Sex-Differentiated Attire’s Impact on Individual Action and Mate Selection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
I found that you sufficiently addressed the issues I raised, so I suggest that the editor accept this version after restructuring the text. This is a minor revision.
The article now has a solid basis in EP, even though I still feel the relevance of the approach is still somewhat neglected. I like that EP might be used to show how through clothing, the intentions of different actors (e.g., the wearer and the perceiver) might become conflicting because they perceive different affordances. Also, the natural and cultural levels of these affordances clash here. I guess you could use these potential conflicts to help explain sexual aggression as well as communicative acts like slut-shaming, blaming the victim and so forth. In addition, this approach might help to interrogate feminist perspectives on clothing and clothing practices. It also paves the way for an analysis of what certain pieces of clothing express, especially when the clothing is experienced in a particular context.
That being said, I would have welcomed a clearer juxtaposition of natural and cultural meanings--a distinction that is easy and intuitive. Also, I think you have made it harder for yourself and your readers, sticking to rather complex and technical language, where a simpler tone of voice would have sufficed. I feel some messages could have been made more poignantly in that case. The subject deserves it, especially since it undoubtedly would raise some controversy.
Finally, the structure of the text could also be improved upon. It does the job, but with some changes in the flow of the argument, the text would leave a stronger impression.
Author Response
Cover letter for major revision of: Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire: Clothing as tether between actor and environment
(Revised title: Sex Differentiated Attire’s Impact on Individual Action and Mate Selection: Clothing as tether between actor and environment)
Dear Reviewer 1,
First, I sincerely thank you again for the work that you have put into this manuscript. It is truly better for your input.
So, in response to your review, I have made the following revisions:
- I reworked the introduction to baldly state why this paper offers something novel and worth for several different audiences. This was my attempt to make the relevance clear and up front.
- The sections are smoothed out and better organized, at least I think so. I have added a section on modesty that should highlight the cultural/natural distinction in a way that is useful and less jarring. Thank you for the inspiration.
We shall see what happens when it is set out into the world.
Thank you again for working with me on this paper. I appreciate your efforts.
-Jenn Daniels
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article appears more like a literature review rather than a complete study with original data. The postulations are all very interesting but there is little clue as to how all of these can be applied to an actual study involving clothing, human behaviour and mate selection. The title of the article, "Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire.." is rather misleading. There is not much substantial findings out of this, as all of the citations are from secondary sources. Suggested research methods to conduct an original study around clothing could minimally be included as a contribution of the article. Other improvements would be to discuss critically all the other previous studies and how might these inform a new understanding of gender and sex roles better. As it stands, the article does not seem to contain any of these.
Author Response
Cover letter for major revision of: Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire: Clothing as tether between actor and environment
(Revised title: Sex Differentiated Attire’s Impact on Individual Action and Mate Selection: Clothing as tether between actor and environment)
Dear Reviewer 2,
First, I sincerely thank you for the time that you took to review my manuscript so carefully. Your feedback was thorough and appropriate. So, in response to your review, I have made the following revisions:
- I did alter the title to make it less misleading as to the goal of this paper.
- While this paper was always meant to be a theory paper rather than offer original research (which I hope will follow), I have revised several portions to emphasize the research/experimental opportunities that should be expected if one follows through with this particular integration of relatively disparate theories.
- I reworked the introduction to baldly state why this paper offers something novel and worth for several different audiences. This was my attempt to make the relevance clear and up front.
- The sections are smoothed out and better organized, at least I think so. I have added a section on modesty that should highlight the cultural/natural distinction in a way that is useful and less jarring. Thank you for the inspiration.
- Finally, I attempted to make the case for clothing/action as related to sexual behavior more of a focus, especially given the aims of this journal. The first section does still cover clothing for the solo actor but I do hope it sets up the case for the section on sexual behavior as joint action.
Thank you again for working with me on this paper. I appreciate your efforts.
-Jenn Daniels
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Your enquiry into ecological psychology (EP) and clothing/fashion offers an original attempt at ‘culturalizing’ EP, something that has been tried many times, but never by using clothing as a case. That alone made it an interesting read for me, even though I think the paper needs quite some work to make it shine.
Please find my main points below. More detailed comments are available in the pdf-document.
