BUSINESS (NO PLAGARISM A+ WORK, ON TIME)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Women’s use of intimate apparel as subtle

sexual signals in committed, heterosexual

relationships

Lyndsey K. CraigID*, Peter B. Gray

Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, United States of America

* [email protected]

Abstract

Current literature on women’s sexual signaling focuses on modes of attracting potential,

new sexual partners, but says little about women’s subtle sexual signals in committed,

romantic relationships. Subtle sexual signals are inherently private and are only visible to

the intended audience; a woman might use these signals to elicit or accept a sexual

response from her partner or to increase her overall attractiveness, or attractivity. In this

study, we sought to identify women’s use of intimate apparel as a proceptive or receptive

behavior as well as the effects of relative mate value, relationship commitment, relationship

satisfaction, and sexual functioning. A total of N = 353 women in the United States aged 25–

45 who were in committed, heterosexual relationships completed the survey; 88.7% of the

sample indicated wearing or having worn sexy underwear. Results indicate that women

report wearing sexier underwear the day taking the survey if they anticipate sexual activity

that same day. However, during the most recent sexual activity, women did not report wear-

ing sexier underwear if they initiated (proceptive) that activity. While relative mate value was

not directly related to sexiness of intimate apparel, women who report higher mate value

tend to wear sexier underwear. Women’s use of intimate apparel might be viewed as a

method of increasing attractivity and underlying receptivity to aid relationship maintenance,

though caveats regarding measures and alternative interpretations are also discussed.

Findings suggest that these women use intimate apparel to feel sexy, desired, aroused, and

to prepare for sex with their partners. This study is the first to examine intimate apparel in

relationships and as a subtle sexual signal of proceptivity and receptivity.

Introduction

Research on human female sexual signaling indicates many women use appearance modifica-

tion strategies–for example, make-up, clothing, and cosmetic surgery–to increase their attrac-

tiveness as a means of enticing potential sexual partners (e.g., [1–3]). But these appearance

enhancement strategies are broadcast signals: behaviors viewable to the general public which

might be perceived as insincere in the commitment to the relationship [4]. Conversely, subtle

signals are behaviors that are only visible to the person or persons the signals are directed

PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 1 / 18

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

a1111111111

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Craig LK, Gray PB (2020) Women’s use

of intimate apparel as subtle sexual signals in

committed, heterosexual relationships. PLoS ONE

15(3): e0230112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0230112

Editor: Amir H. Pakpour, Qazvin University of

Medical Sciences, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Received: November 16, 2019

Accepted: February 23, 2020

Published: March 13, 2020

Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the

benefits of transparency in the peer review

process; therefore, we enable the publication of

all of the content of peer review and author

responses alongside final, published articles. The

editorial history of this article is available here:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112

Copyright: © 2020 Craig, Gray. This is an open

access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License, which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: All data files are

available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.

6084/m9.figshare.10316015).

Funding: Funding for participant recruitment was

provided by the UNLV Angela Peterson Scholarship

toward. In interpersonal relationships, these behaviors tend to demonstrate more assurance

and commitment to the partnership due to their inherent privacy [4, 5]. In this study, we pro-

pose a potential subtle sexual signal within romantic relationships: the use of intimate apparel,

i.e., sexy underwear. Additionally, we examine women’s use of intimate apparel within the

context of relative mate value.

Women’s sexual signaling

In many non-human primate species, females undergo distinct physical changes during estrus

which serve as approximate signals of their fertile state, such as exaggerated sexual swelling [6].

Behavioral stimuli can also be means for signaling fertility in non-human primate species [6].

Humans face unique challenges to signaling fertility due to the lack of obvious, physical cues

and the regular use of clothing or other materials that hide overt evaluation of sexual status.

Behavioral stimuli which females use to initiate sexual contact with male conspecifics, enticing

or inviting potential mates, are labeled as proceptivity [7–10]. Alternatively, receptivity is

female behavior that is conducive to penile-vaginal penetration which can be quantified by

female acceptance, refusal, or termination of male mounting attempts [7, 9]. Both categories of

behavior intend to elicit a sexual response but differ by who initiates. For heterosexual

humans, a woman’s behavior which initiates sexual contact with a man is proceptive whereas a

woman’s response to expressed sexual interest from a man is receptive. This paper focuses on

women’s proceptive behaviors in romantic relationships.

The literature on women’s sexual signaling is robust but mixed, especially regarding hor-

monal influences across the ovulatory cycle. Research on non-behavioral stimuli indicates that

men are more attracted to women’s smells and appearances during their fertile state [11, 12].

Alternatively, studies of behavioral stimuli include women’s use of revealing clothing, makeup,

and even the color red during the fertile period of their cycles [13–15], though results are

mixed and controversial. Many women undergo surgeries to enhance lips, increase breast size,

make skin more taught, and ultimately fit more culturally normative expectations of attractive-

ness; most cosmetic surgeries worldwide are performed on women [16].

Hill and Durante [17] found that women who are actively seeking a mate are more likely to

use risky strategies to enhance their appearance, such as taking diet pills or tanning; and

women who are more interested in receiving cosmetic surgery tend to prefer men of higher

status and attractiveness [18]. In most societies, the more attractive women have full lips, rela-

tively large breasts, clear skin, lustrous hair, and lower waist-to-hip ratios (see [19–21]). These

attributes are thought to be cues of female youth, reflecting reproductive value. These enhance-

ment behaviors are indicative of adaptive functions of female beauty and reproduction [21]

and can increase women’s overall attractiveness regardless of their reproductive state. But

research on women’s sexual signaling largely fail to capture the woman’s sexual intent regard-

ing those behaviors, especially within committed, romantic relationships.

Relationship maintenance and mate value

Relationship maintenance strategies include positivity, openness, social network, and task

sharing [5]. Originally defined by Canary and Stafford [22], positivity is acting nice and cour-

teous; openness involves speaking openly about thoughts and feelings; social network is spend-

ing time with mutual friends; and task sharing involves sharing in household responsibilities.

Others indicate that sharing activities with a romantic partner is beneficial for relationship

maintenance [23], and sexual satisfaction in relationships is associated with relationship satis-

faction and commitment [24, 25]. Indeed, all these strategies are associated with greater

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 2 / 18

to author LKC. In addition, UNLV funded the

journal publication costs. The funder had no role in

study design, data collection and analysis, decision

to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared

that no competing interests exist.

relationship satisfaction and commitment [5, 22, 26]. However, mate value discrepancy is

arguably a determining factor for whether a person uses mate retention strategies.

Individuals who perceive their mate as having a higher mate value than their own are more

likely to forgive their partner’s transgressions [27] and tend to use more frequent mate reten-

tion behaviors when there is a risk of their partner’s infidelity [28]. Also, both men and

women tend to use more vigilant and sometimes violent behaviors when their partner’s per-

ceived attractiveness is greater than their own [29]. Conroy-Beam, Goetz, and Buss [30] found

that mate value discrepancy (MVD) was predictive of individuals’ relationship satisfaction and

trust in their partners: an individual partnered with someone of greater mate value than them-

selves was less trusting of that partner. Studies on MVD, however, are limited in part due to

complications with operationalizing the difference between one partner’s mate value and the

other’s mate value. Another challenge with capturing MVD is the inherent subjectivity of the

concept. A person’s mate value is entirely dependent on self-reports and is left to interpreta-

tion; an evolutionary biologist might argue that mate value is equivalent to that person’s repro-

ductive fitness or contribution of resources (e.g., [21]), whereas a social scientist might argue

that mate value is related to a person’s ability to communicate or express empathy. For the pur-

poses of this study, however, the precise definition of mate value is irrelevant. What matters in

this context is the person’s perceived mate value of herself and her partner. If a person per-

ceives her own mate value as less than her partner’s, the precise reason does not matter, but

rather the effect of her perception within the relationship. Presumably, her individual ideal for

what is desirable in a mate will be consistent with the judgment placed on herself and her part-

ner. Because evidence suggests mate value plays a role in women’s mate retention strategies,

then mate value might also have an impact on women’s use of intimate apparel.

Women’s use of intimate apparel

Research on underwear has been undertaken from a variety of approaches: from the develop-

ment of new underwear technology [31, 32] to marketing effectiveness and strategies [33, 34]

to underwear fetishism [35]. The most robust literature is on fabric thermoregulation [36–38]

and men’s boxers versus briefs: i.e., tightness and sperm quality [39, 40]. Although a more than

30 billion U.S. dollar market worldwide [41], literature on women’s underwear is limited,

focusing on consumerism and postfeminist critiques. And no research examines how women

use underwear in their romantic relationships.

Anecdotally, women tend to have preferences for their everyday underwear depending on

their external wear, such as jeans, slacks, skirts or dresses and tight, loose or low-cut tops. For

example, women might wear a seamless or G-string panty with a tight skirt or pair of slacks.

Many women also have specialized categories for their underwear: e.g., “period panties” and

“laundry-day bra.” Interview data indicate women also wear certain types of underwear

because they simply make them feel comfortable or sexy. Jantzen’s [42] interviews with 22

women showed that many of the participants had certain underwear for when they were ill,

menstruating, or doing sports; one respondent called them “amateur briefs.” The women in

this study indicated that the “competent” woman dresses in presentable underwear for each

type of day; whether for a day in or a party, the woman should be prepared. As Jantzen [42]

states, “Underwear is thus. . .a means to manipulate intra-psychological moods and generate

sensations for the intimate self.” These data suggest that women use certain types of underwear

in preparation for their daily activities.

Sexy underwear, often broadly termed lingerie in the United States, can be considered dis-

tinct from daily underwear, but lingerie is an umbrella term for all types of women’s under-

wear, not only sexy types. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we use the terms intimate

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 3 / 18

apparel and sexy underwear as any underwear women intentionally use to increase their attrac-

tivity. Because women’s preferences vary, intimate apparel can range from a combination of

boy shorts and bralettes to crotch-less panties and leather corsets. Women aged 25–44 tend to

consider purchasing lingerie and intimate apparel as a “treat” as well as a necessity [43]. While

some women might wear intimate apparel to “feel good” about themselves, they more likely

choose intimate apparel that increases their own arousal while also signaling sexual proceptiv-

ity and receptivity to their male partner.

Predictions

In this study, we hypothesized that women use intimate apparel in relationships as a form of

subtle sexual signaling for proceptivity. To test this, we examined women’s use of intimate

apparel in their current relationships across three distinct contexts: use at the time of taking

the survey, use during their most recent sexual encounter with their partner, and use in an

imagined, ideal sexual encounter with their partner. We then tested women’s use of intimate

apparel in relation to their relative mate value and with potential covariates: relationship satis-

faction and commitment, sexual functioning, women’s age, parental status and age of children.

We predicted the following:

1. Women who intend to be sexually active later in the day will report higher sexiness of

underwear on that day than women who do not intend to be sexually active.

2. Women who initiated their most recent sexual encounter with their partner will report

higher sexiness of underwear for that encounter than women who did not initiate.

3. Women who report a lower relative mate value than their partner’s will report higher sexi-

ness of underwear compared to women who report the same or higher relative mate value

than their partner across all three contexts:

a. day of taking the survey

b. most recent sexual encounter with their partner

c. an ideal sexual encounter with their partner

Methods

Power analysis

An a priori power analysis indicated that for a power of .80 with an alpha of .05 and a moderate

effect size, this study required a minimum sample size of n = 250 to a maximum of n = 500.

Procedure

This study received exempt status from the UNLV Social/Behavioral IRB and was conducted

via the online survey system Qualtrics. Links to the survey were distributed across social media

sites (Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit) as well as through e-mails and flyer hand-outs; com-

pleted responses took about 15–20 minutes. The online survey began with a University of

Nevada, Las Vegas standard informed consent form and four questions intended to exclude

women who: were not between the ages of 25–45; were not in a committed romantic relation-

ship; were in a long-distance relationship; or were pregnant or nursing. Participants who

responded negatively to all the four were then asked a series of demographic questions

designed to describe their current living arrangements, income, and romantic relationship.

Next, participants answered questions about their use of intimate apparel, termed sexy

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 4 / 18

underclothes in the survey, followed by a scale about relationship satisfaction and commitment,

their perceived MVD, and their sexual functioning. Participants then answered a series of

questions about their current sexiness of underwear and expectancy for a sexual encounter

with their current partner followed by a series of questions designed to understand their use of

intimate apparel in relation to their most recent sexual encounter and an ideal sexual encoun-

ter with their current partner.

Participants

Eight-two out of 183 respondents completed the online survey via a Qualtrics link and received

an opportunity to enter a raffle to win one of three Amazon gift cards. Qualtrics Research Ser-

vices then collected 268 responses for a fee of $1,500, totaling N = 353 completed responses.

Participant ages ranged from 25 to 45 with a M = 34 and SD = 6 years. Of the 353 women who

completed this survey, 80.5% reported being white, 6.8% reported being African American or

black, 4.8% reported being Asian, and 7.9% reported other ethnicities.

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked a series of background information about their age, their partner’s age,

ethnicity, education, use of hormonal contraceptives, household size, parental status and age

of children, income contribution of self and partner, and whether they are living with their

partner.

Attitudes toward intimate apparel

Participants indicated if they ever wear sexy underclothes. We designed a 12-item question-

naire intended to assess the participants’ reasons for wearing intimate apparel. The items were

phrased as statements, and participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally agree; 7

= totally disagree). The items were based on prior research [32, 42, 44–47] on women’s percep-

tions and attitudes toward intimate apparel (see Results for a complete list of statements).

Use of intimate apparel

For each experimental context, participants responded to a one-item question about the sexi-

ness of their underclothes on a continuous scale from 1–10: 1 being the least sexy; 10 being the

most sexy.

Mate value discrepancy

Mate value discrepancy (MVD) was measured using a modified version of the Mate Value

Scale (MVS) [48]. The MVS is a 4-item questionnaire about a person’s desirability as a partner

with good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .85) and validity. For the modification, we doubled

the items and changed the second to “your partner” instead of “your.” Each item used a

7-point Likert scale that differs for each question (e.g., Item 1: 1 = extremely undesirable, 7 =

extremely desirable; Item 4: 1 = very bad catch, 7 = very good catch). Discrepancy was measured

by subtracting the total value of items 1–4 from the total value of items 5–8. A negative score

indicates the female’s mate value is less than the male’s mate value. A positive score indicates

the female’s mate value is greater than the male’s mate value.

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 5 / 18

Descriptive relationship measures

Participants were asked about their relationship satisfaction with, their commitment to, and

their sexual functioning with their current romantic partner to provide a richer profile of the

participants’ relationship.

Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Kansas Marital

Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) which is a 3-item questionnaire with a 7-point Likert scale (1 =

extremely dissatisfied; 7 = extremely satisfied) and strong test-retest reliability and validity [49].

The items were modified to relate to couples who are not married but are in a committed

relationship.

Commitment. Commitment was measuring using the Lund [50] commitment scale with

good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .82) and validity. The 9-item questionnaire uses a 7-point

Likert scale that differs for each item (e.g., Item 1: “How likely is it that your relationship will

be permanent?” 1 = extremely likely, 7 = extremely unlikely; Item 7: “How obligated do you feel

to continue this relationship?” 1 = extremely obligated; 7 = not at all obligated). Items 2 and 6

were reverse scored.

Sexual functioning. Sexual function in the participants’ current romantic relationship was

measuring using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) [51, 52]. We only used the three rel-

evant portions of the FSFI to reduce survey length: desire (items 1 and 2; Cronbach’s alpha =

.92), arousal (items 3–6; Cronbach’s alpha = .95) and satisfaction (items 14–16; Cronbach’s

alpha = .89). The standard FSFI measures sexual functioning within the last four weeks.

Experimental contexts

Each participant responded to questions about their use of intimate apparel in the following

three contexts:

Context one. This portion of the survey was designed to assess the participants’ status of

intimate apparel on the day they took the survey. These questions provide semi-random sam-

pling of daily intimate apparel between subjects. Participants were asked if they were currently

wearing or planned to wear sexy underclothes on the day of taking the survey and if they

expected to be sexually active with their partner that day as well as rating their level of sexy underclothes.

Context two. This portion of the survey was designed to assess the participants’ use of inti-

mate apparel as a form of proceptivity during the most recent sexual encounter with their

romantic partner. These questions provide an estimate for how the participants usually experi-

ence sex with their current partner. Participants answered questions about which person initi-

ated the sexual encounter and rated their level of sexy underclothes. Finally, participants

completed a modified version of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), excluding item 6 as

it could not be estimated for the most recent sexual encounter. We also removed all scores of 0

from the seven items, as we asked about sexual activity.

Context three. This portion of the survey was designed to assess the participants’ use of inti-

mate apparel during an ideal sexual encounter with their romantic partner. Participants read a

small, hypothetical vignette with their partner initiating sexual contact and responded about

their ideal level of sexy underclothes during the encounter.

Statistical analysis

All data analyses were conducted using the statistical program IBM SPSS version 25.0 [53].

