IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0210238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the ‘cosmetics placebo effect’

Author

Listed:
  • Carlota Batres
  • Sarah S Kramer
  • Caroline G DeAngelis
  • Richard Russell

Abstract

Previous studies have found a positive effect of cosmetics on certain behavioral measures, such as the tip given to waitresses by male patrons. These studies have employed confederates who usually wear cosmetics. We therefore sought to examine whether the positive effect found in these studies could, in part, be explained by a change in behavior. In order to test the possibility of a ‘cosmetics placebo effect’, we employed a confederate to solicit donations from passersby. On some days our confederate would not have any cosmetics applied to her face (i.e., no cosmetics condition), on some days cosmetics were pretended to be applied to her face (i.e., placebo cosmetics condition), and on other days cosmetics were actually applied to her face (i.e., cosmetics condition). In line with previous research, we found that across conditions men donated significantly more than women to our female solicitor, providing support for the ‘showoff hypothesis’, in which male generosity serves as a mating tactic. When investigating men’s donations in more detail, we found that the highest percentage of donations came in the cosmetics condition, followed by the placebo cosmetics condition, and then by no cosmetics condition. The effect of condition on donation rates, however, was not statistically significant. Our study was limited to one solicitor and one dependent variable (i.e., percentage of people approached who donated) and therefore future research would benefit from using more confederates as well as examining other behavioral measures. Given the influence of cosmetics use on so many real-world outcomes, we believe that further exploration into a possible ‘cosmetics placebo effect’ would be valuable.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlota Batres & Sarah S Kramer & Caroline G DeAngelis & Richard Russell, 2019. "Examining the ‘cosmetics placebo effect’," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210238
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210238
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210238&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0210238?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex L Jones & Robin S S Kramer, 2016. "Facial Cosmetics and Attractiveness: Comparing the Effect Sizes of Professionally-Applied Cosmetics and Identity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    3. Fraser, Cynthia & Hite, Robert E & Sauer, Paul L, 1988. "Increasing Contributions in Solicitation Campaigns: The Use of Large and Small Anchorpoints," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 284-287, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julia M. Robertson & Barbara E. Kingsley, 2021. "“Behind the Façade: Motivations for Cosmetic Usage by Womenâ€," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    2. Craig Landry & Andreas Lange & John List & Michael Price & Nicholas Rupp, 2011. "The Hidden Benefits of Control: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00594, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. John List & Michael Price, 2012. "Charitable Giving Around the World: Thoughts on How to Expand the Pie," Natural Field Experiments 00470, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlin & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," NBER Working Papers 11892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Silva,Joana C. G. & Morgandi,Matteo & Levin,Victoria, 2016. "Trust in government and support for redistribution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7675, The World Bank.
    7. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2011. "No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 445-454.
    8. Lange, Andreas, 2006. "Providing public goods in two steps," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 173-178, May.
    9. Jochimsen, Beate, 2019. "Christmas lights in Berlin: New empirical evidence for the private provision of a public good," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 19-04, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    10. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    11. ITO Koichiro & IDA Takanori & TANAKA Makoto, 2015. "The Persistence of Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand," Discussion papers 15014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. repec:cep:stitep:/2012/563 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. Aoki, Yu, 2014. "Donating Time to Charity: Not Working for Nothing," IZA Discussion Papers 7990, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Craig Landry & Andreas Lange & John List & Michael Price & Nicholas Rupp, 2011. "Is There a 'Hidden Cost of Control' in Naturally-Occurring Markets? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00593, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Krysiak, Frank C. & Oberauner, Iris Maria, 2010. "Environmental policy à la carte: Letting firms choose their regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 221-232, November.
    20. Jonathan Meer & Harvey S. Rosen, 2008. "The ABCs of Charitable Solicitation," Working Papers 1057, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    21. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2010. "Is a Donor in Hand Better Than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 958-983, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.