- Elaborate on the blurry distinction between natural (i.e., ecological) meanings and cultural ones. Talking about ‘symbols’ is a tad too general to be insightful. It passes over questions about where the cultural aspect originated, to what extent is the original functionality in clothing retained? The Peircian distinction between symbols and indexes might be helpful in that regard. Another source on the semiotics of fashion would be “Clothing and Meaning Making” by Bouvier (2018).
- In addition to (1), the distinction between natural land ecological meanings is not only blurry, both meanings persist, making any piece of clothing is polyvalent, so to say, holding different meanings for different people at the same time, such as with the golfer in one of my annotations in your text.
- The piece requires quite a few more examples to make your theoretical exposition more precise and perhaps tease out any problems that now remain implicit (clarity is essential when you want to demonstrate the use of a theoretical approach). You have offered quite a few examples in the second part, though, (starting around section 3), but I still feel you need to move beyond mere illustration and explain in terms of these examples, point by point, how the relationship between what I call physical and cultural aspects of clothing relate to each other and can be better understood with the EP approach.
- I noticed how the text never strays far from the traditional Gibsonian way of (literally) looking at the world. Much of the quoted literature is also quite old. Perhaps offering some contemporary sources from the Gibsonian brand of ecological psychology would be helpful to demonstrate your topic’s currency and proper engagement with the theory. In fact, attempting to further EP in the cultural realm would count as one approach to this paper that will make it relevant instantly. I have discussed the other approach at the next point.
- I have some concern that the employment of ecological psychology does not produce anything beyond the point of stating the obvious, while it does nothing to further our understanding of clothing. I have commented in the conclusion that it remains unclear to me, apart from introducing a bit of terminology, what EP has to offer with regard to clothing and fashion, that, e.g., sociology, anthropology and even evolutionary psychology haven’t already described and explained. Since they aren’t mentioned (apart from evolutionary psychology, which is mentioned in passing), my question now seems rhetorical. Still, I think the text's relevancy would greatly improve if you engaged more with these disciplines if only to demonstrate that EP would help us understand clothing and fashion better.
- Concerning the use of the literature ( apart from most of it being rather old), I found there is a lack in truly taking on the claims other authors or fields are making, making motivating comments about what exactly is missing in the work of others or critically examining sources by juxtaposing them. Most of the literature is used to support a fact or make a claim yourself.
- Although the sex differences are discussed in the article, somehow it seems as if this is a separate topic to that of introducing EP to the field of clothing/fashion studies. Giving the journal's nature, I had hoped that sex differences would have played a more central role in the article or that EP had been used more convincingly to discuss these. I think the article ‘Clothes Make a Difference’ by Tiggerman and Andrew (2012) could be useful to look into.
Overall, the text has quite some promise but does not yet meet the expectations I had. Still, I find there are ways to make this work. Most importantly, I would suggest a compelling, detailed argument of how EP may proceed further into the cultural realm, as exemplified here with a case on clothing, or a persuasive discussion of EP as the answer to all that is missing in research by other disciplines on clothing and fashion. The former requires an engagement with the EP literature, the second a sort of comparative analysis of what has been offered in other fields and demonstrating what aspect has been missing. Merely stating it does not cut it, though.
Kindly,
A referee
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Cover letter for major revision of: Ecological Perspectives on the Utilitarian and Communicative Possibilities of Sex Differentiated Attire
(Revised title: Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire: Clothing as tether between actor and environment)
Dear Reviewer 1,
First, I sincerely thank you for the time that you took to review my manuscript so carefully. Your feedback was thorough and appropriate. This paper has been marinating for a long time and may finally read as something closer to what I have always wanted to articulate.
So, in response to your review, I have made the following revisions:
• I have vastly widened the scope of theories I used as framing for this application to clothing/fashion. I hope that I have placed an updated version of classic Gibsonian EP into proper perspective with other theories (such as enactive theory). It is no longer claimed that this theory is THE approach for sexual behavior/clothing.
• As suggested, I went back into the literature and dug into the newest thinking on EP and related theories. In particular, I was pleased to find Segundo-Ortin (2020) whose paper sought to entwine EP and enaction theory via the concept of actor agency. It served to be the key to what I hope is no longer using EP to state the obvious about clothing.
• I sought to bring together research findings and theories from areas such as gender studies (e.g., Tiggeman’s work as suggested) and social psychology (e.g., objectification and self-objectification) to show instances where EP, broadly defined, could be offered as a mechanism.
