Facial Cosmetics and Attractiveness: Comparing the Effect Sizes of Professionally-Applied Cosmetics and Identity

Forms of body decoration exist in all human cultures. However, in Western societies, women are more likely to engage in appearance modification, especially through the use of facial cosmetics. How effective are cosmetics at altering attractiveness? Previous research has hinted that the effect is not large, especially when compared to the variation in attractiveness observed between individuals due to differences in identity. In order to build a fuller understanding of how cosmetics and identity affect attractiveness, here we examine how professionally-applied cosmetics alter attractiveness and compare this effect with the variation in attractiveness observed between individuals. In Study 1, 33 YouTube models were rated for attractiveness before and after the application of professionally-applied cosmetics. Cosmetics explained a larger proportion of the variation in attractiveness compared with previous studies, but this effect remained smaller than variation caused by differences in attractiveness between individuals. Study 2 replicated the results of the first study with a sample of 45 supermodels, with the aim of examining the effect of cosmetics in a sample of faces with low variation in attractiveness between individuals. While the effect size of cosmetics was generally large, between-person variability due to identity remained larger. Both studies also found interactions between cosmetics and identity-more attractive models received smaller increases when cosmetics were worn. Overall, we show that professionally- applied cosmetics produce a larger effect than self-applied cosmetics, an important theoretical consideration for the field. However, the effect of individual differences in facial appearance is ultimately more important in perceptions of attractiveness

Prostate Cancer Patients’ Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making

© 2018 American Association for Cancer Education The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients’ understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients’ perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor’s degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3–15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1–4). Patients’ understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0–4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p \u3c .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p \u3c .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients’ perceived importance of the GSS (p \u3c .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication