INVESTIGATING THE REASONS WOMEN WEAR CHOKER NECKLACES

by

HEATHER ANN WILLIQUETTE

B.A., University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 2015

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

University of Colorado Colorado Springs

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Psychology

2019

ii

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by

Heather Ann Williquette

has been approved for the

Department of Psychology

by

Laith Al-Shawaf, Chair

Michael A. Kisley

Michelle J. Escasa-Dorne

Date 7-31-2019

iii

Williquette, Heather Ann (M.A., Psychology)

Investigating the Reasons Women Wear Choker Necklaces

Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Laith Al-Shawaf

ABSTRACT

Choker necklaces have been around for centuries, carrying with them different cultural and societal connotations. However, little to no research investigates the reasons why women continue to wear choker necklaces today. Three studies were conducted in an attempt to explain why women may choose to wear choker necklaces. The first study

(N = 204) examined women’s self-reports pertaining to her physical appearance and behaviors, and men’s perceptions of a woman in a photo on various measures. For the photo evaluations, we manipulated three different photos of three different women to create two conditions of a woman either wearing a choker or not wearing a choker. Men were randomly assigned to one of these conditions and were asked to evaluate the photograph. Findings reveal that women who self-reported wearing chokers more frequently had higher sociosexual orientations than women who self-reported wearing chokers less frequently, and men perceived the woman in the Choker condition to have a higher sociosexual orientation than the woman in the Nonchoker condition. In the second

(N = 103) and third studies (N = 99), we assessed other women’s perceptions of the women in the photo conditions. Women perceived the woman in the Choker condition to have a higher sociosexual orientation than the woman in the Nonchoker condition.

Results indicate that choker necklaces may be a cue to women’s sociosexual orientation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Chokers May Indicate Submissiveness ...... 2

Chokers May Cue Sexual Accessibility ...... 3

Chokers May Advertise Femininity ...... 4

Chokers May Accentuate Biological Features ...... 5

The Handicap Principle...... 8

The Present Study ...... 11

II. STUDY 1...... 13

Method ...... 13

Participants ...... 13

Materials ...... 14

Procedure ...... 18

Analyses ...... 20

Female Participants ...... 21

Male Participants ...... 22

Results ...... 24

Female Participants ...... 24

Male Participants ...... 26 v

III. STUDY 2 ...... 29

Method ...... 29

Participants ...... 29

Materials & Procedure ...... 30

Analyses ...... 30

Results ...... 31

IV. STUDY 3 ...... 33

Method ...... 33

Participants ...... 33

Materials & Procedure ...... 34

Analyses ...... 34

Results ...... 35

V. GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 37

Chokers as a Function of Sociosexual Orientation ...... 38

Chokers as a Function of Physical Attractiveness (Not Femininity) ...... 39

Chokers May Not Indicate Submissiveness ...... 41

Chokers May Not Be Evolutionary Handicaps ...... 42

Limitations & Future Directions ...... 43

Conclusion ...... 47

REFERENCES ...... 48

APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ...... 58

APPENDIX B: STUDY 1 MATERIALS ...... 59

APPENDIX C: STUDY 2 MATERIALS ...... 77 vi

APPENDIX D: STUDY 3 MATERIALS...... 88

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Frequency and SOI-R ...... 24

2. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Interest and SOI-R ...... 25

3. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Interest and Physical Attractiveness...... 26

4. Men’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R ...... 27

5. Women’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R (I) ...... 32

6. Women’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R (II) ...... 36

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

From the broad collars of Ancient Egypt (Brovarski, 1997), to the bone necklaces of Native American warriors (Bucci, 2015; Garber, 2016), to the Austrian kropfkettes of the mid- to late-1800s (Graff, 2016), to the colliers de chien or “dog collars” of the 1940s

(Bucci, 2015), to the resurgence of plastic tattoo chokers in America in the 1990s (Graff,

2016; McCarthy, 2016; Schiffer, 2016), the popularity of choker necklaces has fluctuated in and out of different societies for centuries (Garber, 2016; Graff, 2016; Komar, 2017;

Schiffer, 2016). Choker necklaces, more commonly known as “chokers,” are necklaces worn snugly around the neck. Chokers carry with them a number of cultural connotations and purposes, including the physical/spiritual protection of its wearer or an indication of the wearer’s status or royalty (Garber, 2016; Komar, 2017). The admiration for chokers as a fashion trend boomed in the 19th Century with Princess Alexandra of Denmark. It is believed that Alexandra started wearing lavish choker necklaces to hide a small scar on her neck (Bucci, 2015; Graff, 2016; Komar, 2017). English women were nevertheless inspired by her grandiose style and chokers soon became part of the 19th Century vogue in Westernized society.

Indeed, many women donned choker necklaces to conform with the fashion trends of that time period (Garber, 2016; Graff, 2016; Schiffer, 2016) and today, chokers have become a more modern trend in the United States (McCarthy, 2016). The history of 2

chokers reveals an abundance of information on the cultural and societal purposes of chokers. However, little to no information can be found on the possible biological or psychological significance of choker necklaces. Are choker necklaces just an arbitrary fad, or might they have a biological basis? To answer this question, we’ve explored several possible explanations for why women may wear choker necklaces.

Chokers May Indicate Submissiveness

Many internet searches reveal there is a prevalent connotation among laypeople that underlies wearing a “choker” or “choker necklace”. This connotation is that chokers indicate some degree of submissiveness. Top search results from Urban Dictionary,

Google, and other search platforms include terms like collar and submission, many of which stem from both men’s and women’s definitions of chokers. From these terms, it seems that people may perceive choker-wearing to indicate some degree of submissiveness in its wearer (Bhattacharya, 2016).

In traditional opposite-sex relationships, men typically show more sexual arousal from dominance and women typically show more sexual arousal from submission

(Jozifkova, 2018). Could choker-wearing reflect a mating strategy whereby more submissive women attempt to attract dominant men? Previous research has shown that more dominant males often have more sex partners than less dominant males (Ellis, 1995;

Hopcroft, 2006; Mealey, 1985). Being on top of the hierarchy both increased one’s chances of having multiple sex partners and maximized one’s chances of consequently passing on genes (Mealey, 1985).

Chokers being perceived as an indicator of submissiveness could be a product of either misinterpreting mating signals or executing a specific mating strategy. This 3

suggests women who wear chokers are more submissive than women who do not wear

chokers. Our first hypothesis is that chokers might indicate submissiveness. This

hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear choker necklaces are more

submissive than women who do not wear choker necklaces, and that women who wear

choker necklaces are perceived by others to be more submissive than women who do not

wear choker necklaces.

Chokers May Cue Sexual Accessibility

Another common connotation of choker necklaces is that chokers are indicative of

a woman’s sexual accessibility (Stephens, 2016). A search of the words “choker

necklace” into Google or Urban Dictionary will bring up a plethora of memes, satirical

images, and connotations related to chokers, with a large portion of those referring to the

promiscuity of women who wear chokers (Stephens, 2016; Urban Dictionary, n.d.).

Men who are more interested in a high sociosexual orientation, or short-term

mating and casual sex, prefer women who are more experienced in the bedroom (Buss,

2015). This is because past sexual behavior is a good predictor of future sexual behavior,

so women who have had many short-term partners in the past may be likely to engage in

short-term mating again in the future (Buss, 2015; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men who

prioritize sociosexuality over commitment will often look for physical or behavioral cues

in women that signal to them the woman may be receptive to casual sex.

If a man can quickly and efficiently interpret whether a woman is signaling her

sociosexual orientation through use of a visible cue such as a choker necklace, then his expense of effort will not be in vain. This suggests the possibility that chokers might be a cue to women’s sociosexual orientation. Our second hypothesis is that chokers might cue 4

sociosexual orientation. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear

choker necklaces have higher sociosexual orientations than women who do not wear

choker necklaces, and that women who wear choker necklaces are perceived by others to

have higher sociosexual orientations than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Chokers May Advertise Femininity

In general, people tend to assess how physically attractive someone is by first

looking at his or her face (Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2011). Among women, facial

femininity is one of the strongest statistical predictors of physical attractiveness

(Cunningham, 1986; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Koehler,

Simmons, Rhodes, & Peters, 2004; Little et al., 2011; Perrett et al., 1994; Rhodes, Chan,

Zebrowitz, & Simmons, 2003). Estradiol, a type of estrogen correlated with fertility

(Lipson & Ellison, 1996), is a hormone that contributes to specific facial features like a

smaller chin, a smaller jaw, rounder eyes, and higher cheekbones (Farkas, 1987; Little et al., 2014). These facial features contribute to what is known as “facial femininity” (Little et al., 2011). When it comes to mating, men tend to prefer women who have these characteristics because these characteristics are indicative of women’s physical health & reproductive value. Specifically, women who possess these facial features are perceived as more youthful, more fertile, and more disease-resistant than women who do not have these facial features (Buss, 2015; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Wheatley et al., 2014).

Men prefer women who have higher levels of estradiol and consequently perceive women with smaller chins and higher cheekbones to be more feminine (Farkas, 1987).

Thus, if more feminine women are more likely to wear chokers, it is possible that men will perceive women who wear chokers to be more feminine. This suggests that chokers 5

may advertise a woman’s femininity. Our third hypothesis is that choker necklaces might advertise femininity. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear choker necklaces are more feminine than women who do not wear choker necklaces, and that women who wear choker necklaces are perceived by others to be more feminine than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Chokers May Accentuate Biological Features

Previous research shows that evolved standards of attractiveness are indicators of fertility, health, and reproductive success (Buss, 2015; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Perret et al., 1998; Singh, Dixson, Jessop, Morgan, & Dixson, 2010; Thornhill & Gangestad,

2006; Wheatley et al., 2014). One of these evolved standards of attractiveness in women is their Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR). WHR is a measure of a person’s fat distribution and is calculated by taking the circumference of the waist and dividing it by the circumference of the hips (Singh, 1994a, Singh et al. 2010). WHR starts developing for women during puberty and, due to increased levels of estrogen, involves the accumulation of fatty tissue on the hips, thighs, and buttocks (Lassek & Gaulin, 2007;

Singh et al., 2010; Tovée, Maisey, Emery, & Cornellisen, 1999). This overall fat distribution plays an essential part in the perceived attractiveness of women, such that women who have broader hips and smaller waists, or women with a low WHR around

.70, are considered by both men and women to be the most desirable mates (Singh,

1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 2006).

Over time, WHR has become a cue to women’s fertility and health, and this is particularly crucial to men who are looking for a healthy mate to carry and raise their offspring (Singh, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 2006; Singh et al., 2010). A woman with a 6

high WHR is more likely to be obese, which is connected to health problems such as

diabetes and cardiovascular mortality (Huxley, Mendis, Zheleznyakov, Reddy, & Chan,

2010; Vazquez, Duval, Jacobs, & Silventoinen, 2007), is more likely to experience higher rates of various health problems such as heart disease, and may have more difficulty getting pregnant (Buss, 2015). Thus, a high WHR would not be evolutionarily desirable.

A woman with a low WHR, on the other hand, tends to be reproductively successful and fertile and thus is perceived by men to be attractive (Marlowe & Wetsman, 2001; Singh,

1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 2006). Women who are looking for a mate may highlight their physical characteristics, such as WHR, as a mating strategy to attract a mate of the opposite sex; specifically, by drawing more attention to physical features that men find attractive and desirable in a potential mate (Singh & Bronstad, 1997).

