Women’s intrasexual competition has received significant attention only in the last decades, with even less work investigating women’s defenses against such aggression. Yet, we should expect that women can (a) grasp which perceptually-salient cues evoke same-sex aggression and (b) strategically damp the display of (some of) those cues when aggression risk is greatest, thereby avoiding the potentially high costs of victimization. Women selectively aggress against women displaying cues of sexual permissiveness (e.g., revealing dress) and/or desirability (e.g., physical attractiveness). We find that (a) women (and men) anticipate greater intrasexual aggression toward women dressed revealingly versus modestly, especially if targets are attractive. Employing behavioral and self-report measures, we also find (b) women create outfits baring less skin, select more modest clothing, and intend to dress less revealingly to encounter other women, flexibly damping permissiveness cues depending on individual features (physical attractiveness) and situational features (being a newcomer) that amplify aggression risk.

Whereas men’s intrasexual aggression has been studied for over a century, women’s has received attention only in recent decades (Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2017; Vaillancourt, 2013). Even less work has focused on how women actively defend themselves against such aggression (Krems, Neuberg, Filip-Crawford, & Kenrick, 2015). Yet, we should expect that women can (a) grasp which cues/signals evoke same-sex aggression and (b) strategically damp (some of) those cues/signals when aggression risk is heightened, thereby avoiding the potentially high costs of victimization. We test these propositions here.

Research on women’s intrasexual aggression reveals it is both effective and strategically deployed (e.g., Campbell, 2002; Vaillancourt, 2013). Women may be especially likely to employ social exclusion and indirect tactics of aggression (e.g., gossip) toward other women, and evidence suggests that these tactics may be particularly harmful to female victims (Benenson et al., 2013; Campbell, 1995, 2002; Hess & Hagen, 2006; Hess & Hagen, 2017; Vaillancourt, 2013). For example, compared to males, females may experience greater internalizing problems and suicidal ideation as a consequence of victimization (see Vaillancourt, 2013).

Importantly, women are strategic in deploying this aggression, implying that some women may face disproportionate victimization. This is particularly apparent in the context of women’s mating competition, wherein evidence strongly suggests that women who are (perceived as) sexually permissive and/or sexually desirable are considered especially threatening rivals and are disproportionately aggressed against. That is, women specifically target other women who are (perceived as) sexually permissive (e.g., revealingly dressed women; Baumeister, Reynolds, Wineguard, & Vohs, 2017; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Bleske & Shackelford, 2001; Gurung & Chrouser, 2007; Muggleton, Tarran, & Fincher, 2018; Pazda, Prokop, & Elliott, 2014; Reynolds, Baumeister, & Maner, 2018; Vrangalova, Bukberg, & Rieger, 2014). For example, Vaillancourt and Sharma (2011) found that women behaved more aggressively toward a female confederate when she was dressed provocatively than when that very same confederate was dressed modestly. Women also specifically target other women who are (perceived as) sexually desirable to men (e.g., physically attractive and/or fertile women; Arnocky, Sunderani, Miller, & Vaillancourt, 2012; Buunk, Zurriaga, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Monzani, 2016; Fink, Klappauf, Brewer, & Shackelford, 2014; Hurst, Alquist, & Puts, 2017; Krems, Neel, Neuberg, Kenrick, & Puts, 2016; Leenaars, Dane, & Marini, 2008; Maner & McNulty, 2013; Reynolds et al., 2018). For example, wearing red makes women more attractive to men (e.g., Elliot, Greitemeyer, & Pazda, 2013; Pazda, Elliot, & Greitemeyer, 2012), and women are more aggressive toward women in red (Pazda et al., 2014).

Are women aware that displaying certain cues—cues of sexual permissiveness (e.g., revealing clothing) and/or desirability (e.g., physical attractiveness)—increases their risk of incurring intrasexual aggression? To avoid incurring this aggression, might women strategically damp the display of such cues when the possible costs (e.g., intrasexual aggression) outweigh the possible benefits (e.g., mate attraction)? First, we test whether people anticipate that women displaying cues associated with permissiveness and/or desirability will face more intrasexual aggression. Next, because women can more easily manipulate their clothing than their physical attractiveness, we investigate whether women might dress defensively—strategically damping sartorial cues of permissiveness when the threat of intrasexual aggression is heightened—presumably to avoid the potentially high costs associated with intrasexual victimization.

Experiment 1 Women aggress more toward more revealingly dressed women; for example, an attractive female confederate elicited more intrasexual aggression when provocatively dressed than when that same confederate was modestly dressed (Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011). To our knowledge, little work tests the straightforward prediction that people expect more intrasexual aggression to be directed toward revealingly versus modestly dressed women. We test this prediction and explore the role of target attractiveness.