• Ultimately, I doubled the number of references from the original manuscript and hope they seem to have been put to good use.
• Finally, I attempted to make the case for clothing/action as related to sexual behavior more of a focus, especially given the aims of this journal. The first section does still cover clothing for the solo actor but I do hope it sets up the case for the section on sexual behavior as joint action.
Thank you again for working with me on this paper. I appreciate your efforts.
-Jenn Daniels
Revised References
1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In Internationsal Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
3. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Buss, D.M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53:1214–1221. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1214.
5. Buss, D.M. (2009). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality. 43:241-242. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.019.
6. Hastie R., & Dawes R.M. (2001). Rational decision in an uncertainty world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. London: Sage Publications.
7. Emmons, R.A., Diener, E.D., & Larsen, R.J. (1986) Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(4), 815. doi: 0022-3514/86.
8. Kihlstrom JF. (2013). The person–situation interaction. In Carlston D, Ed. Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.786-805.
9. Heft, H. (2020). Ecological psychology and enaction theory: Divergent groundings. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 991. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991.
10. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Segundo-Ortin, M. (2020). Agency from a Radical Embodied Standpoint: An ecological-enactive proposal. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1319. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01319.
12. Roach-Higgins, M.E., & Eicher, J.B.(1995). Dress and identity. In Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B., & Johnson, K.K.P. (Eds.), Dress and Identity. New York, NY: Fairchild.
13. Jones, A.R., & Stallybrass, P. (2000). Renaissance clothing and the materials of memory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Mandoki, K. Point and line over the body: Social imaginaries underlying the logic of fashion. Journal of Popular Culture, 36(3), 600-622. DOI: 10.1111/1540-5931.00023
15. Wilson, E. (1990). Deviant dress. Feminist Review, 35. DOI: 66.76.114.2
16. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny Viewed and Assessed as Distinct Concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 428-439. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.428
17. Tiggeman, M., & Lacey, C. (2009). Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and clothing selection in female shoppers. Body Image, 6, 285-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002.
18. Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289-299. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00044-X.
19. Kuttruff, J. T., DeHart, S. G., & O’Brien, M. J. (1998). 7500 Years of Prehistoric Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science, 281, 72-75.
20. Holden, C. (2003). Hay beats GORE-TEX. Science, 301, 43.
21. Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, & Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2228. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0228.
22. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2001). Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology, 13, 173-195. doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1303_1
23. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2003). Haptically creating affordances: The user-tool interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 175-186. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.175
24. Hirose, N., & Nishio, A. (2001). The process of adapting to perceiving new action capabilities. Ecological Psychology, 13, 49-69. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/S15326969ECO1301_3
25. Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 361-370. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.361
26. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J. A., Craver, K. D., Douglas, S. D., & Fox, T. (1990). What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance of sitting. Ecological Psychology, 2, 325-366. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco0204_2
27. Li, Y. (2005). Perceptions of temperature, moisture and comfort in clothing during environmental transients. Ergonomics, 48(3), 234-248. 10.1080/0014013042000327715
28. Wilson, E. (2008, February 13). Swimsuit for the Olympics is a new skin for the big dip. New York Times. retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/sports/othersports/13swim.html
29. Hollander, A. L. (1978). Seeing through clothes. New York: Viking
30. Francke, K. (1912). Knock-Knees: German doctor’s theory. The Adelaide. Retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5349815
31. Fischer, G. V. (2001). Pantaloons and power. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
32. Laver, J., Haye, A., Tucker, A., & Schoeser, M. (2002). Costume and fashion: A concise history. London: Thames & Hudson.
33. Bell, Q. (1976). On human finery. New York: Schocken.
34. Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., & Schmidt, R.C. (2006). Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psychology, 18(1), 1-38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco1801_1
35. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215
36. Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66-74. DOI: 10.1080/00224490409552214
37. Haselton, M., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51(1), 40-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007
38. Rudofsky, B. (1971). The unfashionable human body. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
39. Friedman, D. (2003). A mind of its own: A cultural history of the penis. New York: Free Press
40. Singh, D. (1993) Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.293
41. Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a critical test. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88-98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00121-6
42. Hamilton, M. M., & Hobgood, T. (2005). Emerging trends and techniques in male aesthetic surgery. Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(4), 324-328. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-939512
43. Matarasso, A., Swift, R. W., & Rankin, M. (2006). Abdominoplasty and abdominal contour surgery: A national surgery survey. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 117(6), 1797-808. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000209918.55752.f3
44. International Society of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery. Available online: https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/ (accessed on 26 February 2021).