There are numerous examples of cultural products worn in a way to accentuate desirable, biological features. For example, women who wear makeup are predominantly perceived to be more attractive (Etcoff, Stock, Haley, Vickery, & House, 2011; Graham

& Jouhar, 1981; Mulhern, Fieldman, Hussey, Leveque, & Pineau, 2003; Osborn, 1996).

Makeup helps to accentuate specific facial features such as youthfulness (Porcheron,

Mauger, & Russell, 2013), the wideness of eyes (Jones, Porcheron, & Russell, 2018;

Morikawa, Matsushita, Tomita, & Yamanami, 2015), and facial contrast between skin tone and the eyes and lips (Russell, 2003, 2009). Skirts and dresses with cinched waists accentuate women’s WHR (Barber, 1995; Singh, 1993). Finally, high heels accentuate women’s lumbar curvature (Lewis, Russell, Al-Shawaf, Ta, Senveli, Ickes, & Buss,

2017). Why do these cultural products draw attention to or highlight these specific

biological features? These aforementioned physical features in women are linked with 7

health and reproductive value. Women who accentuate these physical features may

maximize their potential to attract a mate.

Chokers, like high heels, cinched-waist dresses, and makeup, may be cultural products that draw attention to a specific biological feature of women: the neck. There are certain properties of the neck that may be correlated with fertility and health. One of those properties is youthfulness or absence of wrinkles on the neck. Men tend to prefer younger women over older women for mates (Hill, 1945; Schwarz & Hassebrauck,

2012). This goes back to signaling fertility – a younger woman is more likely to be fertile

and have the ability to nurture her young than an older woman (Buss, 2015). As a woman

ages, she becomes less fertile. A telltale sign of aging is presence of wrinkles; then, a

telltale sign of youthfulness would be absence of wrinkles. This suggests that chokers may draw attention to the presence or absence of wrinkles on women’s necks. Our fourth hypothesis is that choker necklaces accentuate the youthfulness of the wearer’s neck.

Neck width and neck length are also indicators of a woman’s physical health

(Han, Oh, Kim, Yang, Lee, Park, & Lee, 2015; Li, Zhang, Zhao, Xin, Guo, Wang, Zhang,

Wang, Li, Yang, & Yang, 2014), which may affect how attractive she is to potential mates. A larger circumference of the neck is correlated with having more adipose tissue in the neck (Li et al., 2014) and tends to be predictive of obesity (Yang, Yuan, Fu, Wan,

Zhu, Bu, Zhang, Du, Li, Ji, Gu, & Li, 2010). An excess of fatty tissue in the neck could be a sign of disease or physical unfitness (Li et al., 2014). Similarly, Han & colleagues

(2015) found that neck length was significantly associated with cardiovascular disease risk factors in women but not in men (Han et al., 2015). Leanness in a woman’s body, including in the neck, are physical signs that the female is healthy and physically fit. A 8

woman with a long, slender neck may be viewed as more physically attractive than a

woman with a short, wide neck. This suggests the possibility that chokers may draw attention to the length and the slenderness of the neck. Our fifth hypothesis states that choker necklaces may cue the length of the wearer’s neck. Our sixth hypothesis states that choker necklaces may cue the width of the wearer’s neck.

The laryngeal prominence, or Adam’s apple, is a sexually dimorphic trait that is more pronounced in men. When a male reaches puberty, his testosterone production increases significantly, which causes him to develop primary and secondary sex characteristics that include broader shoulders, a deeper voice, penile enlargement, and a larger, more prominent laryngeal prominence (Hau, 2007; Rhodes, 2006). These characteristics are considered more masculine because they are testosterone-dependent, and testosterone levels are typically higher in males than in females (Goymann &

Wingfield, 2014; Harding, 1981). Females who have a larger laryngeal prominence may be perceived as less feminine because a large laryngeal prominence is testosterone dependent. This suggests the possibility that chokers may draw attention to lack of laryngeal prominence. Our seventh hypothesis states that choker necklaces cue the size of the wearer’s laryngeal prominence.

The Handicap Principle

To explain the phenomenon of prey engaging in showy demonstrations of their physical prowess when confronted by predators, “The Handicap Principle” was coined by

Dr. Amotz Zahavi (Zahavi, 1975). When gazelles are approached by a group of hyenas, one would expect them to flee from the imminent danger. However, this is often not the case. Instead, gazelles prance and leap around in behavior known as “stotting”. Similarly, 9

when a Frilled-Neck Lizard spots a Dingo, rather than instantly flee the predator, the lizard expands the frill around its neck and stands on its hind legs as if instigating a challenge. When concerning life-or-death matters, this display becomes an attempt to

communicate with the enemy and is dependent on how convincing it is.

The reason prey put themselves at risk is to convince the predator that it has an

abundance of stamina and strength, that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of

resources for the predator to pursue it, and the predator would be better off chasing a

weaker, slower counterpart (Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2017; Zahavi, 1974). This is more an

act of honesty than of deception, for the animals that can give a more convincing display

are also the ones who actually have the excess strength and stamina to spare (Al-Shawaf

& Lewis, 2017; Samhita, 2010). Essentially, the strongest, most adept individuals can

afford to engage in these risky displays in front of danger – as in, an individual can afford

to waste energy and time communicating with the predator – because it is fitter than the

other individuals of its species (Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2017; Huttegger, Bruner, &

Zollman, 2015; Iwasa, Pomiankowski, & Nee, 1991; Samhita, 2010).

And, not only is this an important signal to a predator, but it can be an important

message for potential mates as well. A mate that can afford to carry this burden, to

engage in these behaviors, and still survive despite it, is a testament to its adaptability and

fitness (Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2017; Engqvist, Cordes, & Reinhold, 2015; Samhita, 2010).

Natural selection favors the fittest individuals both in survival and reproduction. So, a

female wanting to ensure the success of her offspring is looking for a mate that is not just

strong and fast, but stronger and faster than average. The animals that are more capable

of surviving are also more likely to pass on their superior genes (Engqvist, Cordes, & 10

Reinhold, 2015). Perhaps women who possess ideal physical features can afford to

engage in wearing a choker necklace because it maximizes their desirability as mates.

Like the gazelle ‘stotting’ when a predator is near, sexual selection tends to favor men

and women who can communicate their mate value. For example, because chokers may make the neck look shorter and wider, women who have longer, thinner necks may be

more likely to wear them because they can afford to sacrifice length and increase width

without compromising their desirability as mates.

Based on this idea, we have formulated four different hypotheses about the neck

based on the Handicap Principle. Each of these hypotheses yield two predictions. Our

fourth hypothesis is that choker-wearing may be a cue to the degree of wrinkles on the

neck. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear choker necklaces are

younger than women who do not wear choker necklaces, and that women who wear

choker necklaces are perceived by others to be older than women who do not wear

choker necklaces. Our fifth hypothesis is that choker-wearing may be a cue to neck length. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear choker necklaces have longer necks than women who do not wear choker necklaces, and that choker necklaces may make the neck look shorter. Our sixth hypothesis is that choker-wearing

may be a cue to neck width. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who

wear choker necklaces have thinner necks than women who do not wear choker

necklaces, and that choker necklaces may make the neck look wider. And, lastly, our seventh hypothesis is that choker-wearing may be a cue to the size of the laryngeal prominence. This hypothesis leads to the predictions that women who wear choker 11

necklaces have smaller laryngeal prominences than women who do not wear choker

necklaces, and that choker necklaces may make the laryngeal prominence look larger.

The Present Study

One way of determining the practical and cultural significance of choker

necklaces is to examine why women choose to wear them. We took an exploratory

approach and therefore set out to test seven competing hypotheses for why women wear

choker necklaces. We did not have strong reason to favor one hypothesis over the other;

we simply wanted to test all hypotheses to discover which one was best supported by the

evidence. Each hypothesis yields two specific predictions.

H1: Choker necklaces may indicate submissiveness.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces are more submissive than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to be more submissive than women who are not wearing choker necklaces.

H2: Choker necklaces may cue sociosexual orientation.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces have a higher sociosexual orientation than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to have a higher sociosexual orientation than women who are not wearing choker necklaces.

H3: Choker necklaces may advertise femininity.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces are more feminine than women who do not wear choker necklaces. 12

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to be more feminine than women who are not wearing choker necklaces.

H4: Choker-wearing may be a cue to the youthfulness of the neck.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces are younger than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to be older than women who are not wearing choker necklaces.

H5: Choker-wearing may be a cue to neck length.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces have longer necks than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to have shorter necks than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

H6: Choker-wearing may be a cue to neck width.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces have thinner necks than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to have wider necks than women who are not wearing choker necklaces.

H7: Choker-wearing may be a cue to the size of the laryngeal prominence.

Prediction 1: Women who wear choker necklaces have smaller laryngeal prominences than women who do not wear choker necklaces.

Prediction 2: Women wearing choker necklaces are perceived by others to have larger laryngeal prominences than women who are not wearing choker necklace

CHAPTER II

STUDY 1

Study 1 was composed of two independent samples. We examined male participant’s perceptions of a woman in a photograph who was either wearing a choker or

was not wearing a choker. Male participants were asked to estimate the frequency with

which she wore a choker, her femininity, her physical attractiveness, her submissiveness,

her sociosexual orientation, and various body measurements such as her neck length, her

neck width, and the size of her Adam’s apple. We also examined female participants’

self-reports of how often they wear chokers, how interested they are in wearing chokers,

their femininity, their physical attractiveness, their submissiveness, and their sociosexual

orientation. Additionally, we measured female participants’ neck lengths, neck widths,

laryngeal prominences, and Waist-to-Hip Ratios.

Method

Participants

We recruited a sample of 251 participants (Men: N = 144, Mage = 21.98, SD =

4.58; Women: N = 107, Mage = 22.22, SD = 5.29) online through SONA at a Western

four-year university. To be eligible for this study, participants were required to be 18

years of age or older, be fluent in English, and identify as either heterosexual or bisexual

for their sexual orientation. 14

We excluded forty-two male participants from the original sample for having answers that revealed a consistent repetitive pattern (18), indicating “homosexual” as their sexual orientation (8), skipping at least one required section of the demographics

(5), having an incomplete or unfinished survey (4), indicating “female” for their biological sex (3), indicating unrealistic measurements of women’s bodies (2), and indicating a different sexual orientation besides heterosexual (2). We excluded five female participants from the original sample for an unrealistic WHR measurement (3), an unrealistic neck measurement (1), and incorrect measurement units used (1). The final sample size included 102 males and 102 females.

Materials

We created two distinct questionnaires for males and females, respectively. Both questionnaires contained the same statements with different wording. We asked females to read the statements and indicate how much they agreed with each statement regarding their own beliefs and behaviors. For example, a statement that female participants saw would say, “I try to surpass others’ accomplishments.” We asked males to read the statements and indicate how much they agreed with each statement regarding the beliefs and behaviors of the woman in the photo they saw. For example, a statement that male participants saw would say, “She tries to surpass others’ accomplishments.” Both questionnaires included filler items that we did not pursue in our analysis. For example, participants reported extraversion and neuroticism. Our main objective was to measure

WHR, submissiveness, sociosexual orientation, femininity, the frequency in which participants wear choker necklaces, and various neck measurements that included neck length, neck width, the laryngeal prominence. 15

Submissiveness. We measured submissiveness using items from the Dominance

scale (α = .82) (IPIP-Dominance) and the Submissiveness scale (α = .85) (IPIP-

Submissiveness) from the online International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006; Gough, 1956; Simms, Goldberg, Roberts, Watson, Welts, & Rotterman, 2011).

