Standards of Beauty: The Impact of

Mannequins in the Retail Context

JENNIFER J. ARGO
DARREN W. DAHL

Across six studies, a female mannequin is demonstrated to have negative implica-

tions for both male and female consumers low in appearance self-esteem. In par-
ticular, consumers who are lower in appearance self-esteem evaluate a product
displayed by a mannequin more negatively as compared with consumers higher in
appearance self-esteem. As mannequins signal the normative standard of beauty
and consumers with low self-esteem in regard to their appearance believe they fail
to meet this standard, these consumers become threatened by the beauty stan-
dard when exposed to a mannequin and in response denigrate the product the
mannequin is displaying. We provide evidence for the underlying process in three
ways: 1) through the finding that the effect for male and female consumers with
low appearance self-esteem arises only when the mannequin is displaying an
appearance-related product, 2) through mediation analysis demonstrating that the
mannequin conveys society’s standard of beauty and that this negatively impacts
product evaluations, and 3) through mitigation of the effect by removing the pres-
ence of threat via a self-affirmation task or decreasing the mannequin’s beauty
(e.g., marking its face, removing its hair, or removing its head). Multiple avenues
for future research are forwarded.

Keywords: mannequins, global comparisons, retail

“T hey are the peddlers of perfection, the femmes of

fashion” (Tidy 2012, 1). With their long slim legs,
thin waists, and generous breasts, in fashion retail, female
mannequins make salient society’s current normative stan-
dards of beauty. Indeed, the appearance of female manne-
quins has mirrored society’s current notion of feminine
Jennifer J. Argo (jennifer.argo@ualberta.ca) is Carthy Professor of
Marketing at the School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB, T6G 2R6. Darren W. Dahl (darren.dahl@sauder.ubc.ca) is BC
Innovation Council Professor of Marketing at the Sauder School of
Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2. The
authors would like to thank Sarah Moore, Virginia Weber, and the market-
ing group at the University of Colorado and Vanderbilt for comments on
earlier versions of this research. The financial support from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully ac-
knowledged. The authors would also like to extend a thank you to the
University of Alberta Bookstore and Laura Jamer for their assistance in
conducting the experiments.
Laura Peracchio served as editor and Rashmi Adaval served as associate
editor for this article.
Advance Access publication June 3, 2017
perfection. For example, during the Depression when food
was scarce, mannequins appeared affluent and well fed
(i.e., fitting size 18 dresses). In contrast, today it is consid-
ered more attractive to be thinner and thus mannequins
more commonly tout a size 4 or 6 figure (Tidy 2012).
Although mannequins are prevalent in virtually every fash-
ion retailer, scant research has explored the implications of
this form of marketing stimuli.
The present research seeks to provide what we believe to
be the first academic investigation into the impact of fe-
male mannequins in the retail context. The substantive im-
plications of doing so are great, given that the global
apparel industry is valued at $3 trillion (FashionUnited
2016), and it has been argued that mannequins are one of
the most prominent and powerful marketing tools used
among successful clothing retailers worldwide (Weis
2006). Furthermore, we propose that because consumers
believe that mannequins represent what society deems as
physically attractive, mannequins will make salient the
normative standards of beauty to which consumers will
then compare themselves. Importantly, we argue that the
comparisons seen here are made relative to the normative

C The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
V
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com  Vol. 0  2017
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucx072

1
2 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
standards of beauty that the mannequin signals, rather than
to the mannequin itself. Indeed, we demonstrate that the
normative information made accessible by the mannequin
signals global societal standards (related to beauty), as the
effects we identify are realized for both female and male
consumers alike; thus, the generalized standards of beauty
that the mannequin makes salient have a relatively broad
applicability. Our finding that the social comparison is oc-
curring at a global level departs from previous research,
which has focused on social comparisons occurring at the
individual level (Dahl, Argo, and Morales 2012; Hamilton,
Mintz, and Kashubeck-West 2007).
Our research also adds to the growing body of research
that has investigated differential reactions of consumers
low in appearance self-esteem to social comparisons with
similar others (Dahl et al. 2012). Our research adds to this
work by demonstrating that consumers are also impacted
by a novel type of source—an inanimate object. Indeed, al-
though female mannequins are dissimilar from consumers
because they are not real (and from males because they are
the opposite gender), we find that they are capable of creat-
ing a global social threat through the normative informa-
tion they make salient and this can have a profound impact
on individuals who are sensitive to appearance-related cues
(i.e., those low in appearance self-esteem). In particular,
we argue that mannequins make accessible the normative
standard of beauty that poses a self-threat to consumers
low in appearance self-esteem, and this in turn has negative
implications for those consumers’ product evaluations.
In general, we find that the use of female mannequins as
a retail promotional tool is less effective for consumers
low in appearance self-esteem. Indeed, the primary objec-
tive of the first three studies (study 1a, 1b, and 1c) is to
show that consumers who are lower in appearance self-
esteem (as compared to those higher in appearance self-
esteem) evaluate an appearance-related product displayed
by a mannequin less favorably. Study 1c also provides ini-
tial evidence in support of our proposed underlying mecha-
nism using both mediation and moderation approaches. In
particular, using moderation we show that it is only when
the mannequin displays an appearance-related product that
exposure to the mannequin creates a self-threat for con-
sumers low in appearance self-esteem. Here, we argue that
an appearance-related product displayed by the mannequin
makes the normative standard of beauty accessible as it ac-
centuates appearance, whereas a non-appearance-related
product does not have this effect. Finally, mediation analy-
sis demonstrates that consumers lower in appearance
self-esteem believe that mannequins displaying an
appearance-related product signal the normative standard of
what society defines as beautiful, and that this belief influ-
ences their evaluations of an appearance-related product.
The remainder of this article seeks to provide additional
evidence that mannequins make the normative standard of
beauty salient and this in turn creates a self-threat to
consumers low in appearance self-esteem. To achieve this
we explore two different moderators to better understand
how self-threat operates in the context of mannequins.
First, using an established psychological procedure for
demonstrating the presence of self-threat (i.e., a self-
affirmation task; Steele 1988), we find that buttressing the
self-worth of consumers with low appearance self-esteem
results in a more positive evaluation of the product associ-
ated with the mannequin (study 2). Second, using substan-
tive manipulations drawn from the retail environment, we
vary the aesthetic appearance of the mannequin by decreas-
ing its beauty (i.e., the mannequin has her face marked
[study 3a], is missing her hair [study 3a], or is headless
[study 3b]). We argue that conceptually, varying the
appearance of a mannequin will decrease the level of
self-threat experienced by consumers with low appearance
self-esteem and, as a result, have a positive impact on sub-
sequent product evaluations. In sum, we show that manne-
quins make salient society’s normative standard of beauty
and establish through triangulating evidence that this stan-
dard presents a self-threat for consumers with low appear-
ance self-esteem.
The current research provides insight about one of the
most commonly used, yet understudied, marketing tools
found in the retail context. We demonstrate that an inani-
mate object, such as a mannequin, can serve as normative
information of what society deems to be beautiful and
therefore impacts a consumer’s experience in the retail en-
vironment. In particular, this accessible beauty standard
acts as a self-threat to consumers lower in appearance self-
esteem and in turn has a detrimental impact on their prod-
uct evaluations. As noted above, we find that our effects
arise for both females and males exposed to a female man-
nequin, providing strong evidence that consumers compare
themselves to the normative standard of beauty that the
mannequin makes salient, rather than to the mannequin it-
self. In the next section we establish our conceptual frame-
work by discussing research on societal norms.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Social norms are shared belief systems about the rules
and expectations derived from society that guide behaviors
(Cialdini and Trost 1998). They include the “customs, tra-
ditions, standards, rules, values, fashions, and all other cri-
teria of conduct which are standardized as a consequence
of the contact of individuals” (Sherif 1936, 3). Failure to
comply with social norms can result in sanctions from so-
cial networks (e.g., disapproval from friends or family);
thus, it is not surprising that social norms have a strong im-
pact on one’s behavior (Cialdini and Trost 1998).
