136 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE different makeup functions to possible underlying psychological features (i.e., self- esteem, social desirability, anxiety, and fear of negative self-evaluation). Our first result clearly showed that aging was not a discriminating factor in our different makeup functions, and had no influence on the volunteer's psychological characteristics. This interesting result is consistent with those of McCrae and Costa (21), who tested the personalities of individuals between 19 and 80 years for over twelve years and specifically measured their levels of neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The authors concluded that these five personality traits remained relatively stable with age. However, they conceded that their studies were not definitive and that variability across the individual personality was still possible. Concerning the psychological profiles of our subjects, we observed that women using makeup as a camouflage tool (class A) are rather concerned with anxiety and neuroticism, while those using makeup as a "seduction" tool (class B) are rather characterized by higher self-esteem, extroversion, and assertiveness. According to the literature (22,23), female subjects of class A can be classified as having a negative self-perception, worrying more often, and dwelling on frustrations and disappointments. Moreover, subjects with higher neuroticism values were shown to be more distressed on average in comparison with individuals with lower values, and are more susceptible to stressful events (24). On the other hand, female subjects of class B tend to perceive themselves as better than average in communal traits, with more experience of positive emotions, defined as sociability or a tendency to be active and social (25). From these results, it is clear that one's self-image plays a key role in the development of personality. Women with a subjective negative feeling about their image develop defensive mechanisms to cope with low self-esteem and may need to "normalize" or manipulate a perceived impaired ap- pearance. CONCLUSIONS The subjective approach from the self-assessment questionnaire revealed two clearly distinctive classes of subjects according to their functional use of makeup� i.e., "cam- ouflage" vs "seduction." These two classes (and further subclasses) have been associated with specific emotional and psychological profiles. It is clear that our next step will be to further study the impact of related physical parameters such as skin radiance, homo- geneity of skin color, and facial symmetry (26), as well as facial expression patterns, along with the makeup process. Finally, we can conclude that beyond the simple application of colorful products to the face, makeup appears as a holistic technique that modifies not only one's appearance, but also helps one to cope with self-image, emotions, and mood. Therefore, makeup appli- cation can be considered as a daily routine to decrease negative affects and/or increase positive affects related to self-image and one's relation to the social environment. Our results provide experimental support to the link between cosmetics and welfare, and further promote initiatives such as the "Look Good .. . Feel Better" program that was developed in 1989 by the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA). Such a program consists in a free, non-medical, brand-neutral, national public service program supported by corporate donors to help women offset appearance-related changes from cancer treatment. This pioneer study, revealing a psycho-behavioral background for differences in the use of makeup, urges further investigation in order to determine underlying determinants.
WHY WOMEN USE MAKEUP 137 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to all volunteers for their patience during our experiments. The authors thank Dr F. Vial of Spincontrol for productive discussions and active participation in this work. REFERENCES (1) A. Marwick, Beauty in History (Thames & Hudson, Great Britain, 1988). (2) N. Etcoff, Survival of the Prettiest: The Sciences of Beauty (Little Brown & Co, London, 1999). (3) K. A. Nakdimen, The physiognomic basis of sexual stereotyping, Am.]. Psych., 141, 499-503 (1984). (4) J. P. Nielsen and A. Kernaleguen, Influence of clothing and physical attractiveness in person percep- tion, Percept. Motor Skills, 42, 775-780 (1976). (5) M. R. Cunningham, Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty,]. Person. Soc. Psycho!., 50, 925-935 (1986). (6) C. F. Keating, Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness, Soc. Psycho!. Quart., 48, 312-323 (1985). (7) R. Mulhern, G. Fieldman, T. Hussey, J. L. Leveque, and P. Pineau, Do cosmetics enhance Caucasian facial attractiveness, Int.]. Cosmet. Sci., 25, 199-205 (2003). (8) J. A. Graham and A. J. Jauhar, Cosmetics considered in the context of physical attractiveness: A review, Int.]. Cosmet. Sci., 2, 77-101 (1980). (9) C. L. Cox and W. H. Glick, Resume evaluations and cosmetics use: When more is not better, Sex Roles, 14, 51-58 (1986). (10) J. A. Graham and A. J. Jauhar, The effects of cosmetics on person perception, Int.]. Cosmet. Sci., 3, 199-210 (1981). (11) L. C. Miller and C. L. Cox, For appearances' sake: Public self-consciousness and make-up use, Person. Soc. Psycho!. Bull., 8(4), 748-751 (1982). (12) T. F. Cash and D. W. Cash, Women's use of cosmetics: Psychosocial correlates and consequences, Int. ]. Cosmet. Sci., 4, 1-14 (1982). (13) J. L. Leveque, Apparence et same: Le role des cosmetiques, Rev. Med. Liege, 11, 721-725 (1996). (14) J. A. Graham, Psychology of Cosmetic Treatments (Prager, London, 1986). (15) S. Barkat, T. Thomas-Danguin, M. Bensafi, M. Rouby, and G. Sicard, Odor and color of cosmetic products: Correlations between subjective judgments and autonomous nervous system response, Int.]. Cosmet. Sci., 25, 273-283 (2003). (16) C. D. Spielberger, Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1983). (17) J. Myhill and M. Lorr, The Coopersmith self-esteem inventory: Analysis and partial validation of a modified adult form,]. Clin. Psycho!., 34(1), 72-76 (1978). (18) S. A. Rathus, A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behav. Ther., 4, 398-406 (1973). (19) H.J. Eysenck, "Biological Dimension of Personality," in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., L. A. Pervin and 0. P. John, Eds. (Guilford Press, New York, 1999), pp. 244-276. (20) E. Diener, E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas, and H. L. Smith, Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress, Psycho!. Bull., 125, 276-302 (1999). (21) R.R. McCrae and P. Costa, Jr., Personality in Adulthood (Guilford Press, New York, 1990). (22) W. E. Kelly, Examining the relationship between worry and trait anxiety, College Student]. (September 2004). (23) D. Watson and L.A. Clark, Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states, Psycho!. Bull., 96, 465-490 (1984). (24) N. Bolger and E. A. Schillings, Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors,J. Person., 59, 355-386 (1991). (25) P. T. Costa and R. R. McCrae, NEO PI-R Professional Manual (Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL, 1992). (26) D. I. Perrett, D. M. Burt, I. S. Penton-Voak, K. J. Lee, D. A. Rowland, and R. Edwards, Symmetry and human facial attractiveness, Evol. Human Behav., 20, 295-307 (1999).
Purchased for the exclusive use of nofirst nolast (unknown) From: SCC Media Library & Resource Center (library.scconline.org)