No items from scales were removed. Participants provided their responses on a seven- point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Items in the

Dominance scale included: “I am quick to correct others,” “I lay down the law to others,” and “I want to control the conversation.” Items in the Submissiveness scale included: “I am easily controlled by others in my life,” “I let others take advantage of me,” and “I let myself be pushed around.” Items in the Dominance scale were reverse scored to stay consistent with the direction of the Submissiveness scale. There was a total of 17 items assessing submissiveness. We calculated a composite submissiveness score by averaging the scores from all items. For female participants, a higher composite score on this

measure indicated that the participant was more submissive. For male participants, a

higher composite score on this measure indicated that the participant found the woman in the photo to be more submissive.

Sociosexual Orientation. We implemented questions from the Sexual Behavior

subscale (α = .85), the Sexual Attitudes subscale (α = .87), the Sexual Desire subscale (α

= .86), and the Global Sociosexual Orientation scale (α = .83) in the revised Sociosexual

Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The Global Sociosexual

Orientation scale was the aggregated score of items from all subscales. No items from subscales were removed. Participants provided their responses on various nine-point

Likert scales. 16

Items in the Sexual Behavior subscale included the following questions: “With

how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?”, “With how

many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion?”, and “With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?” Higher ratings corresponded with a higher number of casual sex partners.

Items in the Sexual Attitudes subscale included the following statements: “Sex without love is OK”, “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners”, and “I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that

we will have a long-term, serious relationship.” The last item was reverse scored. Higher ratings corresponded with stronger agreement.

Items in the Sexual Desire subscale included the following questions: “How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed relationship with?”, “How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?”, and “In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met?” Higher ratings corresponded with a higher frequency in which participants fantasized.

Finally, we formulated a total score (i.e. global sociosexual orientation) for all

measures of sociosexual orientation and included adding the scores of the sexual

behavior, sexual attitudes, sexual desire scales together to find a total sum score. For

female participants, a higher score on this measure indicated that the participant had a

higher sociosexual orientation. For male participants, a higher score on this measure 17

indicated that the participant found the woman in the photo to possess a higher

sociosexual orientation.

Femininity. We used three different measures to access femininity. First, researchers developed two single-item, seven-point Likert scales for the purpose of this

study. For the first measure, items ranged from Not at All Feminine to Extremely

Feminine and asked participants to indicate how feminine they think they looked. For the

second measure, we assessed self-reported physical attractiveness because femininity and

physical attractiveness in women are highly correlated (Cunningham, 1986; Penton-

Voak, Jacobson, & Trivers, 2004; Perrett, Lee, Rowland, Yoshikawa, Burt, & Akamatsu,

1998; Rhodes, Hickford, & Jeffery, 2000). Items ranged from Extremely Unattractive to

Extremely Attractive and asked participants to indicate how physically attractive they

thought they were.

Second, we calculated participants’ Waist-to-Hip Ratios (WHR). Research

assistants measured participants’ waists and hips using a standard flexible tape measure.

We measured participants’ waists as the smallest circumference around their waist. We

measured participants’ hips at the widest part of their hips. Then, to calculate WHR,

research assistants used a calculator to divide the waist measurement by the hip

measurement. All numbers taken from these measurements were inputted into the

computer survey by the research assistant.

Finally, for the third measure, we adapted questions from the Femininity scale (α

= .65) (IPIP-Femininity) from IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006). One item in this measure had

outdated verbiage and thus was removed by researchers to improve the internal reliability

and validity of the measure. Participants provided their responses on a seven-point Likert 18 scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Items included: “I love children” “I radiate joy,” and “I try to stay in touch with myself.” Negatively phrased items were reverse scored. There was a total of seven items that assessed femininity. We calculated a composite femininity score by averaging the scores from all items. For female participants, a higher composite score on this measure indicated that the participant was more feminine. For male participants, a higher composite score on this measure indicated that the participant found the woman in the photo to be more feminine.

Frequency of wearing choker necklaces. Researchers developed this scale for the purpose of this study. Frequency of wearing choker necklaces was assessed using a single-item, seven-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from Never to Always. Higher numbers corresponded with a higher frequency in which one wears choker necklaces.

Interest in wearing choker necklaces. Researchers developed this scale for the purpose of this study. This scale was only used in the female survey. Interest in wearing choker necklaces was assessed using a single-item, seven-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from Extremely Uninterested to Extremely Interested. Higher numbers corresponded with a higher interest in wearing choker necklaces.

Procedure

The institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study. We recruited participants through SONA and created two distinct questionnaires for males and females in Qualtrics. The male participants were able to take their questionnaire online without coming into the research lab. The female participants also took the questionnaire online but had to come into the research lab in order to do so. 19

Female participants. We required that female participants sign up for an in-lab timeslot on SONA in order to participate in this study. When female participants came into the lab, they first read through and signed a hard copy of an informed consent before beginning the study. Next, undergraduate female research assistants, who were all blind to the study’s hypotheses, took participants’ body measurements with a tape measurer.

These body measurements included neck length, neck width, waist and hip measurements

(used to compute Waist-to-Hip Ratio). To measure the laryngeal prominence, female research assistants used a digital caliper. All research assistants went through a training exercise prior to running participants to ensure the measurements being taken would be accurate, and the methods in which they took measurements would be uniform across research assistants.

After measurements were taken, research assistants instructed participants to click the ‘next’ button to begin the survey. At this point, the research assistant left the room.

The female participants went through several questions that reflected the study’s eligibility criteria. If participants did not meet all the criteria, they were automatically redirected to the end of the survey. Female participants who met the eligibility criteria continued to the next part of the study. Participants then rated themselves on various

Likert-type scales assessing their physical attractiveness, submissiveness, femininity

(single-item and composite measure), the frequency with which they wear choker necklaces, and their sexual habits and behaviors. Female participants who completed the full survey received 2 SONA points.

Male participants. The survey for male participants was linked through the study posted on SONA. Male participants saw an informed consent form before beginning the 20

study. After clicking the ‘next’ button, male participants went through several questions that reflected the study’s eligibility criteria. If participants did not meet all the criteria, they were automatically redirected to the end of the survey. Participants who met all the criteria continued to the next part of the study.

Male participants were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the

Choker condition, participants saw a photograph of one of three women wearing a distinguishable choker necklace. In the Non-Choker condition, participants saw a photograph of one of three women – the same women in the Choker condition – but the choker necklaces were photoshopped out to make it appear that the women were not wearing a choker necklace. Both conditions included three photographs of a woman’s neck and upper torso, resulting in six total photos. Participants would see one of these photos, then were asked to rate their perceptions of her physical attractiveness, submissiveness, femininity (single-item and composite measure), and sexual habits and behaviors on various Likert-type scales. They also were instructed to estimate the length and width of her neck, the size of her laryngeal prominence, her age, and the frequency with which she wore choker necklaces. Male participants who completed the full survey received 1 SONA point.

Analyses

We ran various analyses to test the variables of WHR, submissiveness, sociosexual orientation, single-item femininity, femininity composite score, the frequency in which participants wear choker necklaces, neck length, neck width, and the size of the laryngeal prominence. The following paragraphs describe the analysis process for female and male participants. 21

Female Participants

Prior to performing multiple regression analyses, we ran tests of multicollinearity and skewness to assure that the variance in our predictor variables would not be explained by other predictors. For female participants in Study 1, the Tolerance for the variables ranged from .81 to 1.00, which exceeds the recommended Tolerance value

(Montgomery, 2001). This indicates there are no multicollinearity issues with our data.

The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for our variables did not exceed 2.50, which also suggests no issues of multicollinearity. The skewness levels of our data ranged from

-0.95 to 2.62, suggesting that our data was approximately normal. The descriptive statistics for the quantitative variables for females in Study 1 are as follows: Choker

frequency (M = 2.03, SD = 1.13), Choker interest (M = 3.42, SD = 2.14), Age (M = 22.22,

SD = 5.29), Neck length (M = 3.97, SD = .76), Neck width (M = 13.64, SD = 1.43),

Laryngeal prominence (M = 1.15, SD = .36), Waist-Hip Ratio (M = .81, SD = .13),

Physical attractiveness (M = 4.82, SD = 1.06), Single-item femininity (M = 5.32, SD =

1.21), Femininity composite score (M = 4.01, SD = .43), Submissiveness (M = 2.75, SD =

.50) and Sociosexual orientation (M = 29.84, SD = 9.67). From the multiple regression,

R2 and the beta weights are measures of effect sizes, so we used these to determine the effect size of each finding (Cohen, 1988).

We believed it was unlikely that participants would make full use of a 7-point scale for choker frequency and thus saw a 5-point scale as more feasible. Because

participants were in the process of being collected at the time we submitted a Request for

Change form to the IRB, we did not implement this change until after all female

participants from Study 1 were collected. Because we wanted consistency between all 22

studies, we converted the 7-point choker frequency Likert scale to a 5-point Likert scale using a mathematical linear regression transformation formula (Colman, Norris, &

Preston, 1997; IBM, n.d.). Next, we performed a bivariate correlation analysis on the original 7-point scale and its respective transformed 5-point scale and found a perfect correlation between them (r = 1.00). Thus, we decided to use the transformed 5-point scale in our results analyses.

Male Participants

For male participants in Study 1, the Tolerance for the variables ranged from .89 to .99, which exceeds the recommended Tolerance value (Montgomery, 2001). This indicates there are no multicollinearity issues with our data. The Variance Inflation

Factor (VIF) for our variables did not exceed 2.50, which also suggests no issues of multicollinearity. The skewness levels of our data ranged from -1.23 to 1.00, suggesting that our data was approximately normal. The descriptive statistics for the quantitative variables for males in Study 1 are as follows: Perceived choker frequency (M = 2.74, SD

= .98), Perceived age (M = 23.68, SD = 3.50), Perceived neck length (M = 4.75, SD =

1.42), Perceived neck width (M = 4.55, SD = 1.08), Perceived laryngeal prominence (M =

.64, SD = .66), Perceived physical attractiveness (M = 5.28, SD = 1.05), Perceived single- item femininity (M = 5.32, SD = 1.05), Perceived femininity composite score (M = 3.35,

SD = .46), Perceived submissiveness (M = 2.76, SD = .42), and Perceived sociosexual orientation (M = 38.94, SD = 10.68). From the multiple regression, R2 and the beta weights are measures of effect sizes, so we used these to determine the effect size of each finding (Cohen, 1988). From the MANOVA, eta-squared is a measure of effect size, so we used this to determine the effect size for our MANOVA analysis. 23

Prior to performing a MANOVA analysis, we ran various tests to make sure we

did not violate any statistical assumptions of MANOVA. First, we checked the

distribution of our data and found it to have a relatively normal distribution for all

variables. Next, we tested for the presence of multivariate outliers. To do this, we

calculated the Mahalanobis Distance for nine variables. Our Mahalanobis Distances

ranged from 3.16 to 27.45 and did not exceed the recommended critical value

(Mahalanobis, 1936), which tells us there are no multivariate outliers present. Next, we

used a correlation matrix to test the assumption of no multicollinearity. No correlations

were above .90, suggesting this assumption was satisfied. Because the statistical

assumptions were met, we proceeded to perform the MANOVA analyses.