Social norms are learned and developed through sociali-
zation and environmental information. Indeed, a norm typi-
cally cannot influence behavior unless it is made salient by
ARGO AND DAHL 3

an environmental or situational cue (Berkowitz 1972; We further argue that these signals do not influence all
Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno 1991; Schwartz 1977). The consumers equally. Specifically, we expect that consumers
number of social norms that direct and guide our behaviors who are vulnerable to appearance-related information (i.e.,
is vast, ranging from rules on an individual’s responsibility consumers low in appearance self-esteem) will be more
in maintaining a clean society (e.g., littering; Cialdini, susceptible to the effects we identify.
Reno, and Kallgren 1990) to expectations of behaviors dur-
ing interpersonal exchanges (e.g., norm of reciprocity;
Cialdini 1984) to the standards for what is valued with re- Appearance Self-Esteem
spect to personal characteristics (e.g., standards of beauty).
Appearance self-esteem denotes the self-worth one de-
In the current research we focus on the normative standard
rives from his/her body weight and image (Argo and White
of beauty that society cultivates through a variety of
2011). Past research finds that consumers who are low in
mechanisms.
appearance self-esteem respond negatively when presented
Indeed, there is a litany of mediums through which the
with attractive appearance-related information (Dahl et al.
normative standard of beauty is communicated to individ-
2012; Gulas and McKeage 2000; Jones 2002; Martin and
uals throughout society. Consumers are inundated with vi-
Kennedy 1993; Richins 1991). For example, Dahl et al.
suals of what society deems as beautiful through media and
(2012) find that consumers low in appearance self-esteem
entertainment (e.g., social media, television, movies) and
evaluate a target product less favorably when another at-
the fashion industry (e.g., magazines, fashion houses, the
tractive shopper is also wearing it as compared to con-
“catwalks”). It is through these communication channels
sumers high in appearance self-esteem.
that the standards of beauty are defined, evolved, and
Extending this into the current context, we expect that
brought to life (Banner 2006; Englis, Solomon, and
consumers low in appearance self-esteem will be nega-
Ashmore 1994; Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo 1992).
tively influenced by the normative information made sa-
These norms of beauty, once accepted, then influence and
lient through a perfect female mannequin. In particular,
shape consumption behaviors.
because consumers lower (as opposed to higher) in appear-
In the context we study, the medium that communicates
ance self-esteem do not feel that they themselves are beau-
the norms and standards of beauty is a mannequin.
tiful, they will perceive the mannequin, which signals the
Mannequins are three-dimensional dolls used to convey
standard of beauty, as a normative threat. It is important to
styles and show off clothing combinations in retail.
note that, unlike in previous research finding that social
Although the existence of mannequins dates back centuries
comparisons occur with the source of the social informa-
to when they appeared in the French and British Royal
tion, in the context of a mannequin (i.e., an inanimate ob-
Courts (Hale 1985), little research effort has been directed
ject) our position is that the mannequin itself is not the
toward studying them. Two exceptions include Sen, Block,
source of the threatening social comparison. Instead, we
and Chandran (2002), who studied window displays and
propose that the social threat arises from the normative sig-
suggested that stores might benefit if the body type of man-
nal of beauty that the mannequin makes salient. Thus, it is
nequins matches the store’s target market, and Poran
necessary for the product displayed by the mannequin to be
(2002), who found that mannequins are rated as more at-
linked to the notion of beauty for the global standard of
tractive by Caucasian females as compared to females
beauty to be accessible and threatening. Given this, we ex-
from other ethnicities.
pect that the normative threat will occur only when the
In the present research, we seek to build on these initial
products displayed by the mannequin are related to a
efforts by studying the impact of mannequins on con-
beauty signal (i.e., are appearance-related). In the case
sumers’ responses to the products the mannequins are dis-
where the products are not appearance-related, the norma-
playing. The basic premise that we forward is that
tive signal of beauty will not be salient and consumers
mannequins, although inanimate objects, serve as norma-
lower in appearance self-esteem will not be threatened.
tive signals of beauty that make salient a generalized stan-
Finally, because consumers have a fundamental need to
dard, and that consumers compare themselves to this
hold a positive self-view (Steele 1988; Tesser 1988), when
standard rather than the mannequin per se. Indeed, manne-
a mannequin makes the normative standard of beauty sa-
quins are designed to represent and communicate society’s
lient, consumers low in appearance self-esteem will seek to
current views on what constitutes the perfect physical ap-
restore their sense of self-worth. One way to achieve this in
pearance (Tidy 2012). Stated differently, mannequins sig-
the current context is to denigrate the product associated
nal the normative standards of beauty via the retail
with the symbol of beauty (i.e., the product the mannequin
merchandise they display. Importantly, we expect that the
is wearing). More formally:
generalized nature of the beauty signal provided by the
mannequin will apply to both male and female consumers. H1: Consumers lower in appearance self-esteem (vs. con-
That is, we expect the global nature of the signal to inspire sumers higher in appearance self-esteem) will evaluate a
comparison to the expressed standard from both genders. product less favorably when it is displayed by a mannequin.
4 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
H2: Consumers lower in appearance self-esteem will evalu-
ate an appearance-related product less favorably than a non-
appearance-related product when it is displayed by a
mannequin.
H3: Consumers lower in appearance self-esteem will evalu-
ate an appearance-related product less favorably when it is
displayed on a mannequin because the mannequin will
make salient a threatening normative standard of beauty.
Current Studies
Across five studies we empirically test the implications
of a female mannequin on consumers’ evaluations of prod-
ucts. In study 1a we test our basic effect that a mannequin
will differentially influence consumers’ evaluations of a
target product based on their appearance self-esteem (hy-
pothesis 1). In study 1b we replicate our effect using a dif-
ferent product and a different mannequin, and include a
control group (no mannequin) condition to demonstrate the
direction of the effect. In study 1c we demonstrate that our
effect arises only when the product is associated with the
standard of beauty (i.e., the mannequin is displaying a
product that is appearance-related; hypothesis 2). This
study also provides initial evidence that mannequins dis-
playing appearance-related products serve as threatening
normative signals of society’s standards of beauty for con-
sumers lower in appearance self-esteem (hypothesis 3). In
our remaining studies, we provide additional evidence that
a mannequin signals normative beauty information that is
threatening to consumers low in appearance self-esteem.
We achieve this in two different ways. First, in study 2 we
test whether self-affirmation can buttress consumers with
low appearance self-esteem by building a positive view of
their self and in doing so alleviate the threat presented by
the mannequin. Second, in studies 3a and 3b we decrease
the mannequin’s ability to make salient the normative stan-
dard of beauty (i.e., by marking the mannequin’s face or
removing its hair [study 3a] or by removing the manne-
quin’s head [study 3b]).
Of critical importance, in five of our studies we test our
predictions across both genders. Including both male and
female participants allows us to test whether consumers
lower in appearance self-esteem are threatened by the nor-
mative standard of beauty made accessible by the manne-
quin, or instead by comparisons specific to the mannequin
itself. Support for our theorizing would be realized if both
genders respond similarly to the threatening information
make salient by the mannequin, whereas if the latter is true
(i.e., consumers compare to the mannequin directly), then
only females would be susceptible to this information. The
data cleaning rules that were applied across all of the stud-
ies included failure to complete the focal measures (i.e.,
IVs, DVs) and if responses to the dependent variables devi-
ated more than three standard deviations from the respec-
tive mean.
STUDY 1A
Method
Participants and Design. In study 1a we measured ap-
pearance self-esteem and participants’ gender. Product
evaluations were included as the key dependent variable.
One hundred thirteen undergraduates from a large North
American university completed the study in exchange for
course credit.
Procedure. Participants were run in small groups and
upon arrival were told that we were interested in their eval-
uations of a target product. They were then taken over to a
display in which a female mannequin (see appendix A for
image and specs) was wearing the target product—a bikini.
Participants were asked to take a moment to examine the
product. Once they were done they were taken to a cubical
to complete a short survey that included our focal depen-
dent variable. In the survey participants indicated the ex-
tent to which their overall impression of the bikini was
negative/positive, undesirable/desirable, unfavorable/fa-
vorable, and disliked/liked on seven-point scales. We aver-
aged these items together to create a product evaluation
index (a ¼ .93). After answering questions that were con-
sistent with the cover story and items included for explor-
atory purposes, participants indicated their gender and
completed an open-ended suspicion probe. Examination of
the suspicion probe indicated that participants were not
aware of the experimental hypotheses. As this was also the
case in the subsequent studies, it is not discussed further.