First, we performed descriptive, frequency, and correlational analyses on all variables to pro-

vide a demographic and relationship profile of the participants. We used an independent sam-

ples t-test to test the relationship of sexual intent and initiation with the use of intimate

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 6 / 18

apparel; participant responses for intent and initiation were measured as independent, dichot-

omous values. Although responses to the intimate apparel measure were non-normally distrib-

uted, the sample sizes are large enough to provide robust results [54]. Finally, to test our

predictions we used a linear regression analysis to test for interaction effects between MVD

and intent with use of intimate apparel; a linear regression analysis was also used to test for

interaction effects between MVD and initiation with the used of intimate apparel.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Frequency data for participant demographics are listed in Table 1. Table 2 provides means and

standard deviations for the measures of participant age, partner age, income contribution, rela-

tionship satisfaction, commitment, mate value, and sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction.

Finally, we provide a Pearson correlation analysis of these relationship variables in Table 3 and

a Pearson correlation analysis of intimate apparel across the three contexts in Table 4.

Intimate apparel

Of the 353 women, 88.7% (n = 313) indicated wearing or having worn intimate apparel. The

primary reasons for wearing intimate apparel were to feel sexy (M = 5.65; SD = 1.32), on special occasions (M = 5.41; SD = 1.39), to feel feminine (M = 5.28; SD = 1.52), as a gift for my partner (M = 5.24; SD = 1.71), and when I expect to get intimate later that day (M = 5.20; SD = 1.57).

Table 5 shows a complete list of the reported reasons participants use intimate apparel.

Prediction one

We predicted that women who intended to be sexually active later in the day would report

higher sexiness of underwear. Overall, participants rated the sexiness of their current under-

clothes (M = 4.59; SD = 2.64). An independent samples t-test showed significant differences in

sexiness of underwear between intent (M = 5.68; SD = 2.72) and no intent (M = 3.87;

SD = 2.26) for sexual activity (t153.09 = 4.48; p< .001; Fig 1), providing support for prediction

one. These results suggest women might wear sexier underwear when they plan on being sexu-

ally active later in the day.

Prediction two

We predicted that women who initiated their most recent sexual encounter with their partner

would report higher sexiness of underwear for that encounter than women who did not initi-

ate. Overall, participants rated the sexiness of their underwear (M = 4.97; SD = 2.74) during

their most recent sexual encounter with their partner. An independent samples t-test showed

no significant difference in intimate apparel with who initiated the most recent sexual encoun-

ter (Fig 2); thus, prediction two was not supported: use of intimate apparel does not seem to be

a proceptive behavior in this sample, at least based on this assessment.

To gain insight on proceptivity, we conducted an exploratory analysis with other possible

confounding variables: relationship commitment and satisfaction, hormonal contraceptives,

parental status, age of children, age of participant, age difference between participant and part-

ner, income, and employment status. However, we found no significance in any of the vari-

ables regarding initiation. These results suggest intimate apparel is not a form of proceptivity

or receptivity in this sample. Alternatively, these results might suggest the item used in this

study did not accurately measure initiation, which was one-item asking, “Did you or your part-

ner initiate your most recent sexual encounter?” without a clear definition for initiate.

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 7 / 18

Prediction three

We predicted that women with a relatively lower mate value than their partner would report

higher sexiness of underclothes across all three contexts.

Prediction 3a. For context one, a linear regression indicated a main effect of intent for

sexual activity on sexiness of underclothes (t = -6.32; p< .001) and a main effect of MVD on

sexiness of underclothes (t = 3.59; p< .001); however, we found no interaction effect between

intent and MVD on sexiness of underclothes. In contrast to prediction 3a, the directionality of

the MVD t-value indicates that women who have similar or higher relative mate value to their

partners reported wearing sexier underwear.

Table 1. Frequency data for participant demographics.

Demographic Variable Freq. % Ethnicity

African American or Black 24 6.8

American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1.1

Asian 17 4.8

White 284 80.5

Other 24 6.8

Education

Less than HS degree 16 4.5

HS degree / equivalent (e.g., GED) 90 25.5

Some college; no degree 88 24.9

Associate’s degree 39 11

Bachelor’s degree 69 19.5

Graduate degree 50 14.2

Household size

One (self) 9 2.5

Two 113 32

Three 78 22.1

Four 82 23.2

Five or more 71 20.1

Participant employment status

Employed up to 35 hrs/wk 70 19.8

Employed 36+ hrs/wk 141 39.9

Unemployed 110 31.2

Unable to work 32 9.1

Household income

$0–29,999 74 21

$30,000–49,999 93 26.3

$50,000–79,999 84 23.8

$80,000–129,999 63 17.9

$130,000+ 39 11

On hormonal contraceptives 88 24.9

Married and cohabiting 222 62.9

Unmarried and cohabiting 105 29.7

Living separately 24 6.8

Participants with children 233 66

All variables are presented to provide an enriched profile of the participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.t001

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 8 / 18

Prediction 3b. For context two, a linear regression analysis showed a main effect of MVD

on sexiness of underclothes (t = 3.63; p< .001). Additionally, we found no interaction effect

between initiation and MVD on sexiness of underclothes. Again, the t-value direction shows

no support for prediction 3b: women who have similar or higher relative mate value to their

partners reported wearing sexier underclothes.

Prediction 3c. For context three, a linear regression analysis showed no effect of MVD on

sexiness of underclothes during an ideal sexual encounter. Prediction 3c was not supported.