We believed it was unlikely that participants would make full use of a 7-point

scale for perceived choker frequency and thus saw a 5-point scale as more feasible.

Because participants were in the process of being collected at the time we submitted a

Request for Change form to the IRB, we did not implement this change until after all

male participants from Study 1 were collected. Because we wanted consistency between

all studies, we converted the 7-point choker frequency Likert scale to a 5-point Likert scale using a mathematical linear regression transformation formula (Colman, Norris, &

Preston, 1997; IBM, n.d.). Next, we performed a bivariate correlation analysis on the original 7-point scale and its respective transformed 5-point scale and found a perfect correlation between them (r = 1.00). Thus, we decided to use the transformed 5-point scale in our results analyses.

24

Results

Female Participants

We conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to examine the impact of ten unique predictors (i.e. neck length, neck width, laryngeal prominence, WHR, age, submissiveness composite, sociosexual orientation, physical attractiveness, femininity composite score, single-item femininity) on female participants’ reported frequency of wearing choker necklaces (i.e. choker frequency) from Study 1 (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Frequency and SOI-R

The overall model was significant and explained 9% of the variance in the

outcome, R² = .09, F(1, 93) = 9.15, p < .01. Specifically, the frequency with which

female participants wore choker necklaces was uniquely predicted by their sociosexual

orientation, b = .05, β = .31, p < .01. Higher reported physical attractiveness (β = .19, p =

.081) and a smaller neck width (β = -.18, p = .076) did predict higher frequency in 25

wearing choker necklaces but only reached marginal significance. This finding had a

small-medium effect size, R2 = .09 (Cohen, 1988).

We conducted a second stepwise multiple regression analysis to examine the impact of ten unique predictors (i.e. neck length, neck width, laryngeal prominence,

WHR, age, submissiveness composite, sociosexual orientation, physical attractiveness, femininity composite score, single-item femininity) on female participants’ reported interest in wearing choker necklaces (i.e. choker interest) from Study 1 (See Figures 2, 3).

The overall model was significant and explained 14% of the variance in the outcome, R²

= .14, F(2, 93) = 7.57, p < .01. Specifically, female participants’ interest in wearing choker necklaces was uniquely predicted by their sociosexual orientation (b = .07, β =

.33, p < .01) and their physical attractiveness (b = .41, β = .21, p < .05).

Figure 2. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Interest and SOI-R 26

Figure 3. Women’s Self-Reports of Choker Interest and Physical Attractiveness

Male Participants

We conducted a stepwise multiple regression to examine the impact of nine unique predictors (perceived neck length, perceived neck width, perceived laryngeal prominence size, perceived age, perceived physical attractiveness, perceived single-item femininity, perceived femininity composite, perceived submissiveness, and perceived sociosexual orientation) on male participants’ perceptions of the frequency in which the woman in the photo wore choker necklaces (i.e. choker frequency) from Study 1 (See

Figure 4). The overall model explained 6% of the variance in males’ perceptions of choker frequency, R2 = .06, F(1, 76) = 5.34, p < .05. Specifically, males’ perceptions of the frequency with which the woman in the photograph wore choker necklaces was significantly and uniquely predicted by their perceptions of the woman’s sociosexual orientation, b = .04, β = .26, p < .05. This finding had a small effect size, R2 = .06 27

Figure 4. Men’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R

(Cohen, 1988). Male’s perceptions of choker frequency was also marginally predicted by

their perceptions of the woman’s neck length (b = -.21, p = .068) and submissiveness (b =

.21, p = .066). All other findings were nonsignificant.

Finally, we conducted Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to

determine the relationship between the Photo Condition male participants received and

the nine dependent variables of perceived neck length, perceived neck width, perceived

laryngeal prominence size, perceived age, perceived physical attractiveness, perceived

single-item femininity, perceived femininity composite, perceived submissiveness, and

perceived sociosexual orientation. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was nonsignificant for all independent variables, indicating the assumption was satisfied and variances between groups are equal, p > .05. We assessed the homogeneity of covariance matrices using Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices. Results indicated the 28 assumption was satisfied and covariance matrices were equal across groups, Box’s M =

63.94, F(45, 18975) = 1.24, p > .05. The multivariate result was not significant for Photo

Condition, Pillai's Trace = 0.16, F(9, 68) = 1.45, ηp² = .16, p > .05, although the effect size was large (Cohen, 1988). All other effects were not significant.

CHAPTER III

STUDY 2

In Study 2 we examined female participants’ perceptions of a woman in a photograph who was either wearing a choker or was not wearing a choker. Female

participants were asked to estimate the frequency in which she wore a choker necklace and her perceived sociosexual orientation. In this study we forgot to include certain variables (e.g. neck length, neck width).

Method

Participants

We recruited a sample of 115 female participants (Mage = 20.49, SD = 3.73) online

through SONA. Various selection criteria were implemented for female participants. To

be eligible for this study, female participants were required to be 18 years of age or older,

be fluent in English, indicate “female” as their biological sex, and identify as either

heterosexual or bisexual for their sexual orientation. We excluded twelve female

participants for: quitting mid-survey before finishing the study (4), listing their sexual

orientation as homosexual or “other” (4), having completed a previous Mating &

Physical Attractiveness study (3), and having a duplicate survey (1). The final sample

size included 103 females.

30

Materials & Procedure

The institution’s IRB approved this study. Participants were recruited through

SONA. We created the questionnaire for female participants in Qualtrics. Female

participants were instructed to take the questionnaire online. The questionnaire female

participants saw was formatted the same way as the questionnaire that male participants

saw. Female participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the Choker

condition, participants saw a photograph of one of three women wearing a

distinguishable choker necklace. In the Non-Choker condition, participants saw a

photograph of one of three women – the same women in the Choker condition – but the

choker necklaces were photoshopped out to make it appear that the women were not

wearing a choker necklace. Both conditions included three photographs of a woman’s

upper torso, resulting in six total photos. Participants would see one of these photos, then

were asked to rate their perceptions of her physical attractiveness, femininity, frequency

in which she wore choker necklaces, and sexual habits and behaviors on various Likert-

type scales. Female participants who completed the full survey received 1 SONA point.

Frequency of wearing choker necklaces. Frequency of wearing choker necklaces

in Study 2 was assessed using a single-item, five-point Likert scale. The scale ranged

from Never to Always. Higher numbers correspond with a higher perceived frequency of

the woman in the photo wearing choker necklaces.

Analyses

Prior to performing multiple regression analyses, we ran tests of multicollinearity

and skewness to assure that the variance in our predictor variable would not be explained

by other predictors. For female participants in Study 2, the Tolerance for the variables 31

ranged from .98 to .99, which exceeds the recommended Tolerance value (Montgomery,

2001). This indicates there are no multicollinearity issues with our data. The Variance

Inflation Factor (VIF) for our variables did not exceed 2.50, which also suggests no

issues of multicollinearity. The skewness levels of our data ranged from -0.97 to 0.23, suggesting that the data was normally distributed. The descriptive statistics for the quantitative variables for females in Study 2 are as follows: Perceived choker frequency

(M = 2.85, SD = .93), Perceived physical attractiveness (M = 4.93, SD = 1.20), Perceived single-item femininity (M = 5.50, SD = 1.15), and Perceived sociosexual orientation (M =

37.94, SD = 9.02). From the multiple regression, R2 and the beta weights are measures of effect sizes, so we used these to determine the effect size of each finding (Cohen, 1988).

Results

We conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to examine the impact of three unique predictors (perceived physical attractiveness, perceived single-item femininity, and perceived sociosexual orientation) on female participants’ perceptions of the frequency in which the woman in the photo wore choker necklaces (i.e. perceived choker frequency) from Study 3 (See Figure 5). The overall model explained 6% of the variance in females’ perceived choker frequency, R2 = .06, F(1, 100) = 6.50, p < .05. As in Study 1, females’ perceptions of the frequency with which the woman in the photograph wore choker necklaces was significantly and uniquely predicted by their perceptions of the woman’s sociosexual orientation, b = .03, β = .25, p < .05. This finding had a small effect size, R2 = .06 (Cohen, 1988).

32

Figure 5. Women’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R (I)

CHAPTER IV

STUDY 3

Due to the absence of certain critical variables in Study 2, we conducted the same study again to include those missing variables. In Study 3 we specifically examined female participants’ perceptions of a woman in a photograph who was either wearing a choker or was not wearing a choker, and participants were asked to estimate the frequency with which she wore a choker, her femininity, her physical attractiveness, her submissiveness, her sociosexual orientation, and various body measurements such as her neck length, her neck width, and the size of her Adam’s apple.

Method

Participants

We recruited a sample of 117 female participants (Mage = 20.94, SD = 4.79) online through SONA. The same selection criteria as previous studies were implemented for female participants. To be eligible for this study, female participants were required to be

18 years of age or older, be fluent in English, indicate “female” as their biological sex, and identify as either heterosexual or bisexual for their sexual orientation. We excluded eighteen participants for: having completed a previous Mating & Physical Attractiveness study (8), quitting mid-survey before finishing the study (3), having a duplicate survey

(3), listing their sexual orientation as homosexual (2), and having identified their biological sex as male (2). The final sample size included 99 females. 34

Materials & Procedure

The institution’s IRB approved this study. Participants were recruited through

SONA. We created the new questionnaire for female participants in Qualtrics and it was

almost identical to the survey that male participants received in Study 1. Female

participants were instructed to take the questionnaire online. Female participants were

then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the Choker condition, participants

saw a photograph of one of three women wearing a distinguishable choker necklace. In

the Non-Choker condition, participants saw a photograph of one of three women – the

same women in the Choker condition – but the choker necklaces were photoshopped out

to make it appear that the women were not wearing a choker necklace. Both conditions

included three photographs of a woman’s neck and upper torso, resulting in six total

photos. Participants would see one of these photos, then were asked to rate their

perceptions of her physical attractiveness, submissiveness, femininity (single-item and

composite measure), and sexual habits and behaviors on various Likert-type scales. They

also were instructed to estimate the length and width of her neck, the size of her laryngeal

prominence, and her age.

Frequency of wearing choker necklaces. Frequency of wearing choker necklaces

in Study 3 was ultimately assessed using a single-item, five-point Likert scale. The scale

ranged from Never to Always. Higher numbers correspond with a higher perceived

frequency of the woman in the photo wearing choker necklaces.

Analyses

Prior to performing multiple regression analyses, we ran tests of multicollinearity

and skewness to ensure that the variance in our predictor variables would not be 35

explained by other predictors. For female participants in Study 3, the Tolerance for the

variables ranged from .94 to 1.06, which exceeds the recommended Tolerance value

(Montgomery, 2001). This indicates there are no multicollinearity issues with our data.

The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for our variables did not exceed 2.50, which also

suggests no issues of multicollinearity. The skewness levels of our data ranged from

-0.66 to 7.83, suggesting that some of our data was skewed positively. The descriptive

statistics for the quantitative variables for females in Study 3 are as follows: Perceived

choker frequency (M = 2.93, SD = .96), Perceived age (M = 23.80, SD = 11.57),

Perceived neck length (M = 4.98, SD = 1.27), Perceived neck width (M = 4.90, SD =

1.52), Perceived laryngeal prominence (M = .84, SD = .78), Perceived physical

attractiveness (M = 5.23, SD = 1.30), Perceived single-item femininity (M = 5.85, SD =

1.05), Perceived femininity composite score (M = 3.35, SD = .47), Perceived

submissiveness (M = 2.82, SD = .46) and Perceived sociosexual orientation (M = 39.70,

SD = 10.88). From the multiple regression, R2 and the beta weights are measures of effect sizes, so we used these to determine the effect size of each finding (Cohen, 1988).

Results

We conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to examine the impact of nine unique predictors (perceived neck length, perceived neck width, perceived laryngeal prominence size, perceived age, perceived physical attractiveness, perceived single-item

femininity, perceived femininity composite, perceived submissiveness, and perceived

sociosexual orientation) on female participants’ perceptions of the frequency with which 36 the woman in the photo wore choker necklaces (i.e. perceived choker frequency) from

Study 3 (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. Women’s Perceptions of Choker Frequency and SOI-R (II)

The overall model explained 6% of the variance in females’ perceived choker frequency, R2 = .06, F(1, 80) = 4.69, p < .05. As in Study 1 and Study 2, females’ perceptions of the frequency with which the woman in the photograph wore choker necklaces was significantly and uniquely predicted by their perceptions of the woman’s sociosexual orientation, b = .18, β = .24, p < .05. This finding had a small effect size, R2

= .06 (Cohen, 1988).

CHAPTER V

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The main objective of these studies was to determine why women may choose to

wear choker necklaces. Previous research has shown that throughout history, chokers

have held both cultural and practical significance (Bucci, 2015; Garber, 2016; Graff,

2016; Komar, 2017; McCarthy, 2016; Schiffer, 2016), although no studies have

examined the reason behind why women wear chokers or how chokers may alter men’s and other women’s perceptions of them. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study on choker-wearing.

We assessed four independent samples consisting of three groups of females (N =

304) and one group of males (N = 102) in the current analyses. There were four main

findings derived from our results. First, females who self-reported higher frequencies in

wearing chokers had, on average, significantly higher sociosexual orientations,

marginally-smaller neck widths, and perceived themselves to be marginally more physically attractive, than females who self-reported lower frequencies in wearing

chokers. Second, females who self-reported higher interest in wearing chokers had, on

average, significantly higher sociosexual orientations, and perceived themselves to be

significantly more physically attractive, than females who self-reported lower interest in

wearing chokers. Third, males who perceived the woman in the photo to wear chokers at

a higher frequency also perceived her to have a significantly higher sociosexual 38

orientation than the males who perceived the woman in the photo to wear chokers at a

lower frequency. Fourth, and finally, other females who perceived the woman in the photo to wear chokers at a higher frequency also perceived her to have a significantly higher sociosexual orientation than the females who perceived the woman in the photo to wear chokers at a lower frequency. All findings are consistent with the hypothesis that chokers may be a cue to sociosexual orientation and physical attractiveness. Our main findings and additional results will be further discussed within the context of previous research, along with limitations and potential future directions.

Chokers as a Function of Sociosexual Orientation

Findings from all three studies reveal that females who wear chokers more frequently tend to have higher sociosexual orientations than their non-choker-wearing counterparts, and both males and other females seem to accurately pick up on this. These findings are consistent with the predictions that a) women who wear choker necklaces have higher sociosexual orientations than women who do not wear choker necklaces, and b) women who wear choker necklaces are perceived by others to have higher sociosexual orientations than women who do not wear choker necklaces. Because this finding came out significant in all studies, it is unlikely this is due to chance.

Previous research highlights the importance of men being able to determine sexual accessibility in women as either short-term mates or long-term mates (Buss, 2015;

Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men have the ability to pick up on women’s mating orientation status, and this information will aid men in deciding whether they want to pursue a potential mate (DeLecce et al., 2019). Sexual experience in women is perceived to be indicative of their sexual accessibility, so a woman who is perceived to be more sexually 39 experienced will likewise be perceived as more sexually accessible (Buss, 2015; Buss &

Schmitt, 1993). Men who incorrectly interpret a potential mate’s sexual accessibility will engage in an unnecessary expenditure of resources and time by pursuing a mate that is not sexually accessible. Therefore, if a man can accurately and quickly pick up on a woman’s sexual accessibility prior to pursuing her, he is more likely to be sexually successful (Buss, 2015). Similarly, if a woman looking for a short-term mate is cognizant that a potential mate is picking up on cues to access her sexual accessibility, she would be more likely to send accurate cues to ensure the message is relayed. Other women would be able to pick up on these cues as well, as it may be relevant to their competition. Our main findings suggest that chokers may be a cue to women’s short-term mating strategy

(i.e. sociosexual orientation). Using chokers as a cue for sexual accessibility would allow women to effectively attract a short-term partner, and it would simultaneously cue men in to correctly and swiftly assessing women’s short-term or long-term mate value without having to expend additional resources and time trying to pursue one.

Chokers as a Function of Physical Attractiveness (Not Femininity)

Because physical attractiveness and femininity are highly correlated

(Cunningham, 1986; Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Koehler,

Simmons, Rhodes, & Peters, 2004; Little et al., 2011; Perrett et al., 1994; Rhodes, Chan,

Zebrowitz, & Simmons, 2003), we decided to use physical attractiveness as one way to assess femininity. Men who are short-term oriented rely on physical cues that indicate a woman’s fertility because they want to maximize their chances of reproductive success with her (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss, 2015), and, due to the benefits they would get for being a desirable mate, attractive women may be more receptive to engaging in numerous 40

sexual encounters (Perilloux et al., 2012). Indeed, facial femininity in women has been

previously linked with health, fertility, reproductive success, and overall ability to attract

a mate (Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005; Perret et al., 1998; Senior, 2003; Thornhill &

Gangestad, 2006; Thornhill & Grammer, 1999; Wheatley et al., 2014). Similarly, a small

WHR is also considered to be more feminine and more attractive than a large WHR

(Fisher et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2014; Penton-Voak et al., 2003), and is indicative of a

woman’s fertility (Fan, Dai, Qian, Chau, & Liu, 2007; Jasienska et al., 2004; Singh,

1993, 1994a, 1994b, 2006). Thus, men tend to prefer women with higher facial

femininity (Little et al., 2014) and smaller WHRs (Fisher et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2014;

Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Singh 2006).

One of our hypotheses was that chokers would advertise women’s femininity.

This hypothesis yielded the predictions that a) women who wore choker necklaces would

rate themselves as more feminine than women who did not wear choker necklaces, and b)

women who wore choker necklaces would be perceived by others to be more feminine

than women who did not wear choker necklaces. We found that women who reported higher choker interest, as well as higher choker frequency, were more likely to report higher self-rated physical attractiveness than women who reported lower choker interest and lower choker frequency. Interestingly, this finding was only significant for women’s self-reports and was not found to be significant for either the single-item femininity measure or the femininity composite measure. One explanation for this finding is that we sometimes perceive ourselves as more attractive than we are perceived by others (Epley

& Whitchurch, 2008) and this bias could have added an inflated, rose-tinted glasses effect to participants’ perceptions of their own attractiveness. 41

Additionally, the male and female participants who had to rate the femininity of the woman in the photograph only saw her upper torso and neck; they did not see her face

and would not be able to adequately assess her facial femininity. The face and body

contribute separately to attractiveness (Currie & Little, 2009; Peters, Rhodes, &

Simmons, 2007) and some studies suggest the face is a better predictor of physical

attractiveness than the body is (Confer, Perilloux, & Buss, 2010; Furnham & Reeves,

2006; Peters, Rhodes, & Simmons, 2007). This discrepancy in evaluating femininity

could have led to our nonsignificant findings with male participants from Study 1 and

female participants from Study 3.

Chokers May Not Indicate Submissiveness

A common layperson’s hypothesis of women who wear chokers involves the idea

that they are more submissive than their non-wearing counterparts (Urban Dictionary,

n.d.). This perception seems to be common among men specifically (Bhattacharya, 2016;

Taragi, 2016). We hypothesized that men would perceive women who wore chokers

more frequently to be more submissive than women who wore chokers less frequently;

and, if men’s perceptions of women who wore chokers was true, then women who wore

chokers more frequently would report being more submissive than women who wore

chokers less frequently. When we tested our hypotheses, we found instead that men who

perceived women to wear chokers at a higher frequency only marginally perceived them

to be more submissive than the women they perceived wore chokers at a lower

frequency. This effect was not significant and not replicated in either samples of women,

which suggests that the common perception is incorrect. 42

Chokers May Not Be Evolutionary Handicaps

Chokers may highlight desirability or mate value by means of the Handicap

Principle. The Handicap Principle is an honest communication system that lets both

predators and potential mates know which specimens are the strongest and which are not

(Zahavi, 1975). The strongest specimens can afford to engage in showy, risky displays

because they have an abundance of resources at their disposal and consequently will not

be encumbered by the risks that the handicap brings (Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2017; Samhita,

2010; Zahavi, 1975). Similarly, we believed it was possible that chokers were

communicating the wearer’s mate desirability because the women who wore them could afford to bear the handicaps that came with wearing a choker (such as making the neck look wider, shorter, etc.).

These four handicap hypotheses led to the predictions that women who self- reported wearing chokers more frequently would have youthful-looking necks, longer necks, thinner necks, and smaller Adam’s apples than women who self-reported wearing

chokers less frequently. Our results revealed that women who self-reported wearing

choker necklaces more frequently had slightly more slender necks than women who self-

reported wearing choker necklaces less frequently. However, we did not find any

significant relationship between choker frequency and women’s neck length, women’s

age, or women’s Adam’s apple size. Additionally, these hypotheses also predicted that

male and female participants who viewed a woman wearing a choker necklace would

perceive her neck to be wider, shorter, have more wrinkles (i.e. look less youthful), and

have a larger Adam’s apple than those who viewed a woman not wearing a choker 43

necklace. Findings revealed that men who perceived women to wear chokers at a higher frequency marginally perceived their necks to be shorter.

Our current findings do not offer strong support of the Handicap Principle predictions in our hypotheses, but they cannot rule it out either. It remains possible that chokers accentuate a specific part of a woman’s body considered evolutionarily attractive and desirable, such as how high heels accentuate women’s lumbar curvature or makeup accentuates facial attractiveness (Batres et al., 2018; Jones, Porcheron, & Russell, 2018;

Lewis et al., 2017; Lewis, Russell, Al-Shawaf, & Buss, 2015). Current evidence suggests that the handicap hypotheses are not likely to be correct, but only future studies will be able to answer this question with a greater degree of certainty.

Limitations & Future Directions

Our studies have several important limitations that need to be addressed. First and foremost is the inability to generalize our findings due to the relatively homogeneity of our sample (i.e. age group, race, sexual orientation status, ethnicity). The layperson’s perception that chokers indicate a woman’s submissiveness or sociosexuality come from a Westernized culture – specifically, the United States. Therefore, although choker necklaces worn in this culture may have specific implications attached to them, it is impossible to say whether these perceptions carry over in a different culture. Future studies should investigate the perceptions of choker necklaces in individuals of different races, ethnicities, and sexual orientation statuses in different cultures, especially non-

Westernized cultures.