45. Bradshaw, H.K., Leyva, R.P., Nicolas, S.C.A., & Hill, S.E. (2019). Costly female appearance enhancement provides cues for short-term mating effort: The case of cosmetic surgery. Personality and Individual Differences, 138: 48-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.019.
46. Tiggeman, M., & Andrew, R. (2012). Clothes make a difference: The role of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 66: 646-654. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0085-3.
47. Calogero, R.M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x.
48. Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129-158. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1023/A:1020744915533
49. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2019). Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: How did they get there? The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4-5), 529-555. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1581883.
50. Daly, S.J., King, N., & Yeadon-Lee, T. (2018). ‘Femme it up or dress it down:’ Appearance and bisexual women in monogamous relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 3. doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2018.1485071
51. Gurugn, R.A.R., Brickner, M., Leet, M., & Punke, E. (2018). Dressing “in code.” Clothing rules, propriety, and perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5):553-557. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1393383.
52. Dozier, R. (2017). Female masculinity at work: Managing stigma on the job. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 197-209. DOI: 10.1177/0361684316682956.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper addreses the role of clothing from a different perspective: ecological psychology. This new approach is a turning point in the literature about attire, which has been dominated by a fashion approach. It broadens the discussion on clothing and gender differences. It analyses the interaction between individual behaviour and social one in terms of clothes. Self-perception and social-perceptions appear as other sources of information to understand why men and women wears differently, taking into account the historical approach that an environment offers different affordances to each gender. Ecological psychology underlines the role of the environment, as a physical context, in individual wearing.
The paper is also well structured. Nevertheless, I would suggest to enlarge the research, and to introduce some empirical data because the topic is very interesting.
Author Response
Cover letter for major revision of: Ecological Perspectives on the Utilitarian and Communicative Possibilities of Sex Differentiated Attire
(Revised title: Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire: Clothing as tether between actor and environment)
Dear Reviewer 2,
First, I sincerely thank you for the time that you took to review my manuscript so carefully. Your feedback was thorough and appropriate. So, in response to your review, I have made the following revisions:
• I have vastly widened the scope of theories I used as framing for this application to clothing/fashion. I hope that I have placed an updated version of classic Gibsonian EP into proper perspective with other theories (such as enactive theory). It is no longer claimed that this theory is THE approach for sexual behavior/clothing.
• Ultimately, I doubled the number of references from the original manuscript and hope they seem to have been put to good use.
• Finally, I attempted to make the case for clothing/action as related to sexual behavior more of a focus, especially given the aims of this journal. The first section does still cover clothing for the solo actor but I do hope it sets up the case for the section on sexual behavior as joint action.
Thank you again for working with me on this paper. I appreciate your efforts.
-Jenn Daniels
Revised References
1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In Internationsal Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
3. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Buss, D.M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53:1214–1221. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1214.
5. Buss, D.M. (2009). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality. 43:241-242. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.019.
6. Hastie R., & Dawes R.M. (2001). Rational decision in an uncertainty world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. London: Sage Publications.
7. Emmons, R.A., Diener, E.D., & Larsen, R.J. (1986) Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(4), 815. doi: 0022-3514/86.
8. Kihlstrom JF. (2013). The person–situation interaction. In Carlston D, Ed. Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.786-805.
9. Heft, H. (2020). Ecological psychology and enaction theory: Divergent groundings. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 991. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991.
10. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Segundo-Ortin, M. (2020). Agency from a Radical Embodied Standpoint: An ecological-enactive proposal. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1319. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01319.
12. Roach-Higgins, M.E., & Eicher, J.B.(1995). Dress and identity. In Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B., & Johnson, K.K.P. (Eds.), Dress and Identity. New York, NY: Fairchild.
13. Jones, A.R., & Stallybrass, P. (2000). Renaissance clothing and the materials of memory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Mandoki, K. Point and line over the body: Social imaginaries underlying the logic of fashion. Journal of Popular Culture, 36(3), 600-622. DOI: 10.1111/1540-5931.00023
15. Wilson, E. (1990). Deviant dress. Feminist Review, 35. DOI: 66.76.114.2
16. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny Viewed and Assessed as Distinct Concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 428-439. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.428
17. Tiggeman, M., & Lacey, C. (2009). Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and clothing selection in female shoppers. Body Image, 6, 285-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002.
18. Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289-299. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00044-X.
19. Kuttruff, J. T., DeHart, S. G., & O’Brien, M. J. (1998). 7500 Years of Prehistoric Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science, 281, 72-75.
20. Holden, C. (2003). Hay beats GORE-TEX. Science, 301, 43.
21. Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, & Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2228. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0228.
22. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2001). Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology, 13, 173-195. doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1303_1
23. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2003). Haptically creating affordances: The user-tool interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 175-186. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.175
24. Hirose, N., & Nishio, A. (2001). The process of adapting to perceiving new action capabilities. Ecological Psychology, 13, 49-69. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/S15326969ECO1301_3
25. Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 361-370. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.361
26. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J. A., Craver, K. D., Douglas, S. D., & Fox, T. (1990). What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance of sitting. Ecological Psychology, 2, 325-366. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco0204_2
27. Li, Y. (2005). Perceptions of temperature, moisture and comfort in clothing during environmental transients. Ergonomics, 48(3), 234-248. 10.1080/0014013042000327715
28. Wilson, E. (2008, February 13). Swimsuit for the Olympics is a new skin for the big dip. New York Times. retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/sports/othersports/13swim.html
29. Hollander, A. L. (1978). Seeing through clothes. New York: Viking
30. Francke, K. (1912). Knock-Knees: German doctor’s theory. The Adelaide. Retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5349815
31. Fischer, G. V. (2001). Pantaloons and power. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
32. Laver, J., Haye, A., Tucker, A., & Schoeser, M. (2002). Costume and fashion: A concise history. London: Thames & Hudson.
33. Bell, Q. (1976). On human finery. New York: Schocken.
34. Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., & Schmidt, R.C. (2006). Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psychology, 18(1), 1-38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco1801_1
35. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215
36. Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66-74. DOI: 10.1080/00224490409552214
37. Haselton, M., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51(1), 40-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007
38. Rudofsky, B. (1971). The unfashionable human body. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
39. Friedman, D. (2003). A mind of its own: A cultural history of the penis. New York: Free Press
40. Singh, D. (1993) Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.293
41. Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a critical test. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88-98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00121-6
42. Hamilton, M. M., & Hobgood, T. (2005). Emerging trends and techniques in male aesthetic surgery. Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(4), 324-328. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-939512
43. Matarasso, A., Swift, R. W., & Rankin, M. (2006). Abdominoplasty and abdominal contour surgery: A national surgery survey. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 117(6), 1797-808. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000209918.55752.f3
44. International Society of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery. Available online: https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/ (accessed on 26 February 2021).
45. Bradshaw, H.K., Leyva, R.P., Nicolas, S.C.A., & Hill, S.E. (2019). Costly female appearance enhancement provides cues for short-term mating effort: The case of cosmetic surgery. Personality and Individual Differences, 138: 48-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.019.
46. Tiggeman, M., & Andrew, R. (2012). Clothes make a difference: The role of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 66: 646-654. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0085-3.
47. Calogero, R.M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x.
48. Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129-158. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1023/A:1020744915533
49. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2019). Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: How did they get there? The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4-5), 529-555. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1581883.
50. Daly, S.J., King, N., & Yeadon-Lee, T. (2018). ‘Femme it up or dress it down:’ Appearance and bisexual women in monogamous relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 3. doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2018.1485071
51. Gurugn, R.A.R., Brickner, M., Leet, M., & Punke, E. (2018). Dressing “in code.” Clothing rules, propriety, and perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5):553-557. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1393383.
52. Dozier, R. (2017). Female masculinity at work: Managing stigma on the job. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 197-209. DOI: 10.1177/0361684316682956.
Reviewer 3 Report
The main concern with this article is that it develops an argument that has very dangerous implications and dangerous potential consequences, mostly, for women. The manuscript develops this idea: “people perceive what another wears in order to detect information that will specify what that person affords them” (lines 272-273) and employs it for the case of women. It has been investigated for long how the way a woman dresses up has been used to justify sexual violence of some men toward her (the saying of “a woman provoked rape by wearing a short skirt”), and feminism has fought strongly and for long for the right of all women to wear as they want to and be respected sexually and at all levels.