We assessed appearance self-esteem during mass testing
that took place over the course of the semester and was
done online separately from the study sessions. We mea-
sured the individual difference using six items on seven-
point scales (1 ¼ strongly agree to 7 ¼ strongly disagree;
Heatherton and Polivy 1991). The items included “I feel
satisfied with the way my body looks right now,” “I feel
good about myself,” “I am pleased with my appearance
right now,” “I feel that others respect and admire me,” “I
am dissatisfied with my weight,” (reverse-scored) and “I
feel unattractive” (reverse-scored). The items were aver-
aged together and the appearance self-esteem index was
mean-centered for analysis (a¼ .87).
Results
Three participants were removed from the analyses, as
two did not indicate their gender and the third did not com-
plete the online appearance self-esteem scale. Thus, the fi-
nal sample consisted of 110 participants (females ¼ 62,
males ¼ 48).
Product Evaluation Index. To test hypothesis 1 we
conducted linear regression analysis that included the con-
tinuous mean-centered index for appearance self-esteem,
gender, and their interaction term as predictors of the
ARGO AND DAHL
product evaluation index. Results of the analysis revealed
only a significant effect of appearance self-esteem (b ¼
.275, t(109) ¼ 2.92, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .075); consumers
lower in appearance self-esteem evaluated a product worn
by a mannequin less favorably than consumers higher in
appearance self-esteem. As gender did not significantly
predict our focal DV as a simple effect or included in an in-
teraction term in either this study (ps > .20) or any of the
remaining studies that included both genders, it is not dis-
cussed further.
Discussion
Study 1a provides initial evidence that consumers evalu-
ate a product worn by a mannequin differently depending
on their appearance self-esteem. Specifically, consumers
lower (vs. higher) in appearance self-esteem evaluated the
target product less favorably when it was displayed on the
mannequin. Importantly, gender did not produce any sig-
nificant effects, lending support to our theorizing that con-
sumers do not compare directly to the mannequin, but
rather are influenced by the normative signal that the man-
nequin makes salient. Indeed, it is the global standard of
beauty signaled by the mannequin that consumers appear
to be both comparing to and impacted by.
In study 1b we seek to replicate our effects using a dif-
ferent target product and a new mannequin. In addition,
this study includes a control group wherein the product
does not appear on a mannequin—rather, it appears on a
wall—to confirm that the negative product evaluations re-
ported by consumers lower (vs. higher) in appearance self-
esteem arise due to the presence of the mannequin, rather
than simply a negative evaluation of apparel.
STUDY 1B
Method
Participants and Design. Study 1b used a 2 (manne-
quin: present vs. absent)  appearance self-esteem be-
tween-subjects design with a product evaluation index
again included as the focal dependent variable (a ¼ .92).
One hundred ninety-seven undergraduates from a large
North American university completed the study in ex-
change for course credit.
Procedure. A similar procedure to that described in
study 1a was used, with three notable differences. First, to
enhance generalizability we introduced a new target prod-
uct—a black cocktail dress. Second, we used a new manne-
quin to ensure that the results of study 1a were not related
to the specific mannequin (see appendix B for image and
specs). Third, to determine the direction of the manne-
quin’s impact on product evaluations, we introduced a con-
trol condition. In particular, in the present condition
participants viewed the product on the mannequin as in
5
FIGURE 1
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
MANNEQUIN ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 mannequin
control
6
5
4
3
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
study 1a, while in the absent condition the product was
pinned onto a display wall. Appearance self-esteem was
again assessed during mass testing that took place over the
course of the semester and was done online separately
from the study sessions (a¼ .89).
Results
Four participants were removed from the analyses, as
they did not complete the online appearance self-esteem
scale. Thus, the final sample consisted of 193 participants
(females ¼ 91, males ¼ 102).
Product Evaluation Index. Linear regression analysis
that included the continuous mean-centered index for ap-
pearance self-esteem, mannequin, and their interaction
term as predictors of the product evaluation index revealed
significant effects of both appearance self-esteem (b ¼
.161, t(192) ¼ 2.51, p < .05, partial g2 ¼ .032) and manne-
quin (b ¼ –.166, t(192) ¼ 2.00, p < .05, partial g2 ¼ .021),
and more importantly a significant interaction (b ¼ .134,
t(192) ¼ 2.08, p < .05, partial g2 ¼ .022; see figure 1).
Simple slope analysis compared product evaluations for
consumers lower and higher in appearance self-esteem
when the product was on the mannequin (present coded as
0, absent coded as 1). Results revealed that consumers
lower in appearance self-esteem evaluated the product less
favorably than consumers higher in appearance self-esteem
when the product was displayed on the mannequin (b ¼
.322, t(192) ¼ 3.35, p < .01). No differences arose in prod-
uct evaluations based on consumers’ appearance self-
esteem when the product was not displayed on the manne-
quin (present coded as 1, absent coded as 0: b ¼ .030,
t(192) ¼ .29, p > .70). Regression lines were also plotted
for one standard deviation above and one standard
6 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
deviation below the mean for the mean-centered index of ap-
pearance self-esteem (Aiken and West 1991; Preacher,
Curran, and Bauer 2006) and spotlight analysis was con-
ducted. Spotlight analysis revealed that participants with low
appearance self-esteem evaluated the product significantly
less favorably when the product was displayed on the manne-
quin as compared to pinned to the wall (b ¼ –.34, t(191) ¼
2.89, p < .01). In contrast, participants with high appearance
self-esteem rated the product equally favorably regardless of
whether the product was displayed on the mannequin or not
(b ¼ .008, t(192) ¼ .06, p > .90).
Discussion
Study 1b replicates the initial finding that consumers eval-
uate a product worn by a mannequin differently depending on
their appearance self-esteem. Specifically, consumers lower
(as compared to higher) in appearance self-esteem evaluated
the target product less favorably when it was displayed on the
mannequin. In contrast, no differences in product evaluations
arose when the mannequin was not present.
In study 1c we seek to replicate our effects while provid-
ing initial insight into the underlying process. We achieve
this by first exploring the moderating role of product type
to demonstrate that the effect is realized only when the nor-
mative standard of beauty is made accessible (i.e., the man-
nequin displays an appearance-related product). Second,
using mediation we provide initial evidence that consumers
lower in appearance self-esteem perceive a mannequin dis-
playing an appearance-related product as a signal of soci-
ety’s standard of beauty, and this drives their product
evaluations. Finally, we also seek to rule out the possibility
that the presence of a female mannequin might affect fe-
males and males via different processes. In particular, it is
possible that while females respond to a mannequin as pre-
viously theorized, when males who are low in appearance
self-esteem are presented with a normative standard of
beauty, it might increase their fear of rejection and this in
turn leads to lower product evaluations.
STUDY 1C
Method
Participants and Design. Study 1c used a 2 (product
type: appearance-related vs. non-appearance-related)  ap-
pearance self-esteem between-subjects design with a prod-
uct evaluation index included as the focal dependent
variable. One hundred twenty-seven undergraduates from a
large North American university completed the study in
exchange for course credit.
Procedure. A similar procedure to that described in
study 1a was used, with three notable differences. First, to
manipulate the product type, the mannequin displayed either
a pashmina scarf in the appearance-related condition or an
FIGURE 2
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
PRODUCT TYPE ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 appearance-related
non-appearance-related
6
5
4
3
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
umbrella in the non-appearance-related condition. Pretest re-
sults indicated that a pashmina scarf influences how attractive
a person looks to a greater extent (M ¼ 4.65) than does an
umbrella (M ¼ 2.63; t(47) ¼ 8.42, p < .001). Second, to pro-
vide mediation evidence for our underlying mechanism that
mannequins signal a normative signal of the standard of
beauty, we included two items (“To what extent do you think
the mannequin symbolizes the standard for beauty that soci-
ety endorses?” and “To what extent do you think that the
mannequin symbolizes the standard for the female body that
society endorses?”; standard of beauty index r ¼ .77).
