was conducted to examine the significant two-way
interaction between appearance self-esteem and the miss-
1 Originally two additional cells were collected for this study (man- ing hair dummy variable. Results revealed that participants
nequins with missing limbs) but were not retained due to the lack of with low appearance self-esteem evaluated the product sig-
realism they conveyed (storefronts do not commonly have mannequins nificantly more favorably when the mannequin was miss-
missing one arm). Subsequent post-testing (n ¼ 40) validated that con-
sumers perceive this as an infrequently viewed style of mannequin
ing her hair as compared to when the mannequin did not
(frequency: 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree, one-sample t- have a flaw (b ¼ .96, t(130) ¼ 2.77, p < .01).
test: M ¼ 3.03, t(39) ¼ 2.01, p ¼ .05). Interestingly, participants with high appearance self-
984 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
esteem showed the opposite pattern. In particular, they their counterparts with higher appearance self-esteem
evaluated the product less favorably when the mannequin when the mannequin is not flawed.
was missing her hair versus when the mannequin was not
flawed (b ¼ –.80, t(130) ¼ 2.13, p < .05). Spotlight analy-
sis was also conducted to test the significant interaction be-
tween appearance self-esteem and the facial mark dummy STUDY 3B
variable. Again, participants with low appearance self-
esteem evaluated the product significantly more favorably
Method
FIGURE 5A FIGURE 5B
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
MANNEQUIN COMPLETENESS ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS MANNEQUIN COMPLETENESS ON WTP
7 25 complete
complete incomplete
6 incomplete
20
2 5
1 0
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD) low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
A second opportunity for future investigation lies in the mannequin more negatively than consumers higher in ap-
inconsistency found in our results in the WTP measure pearance self-esteem), female consumers did not have a
across studies. Our WTP measure in study 3a did not pro- differential response. This presents a great opportunity for
duce differential results for the presence of a flaw (vs. no future research, as it suggests it is possible that male man-
flaw) for consumers with low appearance self-esteem. nequins do not make salient a normative standard and in-
Recent research by White et al. (2016) has found that when stead are simply used as tools for social comparisons by
a package is damaged, consumers believe the product relevant consumers (i.e., other males).
within should be discounted. Extending this finding into In the current research we restricted our investigation
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B
Tesser, Abraham (1988), “Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24
Model of Social Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental (4), 374–94.
Social Psychology, Volume 21, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New Weis, Christopher (2006), “Display Mannequin in Retail Store
York: Academic Press, 181–227. Environment Is Effective Sales Tool,” http://ezinearticles.com/?
Tidy, Jo (2012), “The Silent Saleswomen: Mannequins, Visual Display-Mannequin-in-RetaiStore-Environment-is-Effective-
Merchandising and Beauty for Sale,” presented at the 2nd Sales-Tool&id¼227501.
Global Conference for Beauty: Exploring Critical Issues, White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl, and Robin B. Ritchie
Oxford, UK. (2016), “When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections?
Veryzer, Robert W. Jr. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1998), “The Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue,”