The article should recognize the literature in gender studies, communication studies, sociology, etc, on topics such as consent, as well as the voices of many women who have claimed their right for centuries to wear whatever they want to and be respected, so that women can be safe regardless their dressing.
Given the aforementioned scientific and implications reasons for the overcoming of violence against women, this article requires profound and extensive revising for it to be considered for publication.
Author Response
Cover letter for major revision of: Ecological Perspectives on the Utilitarian and Communicative Possibilities of Sex Differentiated Attire
(Revised title: Procreation, Mate Selection, and Sex Differentiated Attire: Clothing as tether between actor and environment)
Dear Reviewer 3,
First, I sincerely thank you for the time that you took to review my manuscript so carefully. Your feedback was thorough and appropriate. Frankly, I was horrified by my omission in discussing the issue of consent when it comes to
So, in response to your review, I have made the following revisions:
• I have vastly widened the scope of theories I used as framing for this application to clothing/fashion. I hope that I have placed an updated version of classic Gibsonian EP into proper perspective with other theories (such as enactive theory). It is no longer claimed that this theory is THE approach for sexual behavior/clothing.
• I went back into the literature and dug into the newest thinking on EP and related theories. In particular, I was pleased to find Segundo-Ortin (2020) whose paper sought to entwine EP and enaction theory via the concept of actor agency. This source allowed me to actually use EP related theories to be blunt about the role that fashion/clothing does and does NOT play in joint sexual action. I look forward to any additional feedback on how to communicate the firmness of this conviction and truth. I have included the particular section from the revised manuscript her for your convenience:
One way that fashion communicates possible actions of its wearer, not just in terms of mating but in general behavioral settings, is often found in information from the cut and movement of the garment. Fashion can communicate the effectivities of another person and thus the affordances that a person will provide the perceiver. For example, people viewed walking in high heels were judged as easier to attack than people who walked in flat shoes [48]. Thus, the clothing that targets wore directly specified the kinds of action capabilities related to attackablility (e.g., ability or inability to run away) that the target had.
It is important at this point to disambiguate clothing as an invitation for joint sexual affordances and sexual assault. This can be achieved by including the concept of agency. Segundo-Ortin [11] successfully argues for a unified
theory of human agency that brings together more traditional forms of ecological psychology and enactive theory. Here agency is described as “a property of the relation between the organism and its environment, where this coupling is made possible by the existence of ecological perceptual information the organism can directly detect and exploit in guiding its action.” This is a very active and participatory definition for agency that includes all of the aspects of clothing that have been discussed: extending action within an environment for the solo organism and apprehending perceptual information to guide behavior. When applying this to human sexual behavior, the male actor/environment system and the female actor/environment system each retain their own agency. If one is using fashion as a means to invite others to joint social action, it remains just that: an invitation. There is nothing in this proposal that would indicate the visual amplification of cues for social affordances would lead to loss of agency and thus excuse sexual assaults. Under this analysis of clothing and fashion, it still does not matter what a target of sexual assault was wearing.
• Ultimately, I doubled the number of references from the original manuscript and hope they seem to have been put to good use. These sources come from a variety of fields of study and I hope will acknowledge the contributions I have depended on to make my current argument.
Thank you again for working with me on this paper. I appreciate your efforts.
-Jenn Daniels
Revised References
1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In Internationsal Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 3, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
3. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Buss, D.M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53:1214–1221. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1214.
5. Buss, D.M. (2009). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality. 43:241-242. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.019.
6. Hastie R., & Dawes R.M. (2001). Rational decision in an uncertainty world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. London: Sage Publications.
7. Emmons, R.A., Diener, E.D., & Larsen, R.J. (1986) Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(4), 815. doi: 0022-3514/86.
8. Kihlstrom JF. (2013). The person–situation interaction. In Carlston D, Ed. Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.786-805.
9. Heft, H. (2020). Ecological psychology and enaction theory: Divergent groundings. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 991. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991.
10. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Segundo-Ortin, M. (2020). Agency from a Radical Embodied Standpoint: An ecological-enactive proposal. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1319. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01319.
12. Roach-Higgins, M.E., & Eicher, J.B.(1995). Dress and identity. In Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B., & Johnson, K.K.P. (Eds.), Dress and Identity. New York, NY: Fairchild.
