This development of scale provides an informative overview of attitudes towards makeup and

its psychological effects. It does a good job of acknowledging the complexity of the topic and
recognizing that everyone's relationship with makeup is unique. The development of scale
provides a balanced discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of using makeup, highlighting
how makeup can enhance facial attractiveness and boost self-confidence, but also lead to
negative self-evaluations and self-consciousness.

The development of scale references several studies to support its claims, which strengthens
its credibility. However, it would have been helpful if the development of scale had included
a more detailed description of the methodology and sample sizes of these studies. This would
provide readers with a better understanding of the evidence supporting the claims being
made.

One of the strengths of this scale is its discussion of the societal pressures and beauty
standards that influence attitudes towards makeup. This scale acknowledges that
advertisements and media portrayals of ideal beauty can contribute to negative self-
perceptions and feelings of inadequacy. This is an important point to make, as it highlights
the need for a more inclusive and diverse representation of beauty.

Overall, this scale is well-written and informative. It provides a good overview of the
psychological effects of makeup and acknowledges the complexities of attitudes towards it.
However, more detailed descriptions of the studies referenced would have improved this
scale's credibility.

The research cited in the passage suggests that makeup can improve facial attractiveness in
both men and women. While the effect of makeup on women's attractiveness has been
extensively studied, research on men's perception of attractiveness with makeup is limited.
However, a recent study found that male faces with light makeup were rated as more
attractive than those without makeup, by both male and female raters.

The passage also suggests that the use of different cosmetic products, such as foundation, eye
makeup, and lip cosmetics, can enhance female facial attractiveness. The perception of
attractiveness can also vary among men and women, with women perceiving eye makeup as
having the most aesthetic impact.

Finally, the passage indicates that makeup can have an impact on consumer behavior in
various settings. For example, women wearing makeup were approached more frequently by
men in a bar, and customers were more likely to tip female waiters who wore makeup.

Overall, the research suggests that makeup can have positive effects on facial attractiveness
and consumer behaviour in both men and women, although more research is needed to fully
understand the extent of these effects.
To sum up, research suggests that wearing makeup can have a positive impact on self-
confidence, especially in social and professional situations. However, the relationship
between makeup and self-confidence is not always straightforward and can depend on
individual factors such as personality traits and cultural expectations. While some women
may feel more self-assured and competent when wearing makeup, others may feel more self-
conscious and anxious about their appearance. It is important to note that societal pressure to
maintain a certain standard of beauty can also play a role in how makeup affects self-
confidence. Ultimately, the impact of makeup on self-confidence is a complex and
multifaceted issue that requires further research.
It is interesting to note that self-objectification, or the tendency to view oneself as an object to
be evaluated based on appearance, may play a role in how women use makeup. This suggests
that individual factors such as personality and beliefs may influence the relationship between
makeup and self-confidence. It is important to continue studying these factors in order to gain
a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of makeup on individuals' self-perception
and self-esteem.

Overall, the passage provides a brief overview of the concept of self-consciousness and its
relation to makeup use. The author provides a clear definition of self-consciousness and
explains how it can be divided into public and private components. The author also highlights
previous research on makeup use among women and how self-objectification influences their
attitude towards makeup.

The passage then describes the author's study on attitude towards makeup, which aimed to tap
into individuals' perceptions of themselves after using makeup and their overall attitude
towards makeup. The author provides a brief overview of the item pool generation process,
expert review, and pilot study, as well as the factor analysis used to finalize the scale.

However, there are several areas where the passage could be improved. Firstly, the passage
could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the study's research questions and
objectives. The author briefly mentions that the study aimed to measure individuals' attitudes
towards makeup but does not provide a clear explanation of why this is important or what the
study hopes to achieve.

Secondly, the passage lacks a clear description of the sample and data collection methods
used in the study. The author does not provide information on the number of participants
involved, their demographics, or how they were recruited for the study. Additionally, there is
no mention of how data was collected (e.g. online survey, in-person interviews) or the criteria
used to select participants.
Finally, the passage does not provide any information on the study's results or findings.
While the author briefly mentions that a factor analysis was used to finalize the scale, there is
no discussion of what factors were identified or how they relate to individuals' attitudes
towards makeup.

Overall, while the passage provides a basic overview of the study's design and methodology,
it would benefit from additional detail and a more comprehensive discussion of the study's
research questions, methods, and results.

Overall, the rationale behind developing the Attitude towards Makeup scale seems to be well
justified. The develop conducted a thorough review of literature and identified a gap in the
existing measures of makeup questionnaire. The scale was designed to measure the impact of
makeup on self-confidence, self-consciousness, and facial attractiveness, which are important
dimensions for understanding one's attitude towards makeup. The response format of a 5-
point Likert Scale also seems appropriate for measuring individual differences in attitudes
towards makeup.