Exploratory analysis of MVD

To better understand the role of mate value with intimate apparel, we performed an explor-

atory analysis on independent self and partner mate values in relation to intimate apparel

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for demographic and relationship variables.

n M SD Min Max Age Discrepancy1 349 2.56 5.53 -21 28

Participant Age 352 34.57 6.05 25 45

Partner’s Age 350 37.08 7.72 23 59

Partner’s Income Contribution2 353 61.46 29.17 0 100

Mate Value Discrepancy3 351 -.46 1.12 -5.75 3

Mate Value (Self) 352 5.07 1.16 1 7

Mate Value (Partner) 351 5.53 1.13 1 7

Relationship Satisfaction 352 5.81 1.35 1 7

Commitment 350 5.21 .71 1.78 7

Sexual Desire4 350 3.28 1.07 1 5

Sexual Arousal4 350 4.04 1.11 1 6

Sexual Satisfaction4 350 4.12 1.24 1 6

All variables are presented to provide an enriched profile of the participants. 1Variable represents the partner’s age minus the participant’s age. A positive score indicates the partner is older than the participant. 2Variable was measured in percent (%) of total household income. 3Variable represents the partner’s mate value minus the participant’s mate value. A negative score indicates the participant’s mate value is less than their partner’s mate

value. 4Sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction are individual domains of the complete FSFI measure and refer to the past four weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.t002

Table 3. Pearson correlations for relationship variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Mate Value Discrepancy1 –

2. Age Discrepancy .071 –

3. Income Discrepancy -.057 .030 –

4. Relationship Satisfaction -.202�� .016 .159�� –

5. Commitment -.113� .005 .917 .387�� –

6. Sexual Desire2 .100 .076 .044 .340�� .097 –

7. Sexual Arousal2 .028 .025 .105� .298�� .079 .372�� –

8. Sexual Satisfaction2 -.056 -.008 .087 .513�� .182�� .266�� .707�� –

�p< .05

��p< .01 1Negative scores indicate participant mate value was less than their partner’s mate value. 2Sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction are individual domains of the FSFI measure and refer to the past four weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.t003

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 9 / 18

during the most recent sexual encounter, relationship commitment, and relationship satisfac-

tion. Results indicated that partner mate value (B = .45, SE = .13, p = .001); self mate value (B =

.86, SE = .12, p< .001); commitment (B = .54, SE = .21, p = .01); and relationship satisfaction

(B = .36, SE = .11, p< .001) were all independent, significant predictors for sexiness of under-

clothes. However, when controlling for partner mate value, commitment, and relationship sat-

isfaction, self mate value was the only predictor for sexiness of underclothes (B = .87, SE = .14,

p< .001), indicating a full mediating effect of self mate value on intimate apparel use in con-

text two. All these results show that a woman’s own mate value predicts her use of intimate

apparel during her most recent sexual encounter despite her partner’s mate value, her commit-

ment to the relationship, and her relationship satisfaction.

Further analysis showed similar results for both contexts one and three, indicating that a

woman’s perceived mate value determines her use of intimate apparel outside the context of

her current romantic relationship. That said, an analysis of relationship commitment indicates

that women who are more committed to their relationship and have a negative MVD (their

Table 4. Pearson correlations for intimate apparel.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Context One: IA Sexiness –

2. Context Two: IA Sexiness .613�� –

3. Context Three: IA Sexiness .391�� .579�� –

4. Mate Value Discrepancy1 .215�� .208�� .038 –

5. Sexual Desire2 .153�� .271�� .230�� .031 –

6. Sexual Arousal2 .194�� .291�� .151�� .018 .850�� –

7. Sexual Satisfaction2 .158�� .204�� N/A3 -.104 .647�� .750�� –

�p< .05

��p< .01; Context One refers to participants’ intimate apparel at the time of taking the survey; Context Two refers to participants’ intimate apparel during their most

recent sexual encounter. 1Positive scores indicate participant mate value was greater than their partner’s mate value. 2Sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction are individual domains of the FSFI measure and refer to the most recent sexual encounter. 3Correlations were not computed for sexual desire, arousal, or satisfaction because they pertain to an ideal sexual encounter, not the most recent sexual encounter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.t004

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for reported reasons for intimate apparel.

Strongly disagree–Strongly agree n M SD Min Max I wear sexy underclothes:

to feel sexy. 313 5.65 1.32 1 7

because my partner tells me to. 313 2.89 1.83 1 7

on special occasions. 313 5.41 1.39 1 7

to feel feminine. 313 5.28 1.52 1 7

because that’s what women are supposed to do for their partners 313 3.14 1.94 1 7

because it’s comfortable. 313 3.79 1.74 1 7

to sleep in. 313 3.44 1.97 1 7

underneath my normal, everyday clothes. 312 3.73 1.96 1 7

when I expect to get intimate later that day. 313 5.20 1.58 1 7

as a gift for my partner. 313 5.24 1.71 1 7

when I run out of normal, everyday underwear. 313 3.41 1.92 1 7

underneath special, sexy clothes. 313 5.01 1.79 1 7

Means are bolded if they are greater than four, meaning respondents agreed with the statements.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.t005

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 10 / 18

own mate value is less than their partner’s) engaged in more use of sexy underclothes during

their most recent sexual encounter (B = -.35, SE = .16, p = .03) but not during contexts one or

three.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify women’s use of intimate apparel as a subtle sexual sig-

nal of proceptivity and receptivity in heterosexual romantic relationships; however, our

Fig 1. Expect to be sexually active and score for sexiness of underclothes. Error bars are at 95% confidence interval. The y-axis represents the mean scores for sexiness

of underclothes in Context One.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.g001

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 11 / 18

findings suggest intimate apparel might serve another purpose for the women in this study.

We predicted that women would wear sexier underwear when they expected to be sexually

active and when initiating sexual activity. Women in this study did indeed report wearing sex-

ier underwear when intending to be sexually active later that day, but women’s use of intimate

apparel did not significantly contribute to sexual initiation. We also predicted that if a wom-

an’s perceived mate value was relatively lower than her partner’s, she would be more likely to

use intimate apparel to signal her proceptivity and receptivity. Conversely, we found that when

Fig 2. Initiation of self or partner and score for sexiness of underclothes. Error bars are at 95% confidence interval. The y-axis represents the mean scores for sexiness

of underclothes in Context Two.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112.g002

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 12 / 18

a woman’s relative mate value was similar to or higher than–but not less than–her partner’s

mate value, she reported wearing sexier underwear across all three contexts.