Another prominent limitation we need to address is that we do not have any non- biological explanations against which to compare our findings. As far as we know, this is 44

the very first empirical study on choker necklaces, so the variables we tested were limited

to the select few we chose. We approached this study from a biological standpoint and

thus strictly stuck with biological variables; however, this is not to say that non-biological

variables would have stronger effects than the biological variables we used. Future

studies should encompass non-biological variables (e.g. religion) to better determine why

women may be wearing choker necklaces.

A methodological limitation of our study was that the choker frequency scales

were not consistent between independent samples. In Study 1, a 7-point Likert scale was

used to assess choker frequency, and in Study 3, a 5-point Likert scale was used. We made this change because we believed the 5-point Likert scale would be more feasible for participants; however, we made this decision while data from the first study was in the process of being collected. Although we found a perfect correlation between the 5-point scale and each of the 7-point scales (r = 1.00), the response options are not semantically identical. Due to the different measurement metrics, it is possible that the levels do not correspond across scales. Future studies should address this issue by ensuring consistency among all materials used between independent samples.

Participants saw either a woman wearing a choker or not wearing a choker for the two photo conditions in the studies. We did not have a control group to compare how women wearing necklaces not considered chokers might differ from women wearing a choker. Future studies should address this by including a photo condition of a woman wearing a normal necklace.

There were discrepancies between how specific neck measurements were taken by research assistants and how participants subjectively measured them. When research 45

assistants physically measured the neck width of females in Study 1, they measured the circumference of the neck. However, when male participants in Study 1 and female participants in Study 3 were asked to estimate the neck width of the woman in the photo they saw, they estimated neck width as from one side of the neck to the other. In these studies, we excluded measurements above 10 inches from results. In Study 1 we specifically defined for research assistants how to measure the width and length of the neck, but did not include detailed instructions on how participants should measure the length and width of the neck when they were estimating those values. This resulted in the average neck width for female participants in Study 1 (M = 13.64) being vastly different than the average neck width for male participants in Study 1 (M = 4.55) and female participants in Study 3 (M = 4.90). This discrepancy between measurements might explain why we found a marginally significant finding for choker frequency and neck width for female participants in Study 1, but not for the other independent samples. In future studies, this discrepancy should be resolved to ensure accuracy across studies.

By addressing these various limitations of our study, potential avenues for future research open. One future direction that studies could potentially pursue is whether women who are ovulating would be more likely to wear chokers during this time. None of the questions we asked in our studies assessed whether the women were ovulating.

Previous research suggests that men find women more attractive when women are

nearing their menstrual cycle (Doty et al., 1975; Singh & Bronstad, 2001; Thornhill et al.,

2003) and women tend to enhance their physical appearance more when menstruating

(Durante, Li, & Haselton, 2008; Guéguen, 2012; Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth, Bleske-

Recheck, & Frederick, 2007; Saad & Stenstrom, 2009). Would women who are ovulating 46

be more likely than non-ovulating women to wear choker necklaces? Future studies should attempt to address this question.

We specifically looked at women who wore choker necklaces but did not look at men who wore choker necklaces. The recent trends of choker-wearing primarily focused on women, so we decided to focus our studies on women who wore chokers. However, both men and women have historically worn choker necklaces (e.g. Native American warriors) (Bucci, 2015; Garber, 2016). Future studies could explore why there is a lack of men who wear choker necklaces today. Are choker necklaces sexually dimorphic in

Westernized cultures? And, if so, what would the sexually dimorphic equivalent for men be, if there was any? For example, would a necktie function similarly for men as a choker does for women to accentuate the neck? Answering these questions would contribute to the limited body of research on choker necklaces and other accessories that may resemble the function of chokers.

We looked at sociosexual orientation as a dispositional variable but did not look at whether participants were currently seeking a short-term partner. It would be

interesting to evaluate whether women who are currently pursuing short-term sexual

relationships would be more likely to wear a choker than women who are in long-term

relationships or not currently pursuing a short-term relationship. The SOI-R measure used in our studies included various questions and statements about sex, such as “Sex without love is OK,” and “How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?” (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The

SOI-R measure did not, however, access whether they were currently pursuing casual

sex. Women who are currently seeking out casual sex may be more likely to wear a 47

choker, given our findings that both male and female participants perceive women who

wear chokers to have a higher sociosexual orientation that women who do not wear chokers.

Conclusion

Overall, our findings revealed that 1) women who wear chokers more frequently,

and indicate more interest in wearing chokers, tend to have higher sociosexual

orientations than women who wear chokers less frequently, and 2) both males and other

females perceive women who wear chokers more frequently to have higher sociosexual

orientations than women who wear chokers less frequently. All three studies clearly

supported the sociosexual orientation hypothesis. We found very little to no support for

the other six hypotheses. Our findings illuminate the idea that chokers in this society may

not be merely arbitrary fashion symbols, but rather expressions of mating strategy or sociosexual orientation. Using this knowledge will help researchers better understand how to interpret cultural signs of sociosexuality and determine the significance behind why women choose to wear choker necklaces.

REFERENCES

Al-Shawaf, L. & Lewis, D. M. (2017). The Handicap Principle. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 1-5). Switzerland, AG: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2100-1

Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00068-2

Batres, C., Russell, R., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., Hansen, A. M., & Cronk, L. (2018). Evidence that makeup is a false signal of sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.023

Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Some men think wearing chokers makes women submissive sluts, but we couldn’t care less. Retrieved from https://www.vagabomb.com/Men- Think-Wearing-Chokers-Makes-Women-Submissive-Sluts/

Brovarski, E. (1997). Old kingdom beaded collars. In J. Phillips, (ed.) Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the near east: Studies in honour of Martha Rhoads Bell (pp. 137- 162). San Antonio, TX: Van Siclen Books.

Bucci, J. (2015, June 6). Fashion archives: A look at the history of the choker necklace. Retrieved from https://startupfashion.com/fashion-archives-history-choker- necklace/

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351153683-18

Buss, D. M. (2015). Short-term sexual strategies. In Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (5th ed., pp. 163-191). New York, NY: Routledge.

Buss, D. M. (2015). The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. In Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (5th ed., pp. 33-66). New York, NY: Routledge.

Choker (n.d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Choker 49

Choker Necklace. (n.d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=choker%20necklace

Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80, 355-362. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: Men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 348-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.04.002

Cunningham M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi- experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.5.925

Currie, T. E., & Little, A. C. (2009). The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 409-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.005

Doty, R. L., Ford, M., Preti, G., & Huggins, G. R. (1975). Changes in the intensity and pleasantness of human vaginal odors during the menstrual cycle. Science, 190, 1316–1317. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239080

Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1451-1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323103

Ellis, L. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(4), 257-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00050-U

Engqvist, L., Cordes, N., & Reinhold, K. (2015). Evolution of risk-taking during conspicuous mating displays. Society for the Study of Evolution, 69(2), 395-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12591

Epley, N., & Whitchurch, E. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Enhancement in self- recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1159-1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318601

50

Etcoff, N. L., Stock, S., Haley, L. E., Vickery, S. A., & House, D. M. (2011). Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS One, 6(10), e25656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656

Fan, J., Dai, W., Qian, X., Chau, K. P., & Liu, Q. (2007). Effects of shape parameters on the attractiveness of a female body. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 117-132. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.105.1.117-132

Farkas, L. G. (1987). Age- and sex-related changes in facial proportions. In L.G. Farkas & I. R. Munro (Eds.), Anthropometric proportions in medicine (pp. 29-56). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2014). Integrating shape cues of adiposity and color information when judging facial health and attractiveness. Perception, 43, 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7728

Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2016). Is women’s sociosexual orientation related to their physical attractiveness? Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 396-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.022

Furnham, A., & Reeves, E. (2006). The relative influence of facial neoteny and waist-to- hip ratio on judgments of female attractiveness and fecundity. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 11, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500500155982

Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523-548. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143733

Garber, M. (2016, Oct 10). The long (and short) history of the choker. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/neck-and-neck-the- long-and-short-history-of-the-choker/503315/

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Gough, H. G. (1956). California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA, England: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Goymann, W., & Wingfield, J. C. (2014). Male-to-female testosterone ratios, dimorphism, and life history – what does it really tell us? Behavioral Ecology, 25(4), 685-699. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru019

51

Graff, M. (2016, Mar 31). The history behind…the choker. Retrieved from https://www.nationaljeweler.com/fashion/antique-estate-jewelry/4080-the-history- behind-the-choker

Graham, J. A., & Jouhar, A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person perception. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3(5), 199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1981.tb00283.x

Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233

Guéguen, N. (2012). Makeup and menstrual cycle: Near ovulation, women use more cosmetics. The Psychological Record, 62, 541-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395819

Han, T. S., Oh, M. K., Kim, S. M., Yang, H. J., Lee, B. S., Park, S. Y. & Lee, W. J. (2015). Relationship between neck length, sleep, and cardiovascular risk factors. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 36(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2015.36.1.10

Harding, C. F. (1981). Social modulation of circulating hormone levels in the male. American Zoologist, 21, 223-232. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/21.1.223

Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Recheck, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007

Hau, M. (2007). Regulation of male traits by testosterone: Implications for the evolution of vertebrate life histories. Bioessays, 29, 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20524

Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554- 558.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.004

Huttegger, S. M., Burner, J. P., & Zollman, K. J. (2015). The handicap principle is an artifact. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 997-1009. https://doi.org/10.1086/683435

52

Huxley, R., Mendis, S., Zheleznyakov, E., Reddy, S., Chan, J. (2010). Body mass index, waist circumference and waist:hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular risk: A review of the literature. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64, 16-22. https://doi.org/10.14341/2071-8713-5195

IBM (n.d.). Transforming different Likert scales to a common scale. Retrieved from https://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21482329

Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A., & Nee, S. (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences II: The “handicap” principle. Society for the Study of Evolution, 45(6), 1431-1442. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409890

Jasieńska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P., Lipson, S., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 1213-1217. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2712 Jones, A. L., Porcheron, A., & Russell, R. (2018). Makeup changes the apparent size of facial features. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000152

Jozifkova, E. (2018). Sexual arousal by dominance and submissiveness in the general population: How many, how strongly, and why? Deviant Behavior, 39(9), 1229- 1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1410607

Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 6811.2007.00154.x

Koehler, N., Simmons, L. W., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2004). The relationship between sexual dimorphism in human faces and fluctuating asymmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, S233-S236. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0146

Komar, M. (2017, Mar 1). The slightly creepy history of chokers will probably surprise you. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/p/the-slightly-creepy-history-of- chokers-will-probably-surprise-you-34124

Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2007). Menarche is related to fat distribution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133, 1147-1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20644

Lewis, D. M. G., Russell, E. M., Al-Shawaf, L., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Lumbar curvature: A previously undiscovered standard of attractiveness. Evolution of Human Behavior, 36, 345-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.007

53

Lewis, D. M. G., Russell, E. M., Al-Shawaf, L., Ta, V., Senveli, Z., Ickes, W., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Why women wear high heels: Evolution, lumbar curvature, and attractiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1875. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01875

Li, H. X., Zhang, F., Zhao, D., Xin, Z., Guo, S. Q., Wang, S. M., Zhang, J. J., Wang, J., Li, Y., Yang, G. R., & Yang, J. K. (2014). Neck circumference as a measure of neck fat and abdominal visceral fat in Chinese adults. BioMed Central Public Health, 14, 311. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-311

Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (1996). Comparison of salivary steroid profiles in naturally occurring conception and non-conception cycles. Human Reproduction, 11, 2090- 2096. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019055

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1638-1659. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Men’s strategic preferences for femininity in female faces. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 364-381. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12043

MacCormick, H. A., MacNulty, D. R., Bosacker, A. L., Lehman, C., Bailey, A., Collings, D. A., & Packer, C. (2012). Male and female aggression: Lessons from sex, rank, age, and injury in olive baboons. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 684-691. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars021

Mahalanobis, P.C. (1936) On the Generalized Distance in Statistics. Journal of Genetics, 41, 159-193.