However, some aspects of the development process could have been improved. For instance,
it is unclear how the experimenter arrived at the final item pool of 25 items, and what criteria
were used for selecting or discarding specific items. The expert review process is briefly
mentioned, but there is no information on how many experts were involved or how their
feedback was incorporated. The pilot study is also not described in sufficient detail, which
makes it difficult to evaluate the quality of the data obtained. Finally, it is not clear why the
self-consciousness facet was deleted, and whether this decision was based on statistical or
conceptual grounds.

In summary, while the Attitude towards Makeup scale appears to be a promising tool for
measuring individual differences in attitudes towards makeup, a more detailed description of
the development process and psychometric properties would enhance its validity and
reliability.

Overall, the methodology used for developing and analyzing the scale appears to be thorough
and appropriate. The use of a literature review to inform the development of the scale is a
good practice, and the use of expert review and pilot testing to refine the item pool is also
commendable. The choice of Cronbach's alpha to assess internal consistency is standard, and
the values obtained indicate good reliability.

The decision to remove certain items based on negative correlations is also reasonable, as it is
important to ensure that all items are contributing positively to the construct being measured.
The use of factor analysis to identify dimensions and loadings of the items is a standard
practice and is appropriately conducted. It is also good to see that the adequacy of the sample
size and the distinctness of the items were tested before conducting the factor analysis.

Overall, the methodology appears to be rigorous, and the statistical analysis is appropriate for
the purpose of developing a reliable and valid scale for measuring attitude towards makeup.

It seems that the researchers have carefully analyzed the factor loadings and reliability scores
of each item in order to determine which items to remove from the dataset. By using a
Varimax rotation, they were able to identify which items were related to each other and
therefore may have been redundant. It's important to conduct multiple iterations of the
analysis until all remaining items are deemed satisfactory. This helps ensure the validity and
reliability of the results.

After removing the ftheirs items with dual loadings and the factor with only one item, PCA
was computed again with Varimax rotation and N equaling 3. The factor loadings and
communalities of the remaining items are as follows:
Factor 1 (Beauty Enhancement): FA1 (0.79), FA2 (0.86), FA3 (0.82), FA4 (0.74), FA6
(0.70), and FA7 (0.76)
Factor 2 (Self-Confidence): SC1 (0.84), SC3 (0.81), and SC4 (0.80)
Factor 3 (Social Pressure): SCC1 (0.71), SCC2 (0.61), SCC3 (0.81), SCC5 (0.80), and SCC7
(0.75)
The cumulative variance explained by the three factors was 59.8%, with Factor 1 explaining
32.0%, Factor 2 explaining 16.5%, and Factor 3 explaining 11.3%. These three factors were
renamed as "Beauty Enhancement," "Self-Confidence," and "Social Pressure," respectively.
Overall, this final PCA with three factors seems to have produced a more reliable and valid
set of factors compared to the initial PCA with five factors. The factor loadings of the
remaining items suggest that the three factors represent distinct constructs that are
theoretically meaningful and consistent with previous research on makeup attitudes.

It seems that after the removal of some items with low factor loadings and dual loadings, the
final factor analysis resulted in a reduced dataset of 9 items and 2 dimensions. The reliability
of the questionnaire was still good, with raw alpha values ranging from 0.48 to 0.85 and
standard alpha values ranging from 0.5 to 0.86. The KMO value and Bartlett's p-value
remained significant in the final analysis. The Facial Attractiveness facet had the highest
reliability, followed by the Self-Confidence facet, while the Self-Consciousness facet only
had one item remaining. The factor loadings were all above the cut-off criteria, and there
were no dual loadings in the final analysis. Overall, it seems that the factor analysis was
successful in identifying the underlying dimensions of the questionnaire.

Based on the coefficients, it appears that most items have moderate to strong correlations
with the validity scale, except for FA6 which has a weak correlation. It is also interesting to
note that SC4 has the highest correlation coefficient, indicating a strong relationship between
not wearing makeup and a decrease in self-confidence. Overall, the correlation coefficients
provide support for the concurrent validity of the Makeup Attitudes Questionnaire.

This limited their ability to test the concurrent validity of all the facets included in theirs
scale. Future studies could benefit from using additional scales to test the validity of the
Attitude towards Makeup Scale across all its facets.

Another limitation is that the study only focused on attitudes towards makeup among Indian
women. The findings cannot be generalized to men or people from other cultures. It would be
beneficial to conduct further studies on the attitude towards makeup among other populations
to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how attitudes towards makeup vary across
different cultural contexts.

Lastly, the study did not consider other factors that may affect attitudes towards makeup,
such as socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, or cultural norms. Future studies could
benefit from considering these factors to gain a more nuanced understanding of how attitudes
towards makeup are shaped by broader social, cultural, and economic contexts.