Further analyses into MVD found that women in relationships with men of higher mate

value than themselves, and relatively high independent mate values, felt more overall satisfied

and committed to the relationship; but her partner’s relative mate value did not influence her

sexual experiences. Additionally, a woman’s independent mate value predicted the sexiness of

her underwear despite her commitment, satisfaction, and perception of her partner’s mate

value. Based on relative mate value, women might use intimate apparel when they feel more

confident about themselves and their sexuality rather than as a signal of proceptivity and

receptivity to their partner. So, why do women use intimate apparel if not for sexual signaling?

The number one reason women in this study reported wearing sexy underwear was “to feel

sexy,” which is consistent with other findings on intimate apparel [42, 43]. Use of intimate

apparel might also act as a form of self-arousal: a thorough review of women’s sexual desire by

Meana [55] suggests that women want to feel sexually desired. Although a main factor in the

decline of sexual desire and overall functioning for women is the presence of children and

increased roles and responsibilities [56–58], the current study found that women’s parental

status, employment status, income, and age were not predictors for the use of intimate apparel.

We found the best predictors for women’s use of intimate apparel during their most sexual

encounter to be relative mate value, relationship commitment, and relationship satisfaction.

Other reasons reported for wearing intimate apparel were as a gift for their partner (M = 5.24,

SD = 1.71) or on special occasions (M = 5.41, SD = 1.39). Furthermore, Pearson correlation

analysis showed women who wore sexier underwear reported greater sexual desire (r = .218, p < .001) within the last four weeks and greater sexual desire (r = .271, p< .001), arousal (r =

.291, p< .001), and satisfaction (r = .204, p< .001) during their most recent sexual encounter.

Because there is a decline in sexual desire with relationship duration [57, 59], these women

might be using intimate apparel to increase their own sexual desire, thus enhancing sexual

encounters with their romantic partner [60] and maintaining the relationship they are com-

mitted to. Taken together, these results suggest women might use intimate apparel to increase

their attractivity, which reflects a background signal of availability to romantic partners.

Limitations and future research

This study is subject to limitations. These data worked under the assumption that the respon-

dents had only one romantic partner; extra pair partners could potentially influence how

women use intimate apparel in their daily lives as well as within their committed relationships.

Results were also not adjusted for time-of-day or cycle phase. A methodological limitation to

this study is that participants were not asked the duration of their relationship, so use of inti-

mate apparel across time could not be measured. Schmiedeberg and Shroder [61] found that

sexual satisfaction peaks in the second half of the first year of a relationship and then declines

over time. As the relationship progresses, the couple becomes more acquainted with one

another and experience mutual life stressors; the couple transitions into the companionate

phase, characterized by a state of comfort and commonality [62]. However, Frederick, Lever,

Gillespie and Garcia [60] found that passion in romantic relationships can be maintained by

enhancing the quality of the sexual encounters with sensual touch and “I love you” statements,

so use of intimate apparel might also serve to maintain passion.

Another methodological limitation was the measure for initiation (mentioned in the

Results), which was one item asking, “Did you or your partner initiate your most recent sexual

encounter?” without a clear definition of initiate. A more specific measure of MVD beyond

self and partner desirability would provide greater insight into individuals’ perceptions of

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 13 / 18

themselves and their partners. Because this study focused on heterosexual women, future stud-

ies should examine how lesbian women use intimate apparel in their short- and long-term

romantic relationships. Finally, this study does not provide support for intimate apparel as a

form of proceptivity; future research might ask more probing question about sexual activities,

specifically in open-ended interviews.

These findings might also have clinical significance in that women’s use of intimate apparel

could reflect women’s body image. In a comprehensive review on women’s body image and

sexual functioning, Woetman and ban den Brink [58] found a positive relationship between

body image and sexual desire overall. They also found that women’s sexual arousal and satis-

faction can be negatively affected by self-inspection and -evaluation during sexual activity.

Another study on body image and romantic relationships found that body appreciation was

positively associated with relationship quality as well as sexual satisfaction [63]. Because

women in this study who reported higher mate value were more likely to wear sexier under-

wear, body image might play a role in women’s choice of intimate apparel and overall impact

relationship and sexual satisfaction. Women who have lower body image might not have the

confidence to wear sexier underwear, which could itself negatively affect her sexual desire and

arousal. Future research into effects of body image should incorporate women’s use of intimate

apparel as well as mate value to better understand these associations.

Conclusions

Little research has examined women’s use of intimate apparel, and no studies have addressed

its use as a subtle sexual signal in committed, romantic relationships. Despite some claims that

use of intimate apparel is the result of effective marketing [33], we have found that the women

in this study want to wear sexy underclothes to feel sexy, to feel desired, to feel aroused, and to

prepare for sex with their partners. We have found that mate value has an important, albeit

surprising, role in relationships regarding intimate apparel. Overall, a woman’s use of intimate

apparel is more closely related to her perceptions of her own mate value than her committed

relationship. However, she still might use intimate apparel as a form of relationship mainte-

nance: intimate apparel increases a woman’s attractivity, which may function as an underlying

signal of availability and receptivity. Although this study failed to establish proceptivity, it is

the first to examine women’s use of intimate apparel within romantic relationships.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the important theoretical contributions provided by LKC’s

graduate committee from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV): Dr. Alyssa Crittenden,

Dr. Jiemin Bao, and Dr. Murray Millar. For his substantial assistance with the initial power

analysis, we would also like to thank Dr. Chad Cross from the UNLV School of Medicine.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Lyndsey K. Craig, Peter B. Gray.

Data curation: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Formal analysis: Lyndsey K. Craig, Peter B. Gray.