13. Jones, A.R., & Stallybrass, P. (2000). Renaissance clothing and the materials of memory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Mandoki, K. Point and line over the body: Social imaginaries underlying the logic of fashion. Journal of Popular Culture, 36(3), 600-622. DOI: 10.1111/1540-5931.00023
15. Wilson, E. (1990). Deviant dress. Feminist Review, 35. DOI: 66.76.114.2
16. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny Viewed and Assessed as Distinct Concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 428-439. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.428
17. Tiggeman, M., & Lacey, C. (2009). Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction, appearance investment, and clothing selection in female shoppers. Body Image, 6, 285-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002.
18. Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289-299. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00044-X.
19. Kuttruff, J. T., DeHart, S. G., & O’Brien, M. J. (1998). 7500 Years of Prehistoric Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri. Science, 281, 72-75.
20. Holden, C. (2003). Hay beats GORE-TEX. Science, 301, 43.
21. Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, & Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2228. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0228.
22. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2001). Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology, 13, 173-195. doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1303_1
23. Wagman, J. B., & Carello, C. (2003). Haptically creating affordances: The user-tool interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 175-186. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.9.3.175
24. Hirose, N., & Nishio, A. (2001). The process of adapting to perceiving new action capabilities. Ecological Psychology, 13, 49-69. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/S15326969ECO1301_3
25. Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 361-370. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.361
26. Mark, L. S., Balliett, J. A., Craver, K. D., Douglas, S. D., & Fox, T. (1990). What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance of sitting. Ecological Psychology, 2, 325-366. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco0204_2
27. Li, Y. (2005). Perceptions of temperature, moisture and comfort in clothing during environmental transients. Ergonomics, 48(3), 234-248. 10.1080/0014013042000327715
28. Wilson, E. (2008, February 13). Swimsuit for the Olympics is a new skin for the big dip. New York Times. retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/sports/othersports/13swim.html
29. Hollander, A. L. (1978). Seeing through clothes. New York: Viking
30. Francke, K. (1912). Knock-Knees: German doctor’s theory. The Adelaide. Retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5349815
31. Fischer, G. V. (2001). Pantaloons and power. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
32. Laver, J., Haye, A., Tucker, A., & Schoeser, M. (2002). Costume and fashion: A concise history. London: Thames & Hudson.
33. Bell, Q. (1976). On human finery. New York: Schocken.
34. Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., Baron, R. M., & Schmidt, R.C. (2006). Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others. Ecological Psychology, 18(1), 1-38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1207/s15326969eco1801_1
35. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215
36. Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66-74. DOI: 10.1080/00224490409552214
37. Haselton, M., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51(1), 40-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007
38. Rudofsky, B. (1971). The unfashionable human body. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
39. Friedman, D. (2003). A mind of its own: A cultural history of the penis. New York: Free Press
40. Singh, D. (1993) Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.293
41. Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a critical test. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88-98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00121-6
42. Hamilton, M. M., & Hobgood, T. (2005). Emerging trends and techniques in male aesthetic surgery. Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(4), 324-328. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-939512
43. Matarasso, A., Swift, R. W., & Rankin, M. (2006). Abdominoplasty and abdominal contour surgery: A national surgery survey. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 117(6), 1797-808. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000209918.55752.f3
44. International Society of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery. Available online: https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/ (accessed on 26 February 2021).
45. Bradshaw, H.K., Leyva, R.P., Nicolas, S.C.A., & Hill, S.E. (2019). Costly female appearance enhancement provides cues for short-term mating effort: The case of cosmetic surgery. Personality and Individual Differences, 138: 48-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.019.
46. Tiggeman, M., & Andrew, R. (2012). Clothes make a difference: The role of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 66: 646-654. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-0085-3.
47. Calogero, R.M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x.
48. Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129-158. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1023/A:1020744915533
49. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2019). Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: How did they get there? The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4-5), 529-555. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1581883.
50. Daly, S.J., King, N., & Yeadon-Lee, T. (2018). ‘Femme it up or dress it down:’ Appearance and bisexual women in monogamous relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 3. doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2018.1485071
51. Gurugn, R.A.R., Brickner, M., Leet, M., & Punke, E. (2018). Dressing “in code.” Clothing rules, propriety, and perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5):553-557. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1393383.
52. Dozier, R. (2017). Female masculinity at work: Managing stigma on the job. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 197-209. DOI: 10.1177/0361684316682956.