Marlowe, F., & Wetsman, A. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00039-8

McCarthy, L. (2016, Feb). The new necklace: How to wear the seasons boldest accessory, the choker. Harper’s Bazaar, 3640, 210.

Mealey, L. (1985). The relationship between social status and biological success: A case of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90017-2

Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

54

Morikawa, K., Matsushita, S., Tomita, A., & Yamanami, H. (2015). A real-life illusion of assimilation in the human face: Eye size illusion caused by eyebrows and eye shadow. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00139

Mulhern, R., Fieldman, G., Hussey, T., Leveque, J. L., & Pineau, P. (2003). Do cosmetics enhance female Caucasian facial attractiveness? International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 25(4), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467- 2494.2003.00188.x

Osborn, D. R. (1996). Beauty is as beauty does? Makeup and posture effects on physical attractiveness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(1), 31–51. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01837.x.

Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113-1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

Penton-Voak I. S., Jacobson A., Trivers R. (2004). Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.06.002

Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Measures of female condition influence preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male Homo sapiens. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.264

Perrett D. I., Lee K. J., Penton-Voak I., Rowland D., Yoshikawa S., Burt D. M., & Akamatsu S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887. https://doi.org/10.1038/29772

Perrett, D., May, K., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239-242. https://doi.org/10.1038/368239a0

Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., & Buss, D. M. (2013). Women’s physical attractiveness and short-term mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 490-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.028

Peters, M., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2007). Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness. Animal Behavior, 73(6), 937-942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.07.012

55

Porcheron, A., Mauger, E., & Russell, R. (2013). Aspects of facial contrast decrease with age and are cues for age perception. PLoS One, 8(3), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057985

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208

Rhodes, G., Chan, J., Zebrowitz, L. A., & Simmons, L. W. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, S93-S95. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0023

Rhodes G., Hickford C., & Jeffery L. (2000). Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? British Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161718

Russell, R. (2009). A sex difference in facial contrast and its exaggeration by cosmetics. Perception, 38, 1211-1219. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6331

Russell, R. (2003). Sex, beauty, and the relative luminance of facial features. Perception, 32, 1093-1107. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5101

Saad. G., & Stenstrom, E. (2009, November). Menstrual cycle effects on consumption desires, product usage, and purchasing behaviors. Paper presented at the Annual Graduate Research Exposition, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Samhita, L. (2010). The handicap principle. Resonance, 15(5), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-010-0070-0

Schiffer, J. (2016, June 9). We bet you don’t know the crazy origins of the choker. Retrieved from https://www.whowhatwear.com/history-of-the-choker

Schwartz, P., & Rutter, V. (2000). The gender of sexuality (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012- 9152-x

Senior, C. (2003). Beauty in the brain of the beholder. Neuron, 38(4), 525–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00293-9

56

Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577475

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist- to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.293

Singh, D. (1994a). Body fat distribution and perception of desirable female shape by young black men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(3), 289-294. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108x(199411)16:3<289::aid- eat2260160310>3.0.co;2-9

Singh, D. (1994b). Ideal female body shape: Role of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(3), 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108x(199411)16:3<283::aid- eat2260160309>3.0.co;2-q

Singh, D. (1994c). Is thin really beautiful and good? Relationship between waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and female attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90116-3

Singh, D., & Bronstad, P. M. (2001). Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 268, 797–801. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1589

Singh, D., & Bronstad, P. M. (1997). Sex differences in the anatomical locations of human body scarification and tattooing as a function of pathogen prevalence. Evolution of Human Behavior, 18, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090- 5138(97)00089-5

Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross- cultural consensus for waist-hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 176-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.001

Stephens, C. (2016). Until recently, I had no idea chokers had a secret meaning for men. Retrieved from https://www.mamamia.com.au/what-it-means-to-wear-a-choker/

Stillman, T. F., & Maner, J. K. (2009). A sharp eye for her SOI: Perception and misperception of female sociosexuality at zero acquaintance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.005

57

Submissive (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/submissive

Taragi, G. (2016). Here are some disgusting assumptions people make about chokers but honestly, we couldn’t care less. Retrieved from https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Men-think-women-who-wear-chokers-are- submissive-sluts/#.puc48s29z

Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.001

Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd, G., McCollough, J. K., & Franklin, M. (2003). Major histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arg043

Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(98)00044-0

Tovée, M. J., Maisey, D. S., Emery, J. L., & Cornellisen, P. L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: B, 266, 211-218. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0624

Vazquez, G., Duval, S., Jacobs Jr., D. R., & Silventoinen, K. (2007). Comparison of body mass index, waist circumference and waist/hip ratio in predicting incident diabetes: A meta-analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29, 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxm008

Wheatley, J. R., Apicella, C. A., Burriss, R. P., Cárdenas, R. A., Bailey, D. H., Welling, L. L., & Puts, D. A. (2014). Women’s faces and voices are cues to reproductive potential in industrial and forager societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.02.006

Yang, G. R., Yuan, S. Y., Fu, H. J., Wan, G., Zhu, L. X., Bu, X. L., Zhang, J. D., Du, X. P., Li, Y. L., Ji, Y., Gu, X. N., & Li, Y. (2010). Neck circumference positively related with central obesity, overweight, and metabolic syndrome in Chinese subjects with Type 2 Diabetes: Beijing community Diabetes study 4. Diabetes Care, 33(11), 2465-2467. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-0798

Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 58

APPENDIX A

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

APPENDIX B

STUDY 1 MATERIALS

SONA Description (Females)

Study Name: Mating and Physical Attractiveness

Brief Abstract: You will have several measurements taken of your body and then will take a survey.

Detailed Description: This study is interested in evaluating the perceptions of women who engage in different activities. You will have measurements taken of your body by a female Research Assistant. Then you will be asked questions about yourself, including questions about physical appearance, personality, and sexual behaviors. This study is expected to take approximately 35 minutes.

Eligibility Requirements: 1) Female who is 18 or older; 2) fluent in English; 3) primary sexual orientation is heterosexual or bisexual

Duration: 35 minutes or less

Points: 2 points

Researcher: Heather Williquette

There are no disqualifier studies. There are no pre-requisites for this study. 60

SONA Description (Males)

Study Name: Mating and Physical Attractiveness

Brief Abstract: You will view a photo of a woman and asked to evaluate the woman’s physical appearance, personality, and sexual behaviors.

Detailed Description: This study is interested in how males perceive women engaging in different activities. You will view a photo of a woman and answer questions about that woman pertaining to her physical appearance, personality, and sexual behaviors. This study is expected to take approximately 35 minutes.

Eligibility Requirements: 1) Male who is 18 or older; 2) fluent in English; 3) primary sexual orientation is heterosexual or bisexual

Duration: 35 minutes or less

Points: 1 point

Researcher: Heather Williquette

There are no disqualifier studies. There are no pre-requisites for this study. 61

Female Consent Form

62

63

Female Questionnaire

Measurements

The female research assistant(s) will now take measurements, in inches, of your neck & WHR:

Participant’s neck length: ______Participant’s neck width: ______Participant’s Adam’s apple size: ______Participant’s waist measurement: ______Participant’s hip measurement: ______Participant’s Waist-to-Hip (WHR) Ratio: ______

Self-Assessment

Please indicate how feminine you think you look: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think you are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How interested are you in wearing choker necklaces? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Uninterested Interested

How often do you wear a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Very Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Always Rarely Frequently

64

Male Consent Form

65

66

Male Questionnaire

Observe the photo of this woman and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.

PHOTO

How long do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How wide do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How large do you think this woman’s Adam’s Apple is? (in inches): ______

Please indicate how feminine you think this woman looks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think this woman is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How old do you think this woman is? (in years) ______

How often do you think she wears a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Very Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Always Rarely Frequently 67

Photo Conditions

Nonchoker condition 1 Nonchoker condition 2

Nonchoker condition 3 Choker condition 1

Choker condition 2 Choker condition 3 68

Demographic Information

How old are you (in years)? ______

Select your gender: Male Female Other (please write in): ______

Select your sexual orientation: Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Other (please write in): ______

Please provide your UCCS email address: ______Note: Your email will only be used to grant you SONA credit. It will not be associated with your responses in any way. 69

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Dominance Scale Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/newCPIKey.htm#Dominance

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree nor Agree Agree

1. Try to surpass others’ accomplishments. 2. Try to outdo others. 3. Am quick to correct others. 4. Impose my will on others. 5. Demand explanations from others. 6. Want to control the conversation. 7. Am not afraid of providing criticism. 8. Challenge others’ points of view. 9. Lay down the law to others. 10. Put people under pressure. 11. Hate to seem pushy.

Note. Item 11 is reverse scored.

70

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Femininity Scale Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/newTCIKey.htm#Femininity

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree nor Agree Agree

1. Like to watch figure skating. 2. Love children’s movies. 3. Love children. 4. Radiate joy. 5. Feel sympathy for those who are worse off than myself. 6. Try to stay in touch with myself. 7. Am not interested in other people’s problems. 8. Try not to think about the needy.

Note: Items 7 and 8 are reverse scored.

71

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Submissiveness Scale Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/newCAT-PD-SFv1.1Keys.htm#Submissiveness

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree nor Agree Agree

1. Am easily controlled by others in my life. 2. Let others take advantage of me. 3. Let myself be pushed around. 4. Prefer that others make the major decisions in my life. 5. Let myself be directed by others. 6. Need others to help run my life.

72

The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008)

Please respond honestly to the following questions about your own sexual habits & behaviors.

1. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?

0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

2. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion?

0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

3. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?

0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

4. Sex without love is OK. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

5. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

6. I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months □ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day 73

8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months □ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day

9. In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months □ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day

74

Mini International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Five-Factor Model Retrieved from https://ipip.ori.org/MiniIPIPKey.htm

These statements were used as filler items in our survey.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree nor Agree Agree

Extraversion

1. Am the life of the party. 2. Talk to a lot of different people at parties. 3. Don’t talk a lot. 4. Keep in the background.

Note: Items 3 and 4 are reverse scored.

Agreeableness

1. Sympathize with others’ feelings. 2. Feel others’ emotions. 3. Am not really interested in others. 4. Am not really interested in other people’s problems.

Note: Items 3 and 4 are reverse scored.

Conscientiousness

1. Get chores done right away. 2. Like order. 3. Often forget to put things back in their proper place. 4. Make a mess of things.

Note: Items 3 and 4 are reverse scored.

Neuroticism

1. Have frequent mood swings. 2. Get upset easily. 3. Am relaxed most of the time. 75

4. Seldom feel blue.

Note. Items 3 and 4 are reverse scored.

Imagination 1. Have a vivid imagination. 2. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. 3. Am not interested in abstract ideas. 4. Do not have a good imagination.

Note: Items 2, 3, and 4 are reverse scored.

76

Debriefing Form

Thank you for participating in this study. Now that it’s completed, we’d like to tell you what the study was about.