Finally, to determine whether a fear of rejection underlies our
effects, we included a single item (“To what extent are you
currently worried about being socially rejected?” 1¼ not at
all worried, 7 ¼ very worried).
Results
We removed from the analysis one participant who did
not complete the online appearance self-esteem scale.
Thus, the final sample consisted of 126 participants (fe-
males ¼ 54, males ¼ 72).
Product Evaluation Index. We conducted linear regres-
sion analysis that included product type (appearance-re-
lated coded as 1, non-appearance-related coded as –1), the
continuous mean-centered index for appearance self-
esteem, and their interaction term as predictors of the prod-
uct evaluation index. Results of the analysis revealed that
the effect of appearance self-esteem was significant (b ¼
.177, t(122) ¼ 2.04, p < .05, partial g2 ¼ .033), as was the
two-way interaction (b ¼ .232, t(122) ¼ 2.69, p < .01, par-
tial g2 ¼ .056; see figure 2). Simple slope analysis
ARGO AND DAHL
compared product evaluations for consumers lower and
higher in appearance self-esteem when the product was
appearance-related (appearance-related coded as 0, non-ap-
pearance-related coded as 1). Results revealed that con-
sumers lower in appearance self-esteem evaluated the
product less favorably than consumers higher in appear-
ance self-esteem when the product was appearance-related
(b ¼ .411, t(122) ¼ 3.24, p < .01). No differences arose in
product evaluations based on consumers’ appearance self-
esteem when the product was non-appearance-related (ap-
pearance-related coded as 1, non-appearance-related coded
as 0: b ¼ –.057, t(122) ¼ .48, p > .20). Regression lines
were also plotted for one standard deviation above and
one standard deviation below the mean for the mean-
centered index of appearance self-esteem (Aiken and
West 1991; Preacher et al. 2006) and spotlight analysis
was conducted. Spotlight analysis revealed that partici-
pants with low appearance self-esteem evaluated the
product significantly less favorably when it was
appearance-related as compared to non-appearance-re-
lated (b ¼ –.429, t(122) ¼ 2.90, p < .01). In contrast, par-
ticipants with high appearance self-esteem rated the
product equally favorably regardless of the type of prod-
uct (b ¼ .142, t(122) ¼ .94, p > .20).
Mediation Analysis. We used bootstrapping with re-
peated extraction of 10,000 samples to test our process
model (Hayes 2013, model 7). The mediation analysis in-
cluded the continuous appearance self-esteem measure
as the independent variable, product type as the moderator
(–1 ¼ non-appearance-related, 1 ¼ appearance-related),
the standard of beauty index as the mediator, and the prod-
uct evaluation index as the dependent variable. Results re-
vealed that the conditional indirect effect through the
standard of beauty index was significant only when the
product was appearance-related (b ¼ –.0544, SE ¼ .0372;
CI: –.1572, –.005). When the product was non-appearance-
related, mediation did not exist (CI: –.116, .006).
The direct effect for appearance self-esteem  product
type on the product evaluation index remained significant
(b ¼ .259, SE ¼ .109, CI: .042, .475).
Linear regression analysis was also conducted that in-
cluded the fear-of-rejection item as the dependent variable
and appearance self-esteem, product type, gender, and the
two- and three-way interaction terms as predictors. Results
revealed a significant effect only for appearance self-
esteem (b ¼ –.502, t(125) ¼ 3.53, p < .01) wherein those
lower in appearance self-esteem were more concerned
about rejection than their counterparts with higher appear-
ance self-esteem. Further, mediation analysis revealed that
fear about rejection did not underlie the effects as the con-
fidence interval contained zero (CI: –.097, .194). In sum, it
does not appear that concerns related to rejection underlie
our effects for male (or female) participants.
7
Discussion
Study 1c demonstrates that when the focal product is
unrelated to appearance (i.e., an umbrella), the mannequin
no longer makes accessible threatening information about
the normative standard of beauty (i.e., consumers low in
appearance self-esteem did not evaluate the product more
negatively). When the focal product is related to appear-
ance, we again find that it is evaluated less favorably for
consumers lower in appearance self-esteem as compared to
their counterparts with higher appearance self-esteem. This
study also provides initial evidence for our underlying pro-
cess via mediation; when a mannequin displays an
appearance-related product, consumers lower in appear-
ance self-esteem believe that the mannequin signals soci-
ety’s current standard of beauty and this in turn leads to a
decrease in their evaluations of the product.
Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c taken together provide support for
the notion that a mannequin displaying an appearance-
related product makes accessible the normative standard of
beauty and thus consumers lower in appearance self-
esteem evaluate the product less favorably. While the first
studies indicate that making a normative standard of beauty
salient decreases product evaluations for consumers lower
in appearance self-esteem, they do not explicitly provide
evidence that the information is a self-threat. In the remain-
ing three studies, we seek to provide evidence for the pres-
ence of self-threat in two different ways. In study 2 we use
an established procedure to demonstrate the presence of
self-threat by buttressing the consumer’s self-worth (i.e., a
self-affirmation task; Steele 1988), while in studies 3a and
3b we alleviate the threat by marring the mannequin’s
beauty.
STUDY 2
To confirm that the normative standard that the manne-
quin makes salient is a threat to consumers lower in ap-
pearance self-esteem, in this study we test whether
affirming the self before being exposed to the mannequin
will mitigate the negative effects found in our previous
studies. Research finds that affirming the self prior to a
psychological threat protects the self against harmful out-
comes (Sherman, Nelson, and Steele 2000; Steele 1988).
Specifically, affirming the self in advance of the threat
may enable consumers to stabilize uncertainty with respect
to their self-esteem (McGlone and Aronson 2006; Steele
1988). In our context, affirming consumers with low ap-
pearance self-esteem prior to the threat presented by the
beauty standards the mannequin makes accessible should
enable them to protect themselves against this negative in-
formation. In sum, if consumers low in appearance self-
esteem have a chance to self-affirm prior to being exposed
to a mannequin, they may show less propensity to deni-
grate the product the mannequin is displaying. Again, those
8 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
consumers higher in appearance self-esteem should not be
threatened by the normative information conveyed by the
mannequin, and thus affirmation is unlikely to influence
their evaluations of the product.
Method
Participants and Design. This study used a 2 (self-af-
firmation: yes vs. no)  appearance self-esteem between-
subjects experimental design. In addition to the product
evaluation index (a¼ .97), we also included willingness to
pay (WTP) as the focal dependent variables. WTP assessed
the amount of money participants would be willing to pay
for the product. In this study the target product was a black
cotton dress. Eighty-five undergraduates from a large
North American university completed the study in ex-
change for $10.00.
Procedure. Upon arrival participants were told that
they would complete a series of unrelated studies. They
were then given the self-affirmation manipulation follow-
ing previous research (Cohen, Aronson, and Steele 2000).
In both affirmation conditions, participants were given a
list of several traits and were asked to rank them based on
how important each trait was to them. In the yes affirma-
tion condition, participants were then asked to select the
trait they ranked as most important and to write about a
time when the trait was important to them and why. In the
no affirmation condition, participants were asked to write
about the trait they had ranked the lowest and to indicate
why the trait might be important to someone else. Note
that beauty/attractiveness was not included among the
traits listed. Participants were then told that they would be
asked to evaluate a real storefront (i.e., a promotional dis-
play pertinent to a store’s merchandise). All participants
were exposed to a single storefront in which the mannequin
was situated. After spending a few moments examining the
storefront, participants completed questions pertaining to
the cover story, the dependent variables, and appearance
self-esteem (a¼ .65). We measured WTP by asking partici-
pants how much they would be willing to pay for the focal
product. Given that a self-affirmation manipulation was
used in this study, we did not assess two of the items from
the appearance self-esteem scale that did not focus exclu-
sively on appearance (I feel good about myself, I feel
others respect and admire me) but rather may have also
tapped into more general self-esteem. Although the appear-
ance self-esteem scale was completed after the manipula-
tion, the affirmation factor did not predict any significant
variance in the appearance self-esteem scale (t(80) ¼ 1.07,
p > .20). As none of the manipulated factors appearing in
the remaining studies predicts the appearance self-esteem
scale, it is not discussed further as a dependent variable.
