self-concept? more like SEX- concept! am i right? am i right?

Growing up, my mother always swore I’d be an actress. I was bold and confident and had an unusual gift at portraying different emotions and personas in front of an audience. I felt invigorated on stage—I took every new role as an opportunity to explore a different part of myself. But last week, when I took on my role for this class, I had terrible stage fright. My palms were sweaty and my knees shook and I counted down the hours until the day was over and I could slip comfortably back into my ordinary self with my ordinary costumes.

All this buildup to say, for my participant observation project, I dressed like a slut.

It was easy enough, in theory. Put on a mini-skirt and some lipstick, and off you go. But I had no idea exactly how schematic I am for the trait “pure/classy” (Markus, 1977). Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not timid about the subject of sex. I appreciate a good Will Ferrell movie on occasion, and I shop at Victoria’s Secret when I’ve got the extra cash lying around. But there is something about exposing my body, portraying myself publicly as a provocative woman, that created internal discord for me. The Spotlight Effect killed me everywhere I went that day (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 2000). Although I understand that this “spotlight effect” is purely a matter of perception, I wasn’t the only one who noticed an unusual amount of male eye contact that day (by eye contact, I’m not talking meaningful, deep nonverbal communication, but rather eyes that are envisioning a little “contact”, so to speak…).

So what did I learn? I learned that I have an intense desire for self-verification when it comes to my classiness. By this I mean: I want desperately for others to perceive me as a classy and substantial woman, because I perceive myself as a classy and substantial woman (Swann, 1987). When men ogled me or when friends made comments about my outfit, I desperately wanted to say, “this isn’t me! I’m educated! I have value! EYES UP HERE!”. But, for the sake of the “participant observation”, I had to sit back and let myself be objectified. The funny thing is, the clothes I was wearing weren’t even particularly slutty. They were flattering, sure, but I see girls daily who expose themselves much more obviously than I did that day. Perhaps this reveals just how schematic I am, and how much I use my conservative dress to communicate my sexual intentions (or lack thereof). Some of the most pronounced moments of objectification, during which I internally cringed with embarrassment, were as follows:

Exhibit A (sorority sister): you look like a borderline naughty schoolgirl today!

Exhibit B (ex-boyfriend’s friend, casual acquaintance): DAYUMMM, Chatty!

Exhibit C (cove employee, loudly congratulating the young man I walked out of the cove with that evening): That’s good shit, man. Gooood shit.

Exhibit D (frat boy via text message, after a “two-stepping” mixer where we danced the night away): P.S. Cute outfit for two-stepping! ;)

What else did I learn, outside of my desperate need for self-verification? Ironic processes are a bitch (Wegner, 1994). Sorry, that was unnecessarily crude. But still—it’s true. All day, as I observed reactions to my sexy attire, I saw close friends filtering what they said, trying oh-so-hard to ignore the (incredible) cleavage before them. I watched, acting completely oblivious to their struggle, as they stuttered to maintain a conversation with me about schoolwork but all they could really think about was my hypersexualized appearance. My favorite experiences of the day were by far watching people as their operating processes were “assisted” by their ironic processes, and the cat was let out of the bag (Wegner, 1994). The following comments seemingly came out of nowhere in the middle of an otherwise-focused conversation:

Exhibit E (sorority sister/study partner, as I quizzed her before a test): They look so big today!

Exhibit F (ex-boyfriend, as I talked to him about my fall break plans): Don’t take this the wrong way, but you look like a stripper today. (pause). A very beautiful stripper. (pause). Phew—I’m glad I got that off my chest.

Another thing I noted, particularly in my interactions with men, was priming (Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977). This means that my sexy clothes made the subject of sex come to mind easily, therefore influencing the interpretation of new information. Although I expected it with men, I did not expect it with me. Still, as I wore that miniskirt and tank top, dirty jokes readily came to mind. I saw myself as more sexual, even though I had exactly the same body and hormones as if I were wearing a t-shirt and jeans. Interesting, no? Because I was so aware that others perceived me in a sexual way, my own perceptions were more sexual by nature. It reminded me of freshman year, when my roommate advised me to wear my sexiest panties when I saw my ex for the first time after our break-up. We both knew he wouldn’t see those panties, but my roommate adamantly believed that wearing them would prime me, making me feel like I was too sexy for him, and therefore I would feel empowered. She was right!

My final comment pertains to the behavior of my sorority sisters in particular. I’ve talked a lot about men’s perceptions of me as an overtly sexual woman, but female perceptions were just as pronounced. My female friends were interesting because it was as if they didn’t know whether to congratulate me for my “empowered” sexiness, or judge me for my “slutty” appearance. It was an interesting struggle, for sure. One sister, in particular, gave me a mini-lecture the first time she saw me that day, saying:

“Hey girl, put some pants on! And a shirt! What is wrong with you, Sarah?!”

Later, after our second conversation in the Cove that day, she sent me the following text:

“That boy at the pool table was awkwardly ogling you! I was going to yell at him like I was your mom or something.”

Throughout the day I had similar experiences with other friends, as they would shift, in a moment, from judgmental glares to maternal, affectionate warnings of, “honey, your bra’s showing”. This conflict, perhaps, is due to Kelley’s Covariation Theory. Based on the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency sources of information, these women were attempting to attribute my behavior (Kelley, 1967).

Consensus: low. Not many people were wearing slutty clothes that day because it was a little chilly outside.

Distinctiveness: high. The clothes I was wearing were distinctly different from my everyday attire.

Consistency: low. I do not dress in those clothes often at all.

I could practically see the wheels turning as my sisters attributed my slutty outfit to me, then realized that the consistency was too low for that to be an accurate attribution. But they were confused. Because if consistency is low, then that means that the only logical attribution would be to the circumstances (Kelley, 1967). That meant there was something about that day that made me dress slutty. What was it?

When I told my friends that my outfit was part of a “social experiment” (excuse the inaccurate use of the term, it was just easier than explaining “participant observation” to non-psych-majors), they breathed a sigh of relief. They said things like, “I figured something was up—that was so unlike you”, or “I was wondering why you looked like a dancer in a Britney Spears video”.

So, recap: I am schematic for classiness. Therefore, when I violated my schema by dressing like a slut, I felt the intensity of the spotlight effect. This caused a strong desire for self-verification. I enjoyed witnessing the ironic processes of others, and my thoughts were sexually primed. My sorority sisters, more so than the men who simply appreciated my appearance, tried desperately to attribute my behavior through Kelley’s Covariation Model.

And at the end of the day, I was able to change back into my normal, conservative clothes. 

Job. Well. Done.

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.

Higgins, E. T., Rholes, C. R., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,  141-154.

Kelley, H. H. (1967) Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051.

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.