Male participants all viewed a photo of a woman. While some men saw a photo of a woman wearing a choker necklace, others saw a photo of a woman who was not wearing a choker necklace. We wanted to see how these photos affected attitudes toward the woman and how this might have altered the perceptions of her sexual behaviors and personality.

Female participants had measurements taken of their necks and their Waist-to-Hip ratios. They also completed a questionnaire on their personalities, social tendencies, and sexual behaviors.

In order to ensure that we collect accurate data, it is crucial that you do not share this information with anyone else who might be participating – this would be any college students at UCCS, both male and female. After they have completed the study, you are then welcome to discuss it with them!

This study may have resulted in minor embarrassment or boredom. We do not anticipate questions in this study to cause more than minimal discomfort to students. If you are experiencing discomfort that exceeds minimality and is interfering with your mental health, please contact the Health & Wellness Center at 719-255-4444 and schedule an appointment with counseling services.

If you have any other questions or concerns about your participation, or if you wish to receive the results of the study please contact the Principal Investigator, Heather Williquette, at [email protected].

APPENDIX C

STUDY 2 MATERIALS

Request of Change (ROC) 1

78

Changes to Female Questionnaire

Measurements

The female research assistant(s) will now take measurements, in inches, of your body & neck:

Participant’s neck length: ______Participant’s neck width: ______Participant’s laryngeal prominence: ______Participant’s waist measurement: ______Participant’s hip measurement: ______Participant’s Waist-to-Hip (WHR) Ratio: ______

Self-Assessment

Please indicate how feminine you think you look: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think you are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How interested are you in wearing choker necklaces? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Uninterested Interested

How often do you wear a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

79

Changes to Male Questionnaire Observe the photo of this woman and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.

PHOTO

How long do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How wide do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How large do you think this woman’s Adam’s Apple is? (in inches): ______

Please indicate how feminine you think this woman looks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think this woman is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How old do you think this woman is? (in years): 17 or younger 18-19 20-24 25-29 30 or older

How often do you think she wears a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always 80

Changes to Demographic Information

Participants can select their specific age from a drop-down list.

Select your age (in years): 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 …and all the way to 99

Select your biological sex: Male Female Other (please write in): ______

Select your sexual orientation: Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Other (please write in): ______

Please provide your UCCS email address: ______Note: Your email will only be used to grant you SONA credit. It will not be associated with your responses in any way.

81

Request of Change (ROC) 2

82

Changes to Female SONA Description

Study Name: Mating & Physical Attractiveness II (FEMALES ONLY)

Brief Abstract: You will view a photo of a woman and asked to evaluate the woman’s physical appearance and sexual behaviors.

Detailed Description: This study is interested in how females perceive women engaging in different activities. You will view a photo of a woman and answer questions about that woman pertaining to her physical appearance and sexual behaviors. This study is expected to take approximately 35 minutes.

Eligibility Requirements: 1) Female who is 18 or older; 2) fluent in English; 3) primary sexual orientation is heterosexual or bisexual

Duration: 35 minutes or less

Points: 1 point

Researcher: Heather Williquette

Disqualifier studies include “Mating & Physical Attractiveness (MALE ONLY)” and “Mating & Physical Attractiveness (FEMALE ONLY)”. There are no pre-requisites for this study.

83

Changes to Female Consent Form

University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS) Consent to be a Research Subject

Title: Mating and Physical Attractiveness

Principal Investigator: Heather Williquette

Funding Source: N/A

Introduction: You are being asked to take part in a research study. This form is designed to tell you everything you need to think about before you decide whether to consent (agree) to be in the study. It is entirely your choice. If you decide to take part, you can change your mind later on and withdraw from the research study. You can skip any questions that you do not wish to answer.

Before making your decision: • Please carefully read this form. • Please ask questions about anything that is not clear.

Feel free to take your time thinking about whether you would like to participate. By signing this form, you will not give up any legal rights.

Study Overview: This study is interested in how individuals perceive women engaging in different activities. You will view a photo of a woman and answer questions about that woman pertaining to her physical appearance and sexual behaviors. This study is expected to take approximately 35 minutes.

Procedures: You are being asked to be in this research study because you are a female student who is 18 or older, who is fluent in English, and whose primary sexual orientation is heterosexual or bisexual. You will be asked to take an online survey which will take approximately 35 minutes to complete. The survey is taken online through Qualtrics. At the beginning of the survey, you will be shown a photo of a woman and asked to evaluate her physical appearance. Then you will answer survey questions on your perceptions of the woman’s sexual behaviors.

Other people in this study: Up to 100 female participants will participate in this study.

Risks and Discomforts: The risks in this study are minimal. Risk primarily consists of possible mild embarrassment, discomfort, or boredom while answering questions about the woman’s sexual behaviors. We will provide information about these topics and counseling services available on campus in the event that you experience discomfort.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to participants for taking part in this study except the knowledge that you will be contributing to the scientific community.

Compensation: You will be granted 1 extra credit point through the SONA system for your participation in the study ONLY after the survey has been completed. In order to receive SONA points, participants must either fully complete the survey or formally withdraw from the study at 84

any point during the study by contacting the Principal Investigator at [email protected]. A participant who only completes part of the study will not be granted any SONA points unless the participant contacts the Principal Investigator and formally withdraws from the study.

Confidentiality: Your identity and information will remain confidential. Participants will provide personally identifiable information in this study. However, your personal information will be kept separate from your survey responses and will be retained in a secure location. Participant identification (i.e. name and email address) will only be used to give each participant their SONA credit and will not be linked to the data once it is de-identified. No identifying information will be associated with the data sets. Any publications based on this project will not include personally- identifying information including your photos.

Certain offices and people other than the researchers may have access to study records. Government agencies and UCCS employees overseeing proper study conduct may look at your study records. These offices include the UCCS Institutional Review Board, and the UCCS Office of Sponsored Programs. UCCS will keep any research records confidential to the extent allowed by law. A study number rather than your name will be used on study records wherever possible. Study records may be subject to disclosure pursuant to a court order, subpoena, law or regulation.

Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal from the Study: Taking part in this study is voluntary. You have the right to leave a study at any time without penalty. You may refuse any procedures you do not feel comfortable with or any questions that you do not wish to answer. If you withdraw from the study, you may request that your research information not be used by contacting the Principal Investigator listed above and below.

Contact Information Contact (PI’s info): Heather Williquette at [email protected] • if you have any questions about this study or your part in it, • if you have questions, concerns or complaints about the research, or • if you would like information about the survey results when they are prepared.

Contact the Research Compliance Coordinator at 719-255-3903 or via email at [email protected]: • if you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or • if you have questions, concerns or complaints about the research.

Electronic Consent Please ask for a copy of this consent form for your records, if you so desire.

I have read and understand the above consent form. I certify that I am a female student who is 18 or older, who is fluent in English, and whose primary sexual orientation is either heterosexual or bisexual. I am voluntarily taking part in the study.

If you consent to being in this study, please click the arrow button at the bottom right corner of the screen to continue.

85

Changes to Female Questionnaire

Observe the photo of this woman and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.

PHOTO

Please indicate how feminine you think this woman looks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think this woman is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How often do you think she wears a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

86

Changes to Demographic Information

Select your age (in years): 17 or younger 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … and all the way to 99

Select your biological sex: Male Female Other (please write in): ______

Select your sexual orientation: Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Other (please write in): ______

Have you signed up for or completed any of the following studies on SONA? Mating & Physical Attractiveness (FEMALE ONLY) study. Mating & Physical Attractiveness (MALE ONLY) study. I have not signed up for or completed either of these studies.

Please provide your UCCS email address: ______Note: Your email will only be used to grant you SONA credit. It will not be associated with your responses in any way. If no email address is provided, we will be unable to grant you SONA credit.

87

Changes to Debriefing Form

Thank you for participating in this study. Now that it’s completed, we’d like to tell you what the study was about.

Participants all viewed a photo of a woman. While some saw a photo of a woman wearing a choker necklace, others saw a photo of a woman who was not wearing a choker necklace. We wanted to see how these photos affected attitudes toward the woman and how this might have altered the perceptions of her sexual behaviors.

In order to ensure that we collect accurate data, it is crucial that you do not share this information with anyone else who might be participating – this would be any college students at UCCS, both male and female. After they have completed the study, you are than welcome to discuss it with them!

This study may have resulted in minor embarrassment or boredom. We do not anticipate questions in this study to cause more than minimal discomfort to students. If you are experiencing discomfort that exceeds minimality and is interfering with your mental health, please contact the Health & Wellness Center at 719-255-4444 and schedule an appointment with counseling services.

If you have any other questions or concerns about your participation, or if you wish to receive the results of the study, please contact the Principal Investigator, Heather Williquette, at [email protected].

APPENDIX D

STUDY 3 MATERIALS

Request of Change (ROC) 3

89

Changes to Female Questionnaire

Observe the photo of this woman and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.

PHOTO

How long do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How wide do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How large do you think this woman’s laryngeal prominence is? (in inches): ______

Please indicate how feminine you think this woman looks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think this woman is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

How old do you think this woman is? (in years): ______

How often do you think she wears a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

90

Changes to Demographic Information

Select your age (in years): 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … and all the way to 99

Select your biological sex: Male Female Other (please write in): ______

Select your sexual orientation: Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Other (please write in): ______

Have you signed up for or completed any of the following studies on SONA? Mating & Physical Attractiveness (FEMALE ONLY) PART II study Mating & Physical Attractiveness (FEMALE ONLY) study. Mating & Physical Attractiveness (MALE ONLY) study. I have not signed up for or completed any of these studies.

Please provide your UCCS email address: ______Note: Your email will only be used to grant you SONA credit. It will not be associated with your responses in any way. If no email address is provided, we will be unable to grant you SONA credit.

91

Request of Change (ROC) 4

92

Changes to Female Questionnaire

Observe the photo of this woman and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.

PHOTO

How long do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How wide do you think this woman’s neck is? (in inches): ______

How large do you think this woman’s Adam’s apple is? (in inches): ______

Please indicate how feminine you think this woman looks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Feminine Feminine

Please indicate how physically attractive you think this woman is: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Unattractive Attractive

Please indicate how interested you think this woman is in wearing choker necklaces: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Extremely Uninterested Interested

How old do you think this woman is? (in years): ______

How often do you think she wears a choker necklace? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always

93

Changes to Debriefing Form

Thank you for participating in this study. Now that it’s completed, we’d like to tell you what the study was about.

Participants all viewed a photo of a woman. While some saw a photo of a woman wearing a choker necklace, others saw a photo of a woman who was not wearing a choker necklace. We wanted to see how these photos affected attitudes toward the woman and how this might have altered the perceptions of her sexual behaviors.

In order to ensure that we collect accurate data, it is crucial that you do not share this information with anyone else who might be participating – this would be any college students at UCCS, both male and female. After they have completed the study, you are than welcome to discuss it with them!

This study may have resulted in minor embarrassment or boredom. We do not anticipate questions in this study to cause more than minimal discomfort to students. If you are experiencing discomfort that exceeds minimality and is interfering with your mental health, please contact the Health & Wellness Center at 719-255-4444 and schedule an appointment with counseling services.

If you have any other questions or concerns about your participation, or if you wish to receive the results of the study, please contact the Principal Investigator, Heather Williquette, at [email protected].

94

Request for Continuing Review