Psychology research focuses primarily on male competition. This research, however, investigates women’s competition for love and the ideal partner in the mating market and reveals one psychological consequence for women, that is, beautification. This is demonstrated with ecologically valid, real-world archive and online search query data, a quasi-experiment, and a series of controlled experiments with random assignments. Intrasexual competition, indexed by the operational sex ratio (OSR) and income inequality (GINI), predicts women’s beautification reflected by Google search queries for cosmetic surgery terms (Study 1) and the density of certificated plastic surgeons (Study 2). Female college students from faculties with female-biased OSRs exhibit greater appearance focus than women from male-biased faculties (Study 3). A causal relationship, between women’s intrasexual competition and beautification (and even self-objectification), is subsequently demonstrated in experiments (Studies 4–6). Additionally, self-objectification due to intrasexual competition leads to women’s preference for appearance-oriented products (Study 6). Implications are discussed.
BarberN. (2003). The sex ratio and female marital opportunity as historical predictors of violent crime in England, Scotland, and the United States. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(4), 373–392.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.ReynoldsT.WinegardB.VohsK. D. (2017). Competing for love: Applying sexual economics theory to mating contests. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 230–241.
3.
BlakeK. R.BastianB. B.DensonT. F.GrosjeanP.BrooksR. C. (2018). Income inequality not gender inequality positively covaries with female sexualization on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(35), 8722–8727.
4.
BlakeK. R.BrooksR. C. (2019). Status anxiety mediates the positive relationship between income inequality and sexualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(50), 25029–25033.
5.
BlakeK. R.BrooksR. C.ArthurL. C.DensonT. F. (2020). In the context of romantic attraction, beautification can increase assertiveness in women. PLoS One, 15(3), e0229162.
6.
BotwinM. D.BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107–136.
7.
BreinesJ. G.CrockerJ.GarciaJ. A. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being in women’s daily lives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 583–598.
8.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49
9.
BussD. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. Basic Books.
10.
CalogeroR. M.DavisW. N.ThompsonJ. K. (2005). The role of self-objectification in the experience of women with eating disorders. Sex Roles, 52(1–2), 43–50.
11.
CalogeroR. M.PinaA.SuttonR. (2013). Cutting words: Priming self-objectification increases women’s intention to pursue cosmetic surgery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(2), 197–207.
12.
CampbellA. (2004). Female competition: Causes, constraints, content, and contexts. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 16–26.
13.
CashdanE. (1998). Are men more competitive than women? British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 213–229.
14.
ChenZ.TengF.ZhangH. (2013). Sinful flesh: Sexual objectification threatens women’s moral self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1042–1048.
15.
Clutton-BrockT. (2007). Sexual selection in males and females. Science, 318(5858), 1882–1885.
16.
Clutton-BrockT.HuchardE. (2013). Social competition and selection in males and females. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1631), 20130074.
17.
DuranteK. M.GriskeviciusV.SimpsonJ. A.CantúS. M.TyburJ. M. (2012). Sex ratio and women’s career choice: Does a scarcity of men lead women to choose briefcase over baby?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 121–134.
18.
FergusonC. J.WinegardB.WinegardB. M. (2011). Who is the fairest one of all? How evolution guides peer and media influences on female body dissatisfaction. Review of General Psychology, 15(1), 11–28.
19.
FinkB.KlappaufD.BrewerG.ShackelfordT. K. (2014). Female physical characteristics and intra-sexual competition in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 138–141.
20.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.
21.
GardnerR. M.SafranC. (2014). Clinical informatics subspecialty certification and training. In BernerE. S. (Ed.), Informatics education in healthcare: Lessons learned (pp. 43–58). Springer.
22.
GrammerK.RenningerL.FischerB. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress?Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66–74.
23.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.AckermanA. J.DeltonA. W.RobertsonT. E.WhiteA. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80.
24.
GuttentagM.SecordP. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Sage.
25.
HaleT. M.CottenS. R.DrenteaP.GoldnerM. (2010). Rural-urban differences in general and health-related internet use. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(9), 1304–1325.
26.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598–601.
27.
HillS. E.DuranteK. M. (2011). Courtship, competition, and the pursuit of attractiveness: Mating goals facilitate health-related risk taking and strategic risk suppression in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 383–394.
28.
HillS. E.RodehefferC. D.GriskeviciusV.DuranteK. M.WhiteA. E. (2012). Boosting beauty in an economic decline: Mating, spending, and the lipstick effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 275–291.
29.
KenrickD. T.LiN. P.ButnerJ. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110(1), 3–28.
30.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955.
31.
LuoS.KlohnenE. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304–326.
32.
McKinleyN. M.HydeJ. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181–215.
33.
MeltzerA. L. (2020). Women can benefit from sexual and physical valuation in the context of a romantic relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 243–257.
34.
MeltzerA. L.McNultyJ. K.JacksonG. L.KarneyB. R. (2014). Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 418–428.
35.
MoradiB.HuangY. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377–398.
36.
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.
37.
NistorN.StanciuI.-D. (2017). “Being sexy” and the labor market: Self-objectification in job search related social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 43–53.
38.
NollS. M.FredricksonB. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 623–636.
QuinnD.KallenR.TwengeJ.FredricksonB. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 59–64.
41.
SpoonerT.MeredithP.RainieL. (2003). Internet use by region in the United States. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org
42.
TijerinaJ. D.MorrisonS. D.NolanI. T.VailD. G.LeeG. K.NazeraliR. (2019). Analysis and interpretation of Google Trends data on public interest in cosmetic body procedures. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 40(1), NP34–NP43.
43.
TijerinaJ. D.MorrisonS. D.NolanI. T.VailD. G.NazeraliR.LeeG. K. (2019). Google Trends as a tool for evaluating public interest in facial cosmetic procedures. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 39, 908–918.
44.
TijerinaJ. D.MorrisonS. D.VailD. G.LeeG. K.NazeraliR. (2019). The utility of Google Trends data for analyzing public interest in breast procedures. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 82(5S), S325–S331.
45.
VaillancourtT.SharmaA. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37(6), 569–577.
46.
Vaughan-TurnbullC.LewisV. (2015). Body image, objectification, and attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 20(4), 179–196.
47.
WalcottB. P.NahedB. V.KahleK. T.RedjalN.CoumansJ. V. (2011). Determination of geographic variance in stroke prevalence using Internet search engine analytics. Neurosurgical Focus, 30(6), E19.
48.
WeirL. K.GrantJ. W. A.HutchingsJ. A. (2011). The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. The American Naturalist, 177(2), 167–176.
49.
ZurbriggenE.RamseyL.JaworskiL. (2011). Self- and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 449–462.
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.