Funding acquisition: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Investigation: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Methodology: Lyndsey K. Craig, Peter B. Gray.

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 14 / 18

Project administration: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Resources: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Software: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Supervision: Peter B. Gray.

Validation: Peter B. Gray.

Visualization: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Writing – original draft: Lyndsey K. Craig.

Writing – review & editing: Lyndsey K. Craig, Peter B. Gray.

References 1. Etcoff NL, Stock S, Haley LE, Vickery SA, House D M. Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human

phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS ONE. 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656.

2. Guéguen N, Jacob C. Lipstick and tipping behavior: When red lipstick enhance waitresses’ tips. Interna-

tional Journal of Hospitality Management. 2012; 31(4): 1333–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.

012.

3. Haselton MG, Mortezaie M, Pillsworth EG, Bleske-Rechek A, Frederick DA. Ovulatory shifts in human

female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior. 2007; 51:

40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007 PMID: 17045994

4. Bird RB, Ready E, Power EA. The social significance of subtle signals. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0298-3.

5. Ogolsky BG, Bowers JR. A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships. 2012; 30(3): 343–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0265407515463338.

6. Nunn CL, van Schaik CP, Zinner D. Do exaggerated sexual swellings function in female mating compe-

tition in primates? A comparative test of the reliable indicator hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology. 2001; 12

(5): 646–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.5.646.

7. Beach FA. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals. Hormones and Behav-

ior. 1976; 7(1): 105–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0018-506x(76)90008-8 PMID: 819345

8. Baum MJ, Everitt BJ, Herbert J, Keverne EB. Hormonal basis of proceptivity and receptivity in female

primates. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1977; 6(3): 173–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01541126 PMID:

405957

9. Dixon AF. Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of the Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human

Beings. 2nd ed. New York, New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

10. Kauffman AS. Mammalian female sexual behavior and hormones. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior.

2010: 355–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045337-8.00276-X.

11. Puts DA, Bailey DH, Cardenas RA, Burriss RP, Welling LLM, Wheatley JR, et al. Women’s attractive-

ness changes with estradiol and progesterone across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior.

2013; 63(1): 13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.11.007.

12. Röder S, Fink B, Jones BC. Facial, olfactory, and vocal cues to female reproductive value. Evolutionary

Psychology. 2013; 11(2): 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100209 PMID: 23728193

13. Elliot AJ, Pazda AD. Dressed for sex: Red as a female sexual signal in humans. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7

(4): e34607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034607 PMID: 22514643

14. Guéguen N. Color and women attractiveness: When red clothed women are perceived to have more

intense sexual intent. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2012; 152(3): 261–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00224545.2011.605398 PMID: 22558822

15. Etcoff NL, Stock S, Haley LE, Vickery SA, House DM. Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human

phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6

(10): e25656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656 PMID: 21991328

16. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic surgery statistics. 2017 [cited 2018 December 18]. Avail-

able from https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics.

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 15 / 18

17. Hill SE, Durante KM. Courtship, competition, and the pursuit of attractiveness: Mating goals facilitate

health-related risk taking and strategic risk suppression in women. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin. 2011; 37(3): 383–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210395603 PMID: 21252381

18. Atari M, Chegeni R, Fathi L. Women who are interested in cosmetic surgery want it all: The association

between considering cosmetic surgery and women’s mate preferences. Adaptive Human Behavior and

Physiology. 2017; 3: 61–70. https://.doi.org/0.1007/s40750-016-0053-9.

19. Grammar K, Fink B, Moller AP, Thornhill R. Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of

beauty. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 2003; 78(3): 385–407. https://doi.

org/10.1017/s1464793102006085 PMID: 14558590

20. Singh D, Dixson BJ, Jessop TS, Morgan B, Dixson AF. Cross-cultural consensus for waist-hip ratio and

women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2010; 31(3): 176–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.001.

21. Sugiyama LS. Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In Buss DM, editor. The Handbook

of Evolutionary Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125563.

evpsych112.

22. Canary DJ, Stafford L. Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In: Canary

DJ, Stafford L, editors. Communication and relational maintenance. San Diego: Academic Press;

1994. pp. 3–22.

23. Girme YU, Overall NC, Faingataa S. “Date nights” take two: The maintenance function of shared rela-

tionship activities. Personal Relationships. 2013; 21(1): 125–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12020.

24. Butzer B, Campbell L. Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of

married couples. Personal Relationships. 2008; 15(1): 141–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.

2007.00189.x.

25. Byers ES. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-

term relationships. The Journal of Sex Research. 2010; 42(2): 113–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00224490509552264.

26. Canary DJ, Yum Y. Relationship maintenance strategies. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, editors. The Inter-

national Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communications. 2015. pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/

9781118540190.wbeic248.

27. Sidelinger RJ, Booth-Butterfield M. Mate value discrepancy as predictor of forgiveness and jealousy in

romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly. 2007; 55(2): 207–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/

01463370701290426.

28. Sela Y, Mogilski JK, Shackelford TK, Zeigler-Hill V, Fink B. Mate value discrepancy and mate retention

behaviors of self and partner. Journal of Personality. 2017; 85(5): 730–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.

12281 PMID: 27542990

29. Buss DM, Shackelford TK. From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 72(2): 346–61. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.2.

346 PMID: 9107005

30. Conroy-Beam D, Goetz CD, Buss DM. What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate reten-

tion intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evolution and Human Behavior.

2016; 37(6): 440–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.003.

31. Sukigara S, Fujimoto T, Niwa M. Sensorial comfort/discomfort of lingerie based on hand assessment

and objective evaluation. Sen-I Gakkaishi. 1992; 49(6): 294–305. https://doi.org/10.2115/fiber.49.6_

294.

32. Yip J, Chan HHT, Kwan B, Law D. Influence of appearance orientation, BI and purchase intention on

customer expectations of service quality in Hong Kong intimate apparel retailing. Total Quality Manage-

ment & Business Excellence. 2011; 22(10): 1105–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.593904.

