Abstract
In this comment, I identify two methodological issues in McClintock’s (2014) article on beauty exchange. First, McClintock’s difference models, which find no evidence of exchange, are poor measures of exchange that fail to account for important confounders and rely on an overly narrow conceptualization of exchange. Second, McClintock codes her log-linear models to find a difference in the effect of men’s and women’s beauty in exchange rather than the total effect of women’s beauty, which is both statistically significant and substantively large.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