Results
Three participants were removed from the analyses, as their
responses indicated they were extreme outliers (i.e., the depen-
dent variable deviated more than three standard deviations
from the respective mean). Thus, the analysis presented below
is based on 82 participants (females ¼ 55, males ¼ 27).
Product Evaluation Index. Linear regression analysis
that included self-affirmation (yes affirmation coded as 1,
no affirmation coded as –1), a continuous mean-centered
appearance self-esteem variable, and their two-way inter-
action was conducted with the product evaluation index as
the dependent variable. Results revealed a significant effect
for appearance self-esteem (b ¼ .485, t(78) ¼ 2.70, p <
.01, partial g2 ¼ .086) and a significant two-way interac-
tion between appearance self-esteem and self-affirmation
(b ¼ –.469, t(78) ¼ 2.61, p ¼ .01, partial g2 ¼ .08; see fig-
ure 3A). Regression lines were plotted for one standard de-
viation above and one standard deviation below the mean
for the mean-centered index of appearance self-esteem,
and spotlight analysis was conducted. Consistent with our
prediction, the analysis revealed that participants with low
appearance self-esteem evaluated the product significantly
more favorably when they had previously been affirmed as
compared to not affirmed (b ¼ .695, t(78) ¼ 2.66, p <
.01). Those high in appearance self-esteem did not evaluate
the product differently as a function of the affirmation ma-
nipulation (b ¼ –.278, t(78) ¼ 1.06, p > .20). Finally, sim-
ple slope analysis revealed that consumers lower in
appearance self-esteem evaluated the product more nega-
tively than consumers higher in appearance self-esteem
when they were not first affirmed (yes affirmation coded as
FIGURE 3A
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND SELF-
AFFIRMATION ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7
no affirmation
yes affirmation
6
5
4
3
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
ARGO AND DAHL
FIGURE 3B
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND SELF-
AFFIRMATION ON WTP
25
no affirmation
yes affirmation
20
15
10
5
0 Driven by substantive considerations we elected to di-
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
0, no affirmation coded as 1; b ¼ .554, t(78) ¼ 3.68, p <
.001). No differences arose for product evaluations as a
function of appearance self-esteem when consumers were
first affirmed (no affirmation coded as 1, yes affirmation
coded as 0; b ¼ .009, t(78) ¼ .065, p > .90).
WTP. Similar linear regression analysis, with the same
predictors and coding, was conducted with WTP as the de-
pendent variable. Again, results revealed a significant ef-
fect for appearance self-esteem (b ¼ 2.33, t(78) ¼ 2.37, p
< .05, partial g2 ¼ .067) and a significant two-way interac-
tion between appearance self-esteem and self-affirmation
(b ¼ –2.03, t(78) ¼ 2.08, p < .05, partial g2 ¼.052; see
figure 3B). Consistent with participants’ product evalua-
tions, spotlight analysis revealed that participants with low
appearance self-esteem were willing to pay significantly
less when they had not been affirmed as compared to
affirmed (b ¼ 3.89, t(78) ¼ 2.72, p < .01), while the WTP
of participants with high appearance self-esteem did not
differ regardless of whether they were first affirmed or
not (b ¼ –.332, t(78) ¼ 0.23, p > .82). Finally, when
participants lower in appearance self-esteem were not
self-affirmed, they were willing to pay less compared to
participants higher in appearance self-esteem (b ¼ .468,
t(78) ¼ 3.08, p < .01); when participants self-esteem were
self-affirmed, the differences in WTP for participants with
low and high appearance self-esteem were mitigated (b ¼
.032, t(78) ¼ .217, p > .80).
Discussion
Results of this study provide evidence that the negative
reactions of consumers with low appearance self-esteem to
9
a product worn by a mannequin arise from the self-threat
posed by the normative standards of beauty made salient
by the mannequin. Indeed, alleviating this threat through
an affirmation of the self mitigates these consumers’ nega-
tive responses. This mitigation provides additional process
evidence supporting our conceptualization by demonstrat-
ing that a threat indeed arises for individuals with low ap-
pearance self-esteem when they are exposed to a
mannequin. While study 2 focused on decreasing the threat
that arises from the mannequin’s normative information
through buttressing the consumer (via a self-affirmation
task), studies 3a and 3b seek to diminish the threat by mar-
ring the mannequin’s objective beauty.
STUDY 3A
minish the beauty of the mannequin in two ways observed
in the retail context we study. First, a mannequin’s beauty
can be reduced through visual changes to its attractiveness.
In fact, such changes are likely to be realized in a typical
retail environment over time. For example, physical dam-
age, markings, and lost parts are common consequences of
typical wear and tear experienced by mannequins through
continued usage in store displays. Thus, appearance flaws,
whether flaws of commission (e.g., marks or scratches) or
omission (e.g., missing or damaged parts), alter the manne-
quin’s ability to effectively convey society’s standard of
beauty, and the threat this standard once presented will be
mitigated.
Second, partial mannequins, which are incomplete by
design (e.g., headless, torso only, leg only), are also often
featured in the retail environment in an effort to highlight a
specific type of product and as a cost-saving vehicle.
However, drawing from research on product design
(Hekkert 2006; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998) and catego-
rization (Barsalou 1983, 1985), we argue that a partial (i.e.,
incomplete) mannequin is less prototypical of the manne-
quin category and thus does not represent a fulsome exem-
plar of the beauty standard. Indeed, a central theme in
categorization research is that categories are assumed to
have a graded structure (Barsalou 1983, 1985) and that
consumers categorize based on how representative or typi-
cal an object is of its category. In the context of full-bodied
mannequins, it would thus follow that an incomplete man-
nequin is deemed as less typical of the category and will
not be seen as threatening normative information about
beauty standards.
In both of these cases, a consumer low in appearance
self-esteem is unlikely to feel a threat from a flawed or an
incomplete mannequin, as it no longer fully communicates
the normative standard of beauty, and that consumer would
no longer need to denigrate the product the mannequin is
displaying. In contrast, given that we do not expect the
10
FIGURE 4A
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND MISSING
HAIR VS. NO FLAW ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 no flaw
missing hair
6 6
5
4
3
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
mannequin to be a threat to consumers high in appearance
self-esteem, the presence of a flawed or incomplete manne-
quin should not influence these consumers. We focus on
marring a mannequin’s attractiveness in study 3a and using
an incomplete mannequin in study 3b.
Method
Participants and Design. This study used a 3 (nature of
the flaw: facial mark vs. missing hair vs. no flaw)  ap-
pearance self-esteem between-subjects experimental de-
sign. One hundred thirty-six undergraduates (males ¼ 73,
females ¼ 63) from a large North American university
completed the study in exchange for $10.00.1
Procedure. Upon arrival participants were told that the
research involved the evaluation of three storefront dis-
plays. Two of the storefronts served as decoys and did not
contain any mannequins, while the third storefront con-
tained our focal mannequin, which was wearing the target
product (i.e., a black cotton dress). To achieve the flaw ma-
nipulation, the female mannequin had a black mark on her
face (facial mark), no wig (missing hair), or no flaws. After
exposure to the storefronts, participants completed items
related to the cover story, evaluated the product using the
same items described in study 1a (a¼ .91), indicated the
amount of money they were willing to pay for the product
1 Originally two additional cells were collected for this study (man-
nequins with missing limbs) but were not retained due to the lack of
realism they conveyed (storefronts do not commonly have mannequins
missing one arm). Subsequent post-testing (n ¼ 40) validated that con-
sumers perceive this as an infrequently viewed style of mannequin
(frequency: 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree, one-sample t-
test: M ¼ 3.03, t(39) ¼ 2.01, p ¼ .05).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 4B
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND FACIAL
MARK VS. NO FLAW ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 no flaw
facial mark
5
4
3
2
1
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
(WTP), and completed all of the appearance self-esteem
measures (a¼ .83).
Results
Product Evaluation Index. Linear regression analysis
that included a dummy-coded variable for missing hair
(missing hair coded as 1, others coded as 0), a dummy-
coded variable for facial mark (facial mark coded as 1,
others coded as 0), continuous mean-centered appearance
self-esteem, and the two-way interactions was conducted
with the product evaluation index as the dependent vari-
able. Results revealed a significant effect for appearance
self-esteem (b ¼ .646, t(130) ¼ 4.98, p < .001, partial g2
¼ .01), a significant two-way interaction between appear-
ance self-esteem and the missing hair dummy variable
(b ¼ –.378, t(130) ¼ 3.50, p ¼ .001, partial g2 ¼ .09; see
figure 4A), and a significant two-way interaction between
appearance self-esteem and the facial mark dummy vari-
able (b ¼ –.426, t(130) ¼ 3.93, p < .001, partial g2 ¼ .11;
see figure 4B). No other effects were significant (ps >
.20).
Regression lines were plotted for one standard deviation
above and one standard deviation below the mean for the
mean-centered index of appearance self-esteem. Spotlight
analysis was conducted to examine the significant two-way
interaction between appearance self-esteem and the miss-
ing hair dummy variable. Results revealed that participants
with low appearance self-esteem evaluated the product sig-
nificantly more favorably when the mannequin was miss-
ing her hair as compared to when the mannequin did not
have a flaw (b ¼ .96, t(130) ¼ 2.77, p < .01).
Interestingly, participants with high appearance self-
ARGO AND DAHL
esteem showed the opposite pattern. In particular, they
evaluated the product less favorably when the mannequin
was missing her hair versus when the mannequin was not
flawed (b ¼ –.80, t(130) ¼ 2.13, p < .05). Spotlight analy-
sis was also conducted to test the significant interaction be-
tween appearance self-esteem and the facial mark dummy
variable. Again, participants with low appearance self-
esteem evaluated the product significantly more favorably
when the mannequin had a facial mark as compared to
when she was not flawed (b ¼ 1.05, t(130) ¼ 2.81, p <
.01), while participants with high appearance self-esteem
evaluated the product less favorably when the mannequin
was flawed (b ¼ –.93, t(130) ¼ 2.76, p < .01). Additional
simple slope analyses were conducted to compare between
appearance self-esteem groups. Consistent with hypothesis
1, results revealed that consumers with low appearance
self-esteem evaluated the product less favorably as com-
pared to those high in appearance self-esteem when the
mannequin was not flawed (no flaw coded in both dummy
variables as 0, missing hair coded as 1, facial mark coded
as 1; b ¼ .65, t(130) ¼ 4.98, p < .001). No differences
arose between the two groups of consumers when a flaw
was present (ps > .40), as the threat posed by the manne-
quin was alleviated for consumers low in appearance self-
esteem.
WTP. Similar analysis was conducted for the WTP var-
iable. Results revealed a marginally significant effect for a
facial mark on the mannequin (b ¼ –.172, t(130) ¼ 1.73, p
< .09) wherein participants were willing to pay less when
the mannequin had a mark on her face. No other effects
were significant (ps > .10). We discuss these null effects
in the General Discussion.
Discussion
The results of study 3a reveal that consumers low in ap-
pearance self-esteem evaluate a product more negatively
when it is worn by a mannequin with no flaws as compared
to when the mannequin has some form of physical marring
(i.e., a facial mark or missing hair). This provides converg-
ing evidence that the negative reaction of consumers with
low appearance self-esteem to a mannequin arises due to
the threat it presents by making salient the normative stan-
dard of beauty. Indeed, the results demonstrate that subtle
flaws rendering the mannequin no longer effective in sig-
naling society’s standard of beauty can alleviate the threat
of the mannequin and in turn the negative evaluations of
the product. Further, the results for the consumers with
high appearance self-esteem are also interesting, as it ap-
pears that they dislike subtle imperfections (as compared to
no imperfections). This finding presents a potential oppor-
tunity for future research. Finally, we again find support
for our main prediction that consumers lower in appear-
ance self-esteem evaluate a product less favorably than
11
their counterparts with higher appearance self-esteem when
the mannequin is not flawed.
STUDY 3B
Method
Participants and Design. The study used a 2 (manne-
quin completeness: complete vs. incomplete)  appear-
ance self-esteem between-subjects experimental design.
The product evaluation index and willingness to pay
(WTP) again served as the dependent variables.
Seventy-five female undergraduates from a large North
American university completed a field study in exchange
for $10.00. Given that participants were to be tasked
with trying on an article of clothing, we restricted the ex-
amination to females.
Procedure. Participants were run individually at a local
retail outlet. Upon arrival they were informed that we were
conducting marketing research for the outlet, and that they
would be required to go to different sections of the store
and complete one of a variety of tasks such as buying an
item, using a product, examining price levels, and so on.
Participants then chose an envelope that contained the
shopping task they would perform. Unbeknownst to partic-
ipants, all of the envelopes described the same task—locate
and try on a dress. In addition to the instructions about the
task, we also provided a photo of the target product.
Participants were then instructed to visit the clothing sec-
tion where the product was located and find a salesperson
to assist them in completing the task (i.e., find the dress to
be tried on). Participants were told that after completing
the task they should return to the researcher to fill out a
survey about their experience.
After participants left to complete their task, the re-
searcher texted a confederate who was playing the role of a
salesperson and was situated in the clothing section to in-
form her that the participant was on her way. Once the par-
ticipant approached the salesperson and inquired about the
product’s location, the salesperson directed her to the man-
nequin, which was located near the fitting room and wear-
ing the target product. In the complete condition the
mannequin was the same one described in study 1b,
whereas in the incomplete condition the mannequin was
headless. Importantly, the mannequins across conditions
were identical in terms of model number, pose, and product
appearance and differed only on the presence/absence of a
head. The participant then tried on the product and returned
to the researcher for a survey that assessed product evalua-
tions (a¼ .96), WTP, and appearance self-esteem (a¼ .82).
Additional questions that were consistent with the cover
story were also asked.
12
FIGURE 5A
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
MANNEQUIN COMPLETENESS ON PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
7 25
complete
6 incomplete
5
4
3
2 5
1 0
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
Results
Product Evaluation Index. Linear regression analysis
that regressed the product evaluation index on mannequin
completeness (complete coded as 1, incomplete coded as –1),
the continuous mean-centered index for appearance
self-esteem, and their interaction term as predictors was
conducted. Results revealed that both the mannequin com-
pleteness effect (b ¼ –.363, t(71) ¼ 1.96, p ¼ .05, partial
g2 ¼ .05) and the appearance self-esteem effect (b ¼ .868,
t(71) ¼ 3.21, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .126) were significant.
More importantly, the two-way interaction was also signif-
icant (b ¼ .539, t(71) ¼ 1.99, p ¼ .05, partial g2 ¼ .053;
see figure 5A). Regression lines were plotted for one stan-
dard deviation above and one standard deviation below the
mean for the mean-centered index of appearance self-
esteem. Results of spotlight analysis revealed that partici-
pants with low appearance self-esteem evaluated the prod-
uct significantly less favorably when the mannequin was
complete (i.e., the mannequin was full-bodied) versus in-
complete (i.e., mannequin was headless; b ¼ –.742, t(71) ¼
2.82, p < .01). In contrast, participants high in appearance
self-esteem did not differ in their evaluations of the product
regardless of whether the mannequin was complete or in-
complete (b ¼ .002, t(71) ¼ .006, p > .90).
Simple slope analysis was also conducted to compare
consumers with low and high appearance self-esteem under
the different mannequin completeness conditions. Similar
to the earlier studies, when the mannequin was complete
(complete coded as 0, incomplete coded as 1) consumers
low in appearance self-esteem evaluated the product less
favorably than their counterparts with high appearance
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 5B
IMPACT OF APPEARANCE SELF-ESTEEM (ASE) AND
MANNEQUIN COMPLETENESS ON WTP
complete
incomplete
20
15
10
low ASE (–1SD) high ASE (+1SD)
self-esteem (b ¼ .549, t(71) ¼ 3.68, p < .001). When the
mannequin was incomplete (i.e., the threat posed by the
mannequin had been decreased), no differences arose in
product evaluations based on consumers’ appearance self-
esteem (incomplete coded as 0, complete coded as 1: b ¼
.128, t(71) ¼ .86, p > .30).