33. Ashworth CJ, Schmidt RÄ, Pioch EA, Hallsworth A. “Web-weaving”: An approach to sustainable e-retail

and online advantage in lingerie fashion marketing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Man-

agement. 2006; 34(6): 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550610667074.

34. Krot K, Lewicka D. The market orientation as a key dimension of innovation culture–Study of Polish lin-

gerie company. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning.

2013; 3(2): 79–84. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2013.V3.197.

35. Bond IK, Evans DR. Avoidance therapy: Its use in two cases of underwear fetishism. Canadian Medical

Association Journal. 1967; 96(16): 1160–2. PMID: 6021567.

36. Hoge HJ, Fonseca GF. The thermal conductivity of a multilayer sample of underwear material under a

variety of experimental conditions. Textile Research Journal. 1964: 401–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/

004051756403400503.

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 16 / 18

37. Holcombre BV, Hoschke BN. Dry heat transfer characteristics of underwear fabrics. Textile Research

Journal. 1983: 368–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/004051758305300608.

38. Nielsen R, Endrusick TL. Sensations of temperature and humidity during alternative work/rest and the

influence of underwear knit structure. Ergonomics. 2007; 33(2): 221–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00140139008927112.

39. Tiemessen CHJ, Evers JLH, Bots RSGM. Tight-fitting underwear and sperm quality. Lancet. 1996; 347

(9018): 1844–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91670-0.

40. Munkelwitz B, Gilbert BR. Are boxer shorts really better? A critical analysis of the role of underwear type

in male subfertility. The Journal of Urology. 1998; 160(4): 1329–33. PMID: 9751347.

41. Statica. Revenue of the lingerie market worldwide 2012–2017. 2018 [cited 2019 March 4] Available

from https://www.statista.com/statistics/418713/revenue-of-the-lingerie-market-worldwide/.

42. Jantzen C. Becoming a “woman to the backbone”: Lingerie consumption and the experience of feminine

identity. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2006; 6(2): 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1469540506064743.

43. Amy-Chin D, Jantzen C,Østergaard P. Doing and meaning: Towards an integrated approach to the

study of women’s relationship to underwear. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2006; 6(3): 379–401.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540506068685.

44. Amy-Chinn D. This is just for me(n): How the regulation of post-feminist lingerie advertising perpetuates

woman as object. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2006; 6(2): 155–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1469540506064742.

45. Fields J. An Intimate Affair: Women, Lingerie, and Sexuality. Los Angeles: University of California

Press; 2007.

46. Law D, Wong C, Yip J. How does visual merchandising affect consumer affective response?: An inti-

mate apparel experience. European Journal of Marketing. 2012; 46(1): 112–33. https://doi.org/10.

1108/03090561211189266.

47. Wood R. ‘You do act differently when you’re in it’: Lingerie and femininity. Journal of Gender Studies.

2016; 25(1): 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.874942.

48. Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ. The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 2014; 64: 72–7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005.

49. Schumm WR, Paff-Bergen LA, Hatch RC, Obiorah FC, Copeland JM, Meens LD, et al. Concurrent and

discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1986; 48

(2): 381–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/352405.

50. Lund M. The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal

relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1985; 2: 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0265407585021001.

51. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The Female Sexual Function

Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function.

Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2011; 26(2): 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597.

52. Meston CM. Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women with Female Orgasmic

Disorder and in women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.

2003; 29(1): 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/713847100.

53. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

54. Jahan S, Khan A. Power of t-test for simple linear regression model with non-normal error distribution: A

quantile function distribution approach. Journal of Scientific Research. 2012; 4(3): 609–22. http://dx.

doi.org/10.3329/jsr.v4i3.9067.

55. Meana M. Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire: Definitional challenges and content expansion.

Journal of Sex Research. 2010; 47(2): 104–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903402546 PMID:

20358455

56. Dewitte M, Mayer A. Exploring the link between daily relationship quality, sexual desire, and sexual

activity in couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2018; 47(6): 1675–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-

018-1175-x PMID: 29497914

57. Sims KE, Meana M. Why did passion wane? A qualitative study of married women’s attributions for

declines in sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2010; 36(4): 360–80. https://doi.org/10.

1080/0092623x.2010.498727.

58. Woertman L, van den Brink F. Body image and female sexual functioning and behavior: A review. Jour-

nal of Sex Research. 2012; 49(2–3): 184–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.658586 PMID:

22380588

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 17 / 18

59. Gray PB, Garcia JR, Gesselman AN. Age-related patterns in sexual behaviors and attitudes among sin-

gle U.S. adults: An evolutionary approach. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. 2019; 13: 111–26. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000126.

60. Frederick DA, Lever J, Gillespie BJ, Garcia JR. What keeps passion alive? Sexual satisfaction is associ-

ated with sexual communication, mood setting, sexual variety, oral sex, orgasm, and sex frequency in a

national U.S. study. The Journal of Sex Research. 2017; 54(2): 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00224499.2015.1137854 PMID: 26900897

61. Schmiedeberg C, Schroder J. Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship duration? Archives of

Sexual Behavior. 2016; 45(1): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0587-0 PMID: 26246315

62. Jankowiak W, Paladino T. Desiring sex, longing for love: A tripartite conundrum. Intimacies: Love and

Sex Across Cultures. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008.

63. van den Brink F, Vollman M, Smeets MAM, Hessen DJ, Woertman L. Relationships between body

image, sexual satisfaction, and relationship quality in romantic couples. Journal of Family Psychology.

2018; 32(4): 466–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000407 PMID: 29517245

PLOS ONE Women’s intimate apparel in heterosexual relationships

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230112 March 13, 2020 18 / 18

© 2020 Craig, Gray. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/(the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the

License.