A new study shows how
women judge other women based on their profile pictures. The results
aren’t surprising, but they are disappointing.
Sorry,
girls: Fellow females hate your sexy profile shot, according to a new
study. Researchers at Oregon State University found that women were more
likely to look down on those who post provocative images online,
branding them as less competent than those who cover up.
Elizabeth
Daniels, assistant professor of psychology, studies the relationship
between the media and girls’ body image. She conducted the project by
creating two identical Facebook profiles for the fictitious Amanda
Johnson, with one crucial difference: Hot Mandy’s picture featured her
in a split-thigh red dress (garter and all), while Responsible Mandy’s
photo saw her wearing jeans and a tee, with a scarf covering her
breasts. Suffice to say, the lady in the red dress did not impress her
female peers. Sensible, cleavage-free Amanda was responded to far more
positively.
“This is a clear indictment of sexy social media photos,”
Daniels said. “There is so much pressure on teen girls and young women
to portray themselves as sexy, but sharing those sexy photos online may
have more negative consequences than positive.”
118
women participated in the study—58 of whom were teenagers aged 13-18,
and 60 of whom were young adults aged 17-25. Candidates were assigned
one of Amanda’s profiles at random and asked a series of questions on
how they perceived her, with physical attractiveness, likeability, and
competence being ranked. Both pages listed the same information, with
Amanda’s interests including Twilight, Lady Gaga, and The Notebook.
The
non-sexy profile scored higher on every count, confirming that people
always judge a book by its cover—especially when that cover’s a little
scandalous. Indeed, the biggest dip in the rankings was the response to
the competency question, where participants were asked how capable
Amanda seemed of being able to perform a task. Her risqué get-up
obviously made it challenging for people to believe that she had any
abilities at all.
There’s
no moral high ground to be claimed here: we’re socialized to think that
anyone whose dress sense doesn’t toe the line must have the
intellectual capacity of a turnip, so it’s not surprising that Hot Mandy
didn’t go down too well with her peers. Sad, sure, but not surprising.
Because
as liberal, laid-back, and totally-chill-man-I’m-cool-whatever we’d
like to think we are, the simple facts remain: Women are subject to
incessant scrutiny over their looks, and we struggle to accept that
there isn’t always a connection between the way a person presents
themselves on the outside, and the reality of what goes on internally.
It’s important to present yourself reasonably to others, but surely it’s
more important to present yourself as you actually are—and if that
means your profile pic has you corset-clad with a whip between your
teeth then get it, girl.
Daniels,
however, advises the opposite, believing that “we need to help youth
understand this is a very public forum,” and that profile photos should
be selected on the basis of how well they represent your “identity” as
opposed to your looks. That sounds reasonable enough, but what if your
identity is that of a smart person who enjoys dressing like a Victorian
prostitute?
Girls
are being made to lean in so hard they’re practically booty popping as
it is, and between all that leaning and whatever else some sleek-bobbed,
high-heeled boardroom lady is telling us to do that week, some
synthetic public persona that bears no resemblance to the real you is
hardly going to prove more effective in the big bad world. Be aware that
future employers may see what you’re posting, yes, but don’t catfish
them into believing that you’re another person entirely.
There’s
no denying that people need to be thoughtful about what they post
online, but trying to cultivate a tribe of sweater-toting automatons is
not the way to create a meaningful discussion about the representation
of gender across social media.