WTP. A second linear regression was conducted that
used the same predictors and coding and included the
amount of money participants would pay for the product as
the dependent variable. Results again revealed a significant
mannequin completeness effect (b ¼ –.189, t(71) ¼ 2.41, p
< .05, partial g2 ¼ .076), appearance self-esteem effect (b
¼ .228, t(71) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .05, partial g2 ¼ .053), and the
two-way interaction (b ¼ .241, t(71) ¼ 2.12, p < .05, par-
tial g2 ¼ .059; see figure 5B). Spotlight analysis revealed
that participants low in appearance self-esteem indicated
they would pay significantly less money for the target
product when the mannequin was complete as compared to
incomplete (b ¼ –3.59, t(71) ¼ 3.23, p < .01). No differ-
ences occurred in the amount of money those participants
high in appearance self-esteem were willing to pay for the
product as a function of the mannequin’s completeness
(b ¼ –.252, t(71) ¼ .227, p > .80). Simple slope analysis
tested differences in appearance self-esteem based on the
mannequin’s completeness. As with product evaluations,
consumers low in appearance self-esteem were willing to
pay less money than those higher in appearance self-
esteem when the mannequin was complete (b ¼ .444, t(71)
¼ 2.90, p < .01) but no more when the mannequin was in-
complete (b ¼ –.013, t(71) ¼ .084, p > .90).
ARGO AND DAHL
Discussion
Study 3b finds that consumers low in appearance self-
esteem evaluate a product displayed by a mannequin less
favorably and are willing to pay less for it when the man-
nequin is complete (i.e., full-bodied) as compared to when
it is incomplete (i.e., headless). Further, replicating the pre-
vious studies, in this study consumers low in appearance
self-esteem were less favorable to the product when the
mannequin was complete than those consumers high in ap-
pearance self-esteem. This study provides additional evi-
dence that the negative response from consumers low in
appearance self-esteem is due to a mannequin signaling
threatening normative information. When an incomplete
mannequin is present, consumers with low appearance
self-esteem respond more favorably toward the product the
mannequin is displaying.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Across six studies, the present research investigates the
impact of female mannequins on consumers’ responses to-
ward products. Results reveal that consumers who are
lower (vs. higher) in appearance self-esteem evaluate an
appearance related product less favorably when it is dis-
played by a mannequin. Further, the negative response re-
alized for consumers low in appearance self-esteem arises
because when the mannequin displays an appearance-
related product, it makes salient the normative standard of
beauty, and this information threatens these consumers.
Importantly, across our studies we show a null effect for
gender when both male and female consumers are exposed
to the normative standard of beauty that the mannequin
conveys. The lack of gender difference indicates that male
and female consumers compare themselves to the global
standard of beauty conveyed by the mannequin, rather than
the mannequin itself.
Using a number of different approaches, our research ef-
fectively establishes that this normative standard of beauty
(made accessible by the mannequin) is threatening to con-
sumers with low appearance self-esteem. We provide ini-
tial evidence for our underlying process via mediation in
study 1c. In particular, we find that when a female manne-
quin displays an appearance-related product, consumers
low in appearance self-esteem believe that the mannequin
signals the normative standard of beauty and this decreases
their product evaluations. In our subsequent studies, we
provide evidence that the normative standard is threatening
information via moderation. Indeed, in study 2 we use a
self-affirmation task and demonstrate that if the self is first
buttressed against the threat, the negative response from
consumers with low appearance self-esteem is mitigated.
In our remaining two studies, we demonstrate that decreas-
ing the beauty of the mannequin by changing its aesthetic
appearance mitigates the threat to consumers with low
13
appearance self-esteem. Specifically, when a mannequin is
flawed or incomplete, consumers with low appearance
self-esteem evaluate the product displayed by the manne-
quin more favorably. In sum, our findings indicate that
mannequins displaying appearance-related products make
salient a normative standard of beauty that threatens con-
sumers low in appearance self-esteem, resulting in lower
evaluations and a decreased willingness to pay for products
displayed by these mannequins.
The findings of the present research are important for a
number of reasons. Foremost, we demonstrate that the
presence of an inanimate object (i.e., a mannequin) in the
retail context can have a significant influence on con-
sumers’ responses. This is important to document, as man-
nequins are highly prevalent in the retail space. Indeed, a
content analysis located at a local mall revealed that 23 out
of 42 stores in the mall had at least one mannequin, and
across these 23 stores there was a total of 665 mannequins
on display. Taking the frequency with which mannequins
are utilized together with the cost associated with manne-
quins (i.e., cost of purchasing them as well as the retail
floor space they occupy that could have been devoted to
other merchandise or marketing stimuli), it is clear that
managers believe that mannequins are beneficial for busi-
ness. Thus, our results are noteworthy in that they show
that mannequins can be a double-edged sword, since in
some instances they can have a negative influence on
consumers.
The primary theoretical contribution is the documenta-
tion that mannequins provide a global signal of society’s
standard of beauty and it is this normative information that
is threatening to consumers with low appearance self-es-
teem. Indeed, the finding that our effects arise for both fe-
males and males (when a mannequin is female) provides
strong evidence that consumers with low appearance self-
esteem are threatened by this global standard rather than
by information obtained through a direct comparison to the
mannequin itself. Stated differently, in the context of man-
nequins the comparisons that arise do not operate at a spe-
cific attribute level (e.g., “her thighs are smaller than
mine”), but rather at a more global level (e.g., “this is what
one should look like”). This result adds to a small body of
work arguing that people compare to targets that may ap-
pear dissimilar on the surface (Stahan et al. 2006).
Furthermore, we extend social comparison theory
(Festinger 1954) by empirically demonstrating that in the
absence of an ability to make a true social comparison (i.e.,
the mannequin is an inanimate object), consumers will be
impacted by society’s global beauty-related standards. Our
findings seed future research that can explore the variance
in both the breadth (i.e., the level of specificity of the com-
parison) and the form (i.e., mannequins but also other com-
munication tools such as store posters or in-store video)
that can make salient threatening information to consumers
in the retail context.
14
A second opportunity for future investigation lies in the
inconsistency found in our results in the WTP measure
across studies. Our WTP measure in study 3a did not pro-
duce differential results for the presence of a flaw (vs. no
flaw) for consumers with low appearance self-esteem.
Recent research by White et al. (2016) has found that when
a package is damaged, consumers believe the product
within should be discounted. Extending this finding into
the current work suggests that it is possible that consumers
respond to a flawed mannequin in a similar fashion as to a
damaged package; they believe the product displayed by
the mannequin should be discounted. This is one post hoc
interpretation, but future research needs to investigate the
nuances of the operationalization we have used to decrease
the threatening normative signal conveyed by the manne-
quin. Doing so will provide a more complete understanding
of consumers’ responses to various informational cues.
Another avenue for future research lies in exploring
other substantive questions centered on the types of man-
nequins appearing in the retail context. While the present
research utilizes a female mannequin that signals society’s
normative standard of beauty (e.g., tall and slim), in the
marketplace there are other types of mannequins present.
For instance, in stores that sell plus-size clothing, larger
mannequins are used to display merchandise. Do these
mannequins also pose a threat to consumers who are low in
appearance self-esteem? Are these types of mannequins
potentially too far at the other extreme of the standard of
beauty, and if so might they also lead to negative product
evaluations for certain consumers? What type of normative
information do these types of mannequins signal, if any?
How do standard mannequins and plus-size mannequins
compare to mannequins that are more modest in their pro-
portions (and more similar to the average female body)?
While Sen et al. (2002) recommend that retailers use man-
nequins that share a similar body type to the target con-
sumer, it remains an empirical question as to how such a
marketing decision will affect consumers’ product
evaluations. Similarly, in the male section of stores, male
mannequins are used. Does a consumer low in appearance
self-esteem have negative responses to male mannequins,
or is there something unique to the female archetype that
elicits a global response in this instance? In a preliminary
study we find that while male consumers have a similar re-
action to male mannequins (i.e., those low in appearance
self-esteem evaluated a swimsuit worn by the male
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
mannequin more negatively than consumers higher in ap-
pearance self-esteem), female consumers did not have a
differential response. This presents a great opportunity for
future research, as it suggests it is possible that male man-
nequins do not make salient a normative standard and in-
stead are simply used as tools for social comparisons by
relevant consumers (i.e., other males).
In the current research we restricted our investigation
to mannequins in North America. However, mannequins
appear in retail globally, and interestingly many of the
mannequins in other cultures (e.g., China and India) ap-
pear Caucasian. This suggests that the idealized standard
of Western beauty that mannequins convey may be uni-
versal. However, it is not clear whether consumers’ re-
sponses to this standard are also universal. Indeed, not all
cultures embrace body ideals from Western countries.
Thus, future research could explore the implications of
North American beauty standards on consumers of differ-
ent ethnicities.
Finally, in the current research we have focused specifi-
cally on the impact of mannequins on consumer evalua-
tions of the products they are displaying. However, there is
a plethora of other directions that research can take to
study the influence of mannequins. For example, do man-
nequins influence what consumers buy? In other words, do
they inspire variety seeking, luxury purchases, or the pur-
chase or the avoidance of other beauty-related products?
As another example, mannequins are only one source of
appearance-related information—how do they compare (as
a source of information) to other marketing-controlled
stimuli such as salespeople or models? These are but a few
examples of the many directions that research can take to
further explore the impact of the “femmes of fashion” on
consumer responses.
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
The data for study 1a (fall 2014), study 1b (fall 2016),
study 1c (winter 2015), study 2 (fall 2013), and study 3a
(winter 2011) were collected by a research assistant under
the guidance of the first author at the University of Alberta
School of Business. The data for study 3b (fall 2009) was
collected by a research assistant under the guidance of the
first author at the University of Alberta Bookstore with the
assistance of a staff member at the bookstore. All data
were analyzed by the first author.
ARGO AND DAHL 15

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

MANNEQUIN USED IN STUDIES 1B, 1C, 2,

3A, AND 3B
MANNEQUIN USED IN STUDY 1A
Mannequin specs: size 6, bust 34", waist 24", hips 34",
Mannequin specs: size 6, bust 34", waist 25", hips 35", height 5’11", shoe 8.5
height 6’, shoe 9
16
REFERENCES
Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple
Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Newbury
Park: CA: Sage.
Argo, Jennifer J. and Katherine White (2011), “When Imitation
Doesn’t Flatter: The Role of Consumer Distinctiveness in
Responses to Mimicry,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36
(4), 667–80.
Banner, Lois W. (2006), American Beauty: A Social
History. . .Through Two Centuries of the American Idea,
Ideal, and Image of the Beautiful Woman, Los Angeles:
Figueroa Press.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983), “Ad Hoc Categories,” Memory
and Cognition, 11, 211–27.
——— (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of
Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in
Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 11 (4), 629–54.
Berkowitz, Leonard (1972), “Social Norms, Feelings, and Other
Factors Affecting Helping and Altruism,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 6, ed. Leonard
Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 63–108.
Cialdini, Robert B. (1984), Influence, New York: Morrow.
Cialdini, Robert B., Carl A. Kallgren, and Raymond R. Reno
(1991), “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A
Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of
Norms in Human Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Volume 24, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, San
Diego; Academic Press, 201–34.
Cialdini, Robert B., Raymond R. Reno, and Carl A. Kallgren
(1990), “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling
the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (6),
1015–26.
Cialdini, Robert B. and Melanie R. Trost (1998), “Social
Influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance,” in
The Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 2, 4th Edition,
ed. Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey,
New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 151–92.
Cohen, Geoffrey L., Joshua Aronson, and Claude M. Steele
(2000), “When Beliefs Yield to Evidence: Reducing Biased
Evaluation by Affirming the Self,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26 (9), 1151–64.
Dahl, Darren W., Jennifer J. Argo, and Andrea C. Morales (2012),
“Social Information in the Retail Environment: The
Importance of Consumption Alignment, Referent Identity,
and Self-Esteem,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5),
860–71.
Englis, Basil G., Michael R. Solomon, and Richard D. Ashmore
(1994), “Beauty Before the Eyes of the Beholders: The
Cultural Encoding of Beauty Types in Magazine Advertising
and Music Television,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (2), 49–64.
FashionUnited (2016), “Global Fashion Statistics – International
Apparel,” http://fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-
statistics.
Festinger, Leon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison
Processes,” Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–40.
Gulas, Charles S. and Kim McKeage (2000), “Extending Social
Comparison: An Examination of the Unintended
Consequences of Idealized Advertising Imagery,” Journal of
Advertising, 29 (2), 17–28.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Hale, Marsha Bentley (1985), “Lasting Expressions,” Visual
Marketing and Store Design, 9, 39–43.
Hamilton, Emily A., Laurie Mintz, and Susan Kashubeck-West
(2007), “Predictors of Media Effects on Body Dissatisfaction
in European American Women,” Sex Roles, 56, 397–402.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based
Approach, New York: Guilford Press.
Heatherton, Todd F. and Janet Polivy (1991), “Development and
Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (6),
895–910.
Hekkert, Paul (2006), “Design Aesthetics: Principles of Pleasure
in Design,” Psychological Science, 48 (2), 157–72.
Jones, D. C. (2002), “Social Comparison and Body Image:
Attractiveness Comparisons to Models and Peers Among
Adolescent Girls and Boys,” Sex Roles, 45, 645–64.
Martin, Mary C. and Patricia F. Kennedy (1993), “Advertising
and Social Comparison: Consequences for Female
Preadolescents and Adolescents,” Psychology and Marketing,
10 (6), 513–30.
McGlone, Matthew S. and Joshua Aronson (2006), “Stereotype
Threat, Identity Salience, and Spatial Reasoning,” Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (5), 486–93.
Poran, Maya A. (2002), “Denying Diversity: Perceptions of
Beauty and Social Comparison Processes among Latina,
Black, and White Women,” Sex Roles, 17, 65–81.
Preacher, Kristopher J., Patrick J. Curran, and Daniel J. Bauer
(2006), “Computational Tools for Probing Interaction Effects
in Multiple Linear Regression, Multilevel Modeling, and
Latent Curve Analysis,” Journal of Educational and
Behavioral Statistics, 31 (4), 437–48.
Richins, Marsha (1991), “Social Comparison and the Idealized
Images of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18
(1), 71–83.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1977), “Normative Influence on Altruism,”
in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume
10, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press,
221–79.
Sen, Sankar, Lauren G. Block, and Sucharita Chandran (2002),
“Window Displays and Consumer Shopping Decisions,”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 (5),
277–90.
Sherif, Muzafer (1936), The Psychology of Social Norms, New
York: Harper.
Sherman, David A. K., Leif D. Nelson, and Claude M. Steele
(2000), “Do Messages about Health Risks Threaten the Self:
Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages
via Self-Affirmation,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 1046–58.
Solomon, Michael R., Richard D. Ashmore, and Laura C. Longo
(1992), “The Beauty Match-up Hypothesis: Congruence be-
tween Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising, 21 (4), 23–34.
Stahan, Erin J., Anne E. Wilson, Kate E. Cressman, and Vanessa
M. Buote (2006), “Comparing to Perfection: How Cultural
Norms for Appearance Affect Social Comparisons and Self-
Image,” Body Image, 3, 211–27.
Steele, Claude M. (1988), “The Psychology of Self-Affirmation:
Sustaining the Integrity of the Self,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 21, ed. Leonard
Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 261–302.
ARGO AND DAHL
Tesser, Abraham (1988), “Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance
Model of Social Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Volume 21, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New
York: Academic Press, 181–227.
Tidy, Jo (2012), “The Silent Saleswomen: Mannequins, Visual
Merchandising and Beauty for Sale,” presented at the 2nd
Global Conference for Beauty: Exploring Critical Issues,
Oxford, UK.
Veryzer, Robert W. Jr. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1998), “The
Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses
17
to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24
(4), 374–94.
Weis, Christopher (2006), “Display Mannequin in Retail Store
Environment Is Effective Sales Tool,” http://ezinearticles.com/?
Display-Mannequin-in-RetaiStore-Environment-is-Effective-
Sales-Tool&id¼227501.
White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl, and Robin B. Ritchie
(2016), “When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections?
Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (1), 110–23.