Methods Participants A power analysis suggested 93 participants were necessary for .8 power to detect small effects (f = .15, measurement correlation = .5). We aimed to get usable data from 100 U.S. participants via TurkPrime. Of the 165 who began the survey, 142 (79 female; M age = 36.72, SD age = 11.55) completed focal dependent variables and passed attention checks. Procedure and Design Participants were asked to report their expectations of a social interaction in which Sara (the target) met Carol (a prospective new friend) and Martha (Carol’s coworker) at a Starbucks. Participants were informed that Sara was new to town and had connected with Carol through a friend-finding phone application. Carol was on the app, looking to make friends outside of work. Participants reported how they would expect Carol to respond during and after the meeting. As focal dependent variables, we measured expectations of direct and indirect aggressive responses toward Sara. Because some forms of indirect aggression can occur face-to-face (e.g., acting dismissive), whereas others, such as social distancing (e.g., avoiding the target after a meeting), may be apparent only in post-meeting behavior, we divided indirect aggression into indirect aggression (at the meeting) and behavioral intentions to socially distance the target (after the meeting). Social distancing often occurs when women do not intend to welcome a target into their, their friends’, and/or their romantic partners’ social orbits (Bleske & Shackelford, 2001; Krems et al., 2016). Stimuli Participants were randomly assigned to view one of three versions of Sara, each depicting the same woman but differing in dress and body weight (Figure A1). The images of Sara are established stimuli created and used by Vaillancourt and Sharma (2011), who found that they evoked different levels of intrasexual aggression. In the modestly dressed condition, Sara wears khaki pants and a crewneck t-shirt. In the revealingly dressed condition, Sara wears a short skirt and knee-high boots with a low-cut top. In both of these conditions, Sara is of average weight. In the revealingly dressed and heavier weight condition, Sara wears the same revealing outfit, but the photo has been manipulated to make Sara appear overweight (and thus less traditionally physically attractive). We performed manipulation checks on perceptions of target sexual permissiveness and physical attractiveness (see Supplementary Materials). Measures All measures assessed participants’ expectations of how Carol would behave toward Sara. In all conditions, participants responded to 16 items using 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very): manipulation checks, indirect aggression (at the meeting), indirect aggression in the form of social distancing intentions (after the meeting), and direct aggression (at the meeting). All questions began, “If Sara showed up wearing the outfit below, to what extent would Carol…?” See Supplementary Materials for all items. Indirect aggression (at the meeting). To assess expected levels of indirect aggression toward Sara, participants answered six questions about Carol’s behavior toward Sara at the meeting (e.g., “not be nice to Sara”; “act ‘bitchy’ toward Sara”; α = .86). Social distancing (after the meeting). To assess expected levels of social distancing, we asked participants six questions about Carol’s behavioral intentions toward Sara after the meeting (e.g., “avoid Sara”), including 5 reverse-coded items (e.g., “want to become close friends with Sara”; α = .86) based on previously established measures (Krems et al., 2016; Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011). Direct aggression (at the meeting). To assess expected levels of direct aggression toward Sara, participants answered two questions about Carol’s behavior toward Sara while at the meeting: “insult Sarah to her face” and “physically harm Sarah (e.g., shove her)” (α = .81). We did not expect direct aggression to vary as a function of target but nevertheless include it in analyses here for discriminant validity. The focal query was preregistered on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/nr7ub/.

Results and Discussion We ran a 3 (aggression mode: indirect, social distancing, direct) × 3 (target condition: modestly dressed average-weight, revealingly dressed average-weight, and revealingly dressed heavier-weight) mixed-factors analysis of variance (ANOVA), revealing significant main effects of aggression mode, F(2, 270) = 233.15, p < .001, η p 2 = .633, 95% CI = [.57, .68], and target condition, F(2, 135) = 21.29, p < .001, η p 2 = .240, 95% CI = [.12, .35], qualified by a significant interaction, F(4, 270) = 18.63, p < .001, η p 2 = .216, 95% CI = [.13, .29]. (Rerunning this ANOVA including participant sex as a factor yielded no significant effects of participant sex.) We then used contrast coefficients to test specific predictions regarding effects of modest versus revealing clothing and of physical attractiveness on anticipated aggression. See Figure 1. Indirect Aggression (At the Meeting) Overall, people anticipated less indirect aggression toward Sara when she was modestly (M = 2.31, SE = 0.18) versus revealingly dressed (average weight: M = 4.12, SE = 0.17, heavier weight: M = 3.93, SE = .17), F(1, 139) = 63.89, p < .001, η p 2 = .315, 95% CI = [.19, .42] but did not anticipate different levels of indirect aggression toward Sara when revealingly dressed at either weight (p = .416). This pattern of findings suggests that women might incur such aggression when they are perceived as intending to seek male attention, regardless of their capacities to successfully do so. Social Distancing Intentions (After the Meeting) People expected Sara to be socially distanced more when she was revealingly (average weight: M = 4.92, SE = 0.18, heavier weight: M = 4.08, SE = .18) versus modestly dressed (M = 3.15, SE = 0.18), F(1, 139) = 36.82, p < .001, η p 2 = .209, 95% CI = [.10, .32]. People also expected Sara to be socially distanced more when she was revealingly dressed and more traditionally attractive (i.e., average weight than heavier weight), F(1, 139) = 10.94, p = .001, η p 2 = .073, 95% CI = [.01, .17]. In contrast to the indirect aggression described above, this pattern of findings suggests that this type of aggression, which is perhaps more instrumental, may be attuned relatively less to target intentions (e.g., to seek male attention) and relatively more to target capacities (e.g., to attract male attention). Direct Aggression (At the Meeting) By contrast, and consistent with predictions, participants did not expect differences in direct aggression toward Sara (modestly dressed: M = 1.77, SE = .16; revealingly dressed: M = 1.62, SE = .16; revealingly dressed, heavier weight: M = 1.61, SE = .16; ps > .400).

Methods Participants We attempted to recruit a sample of 125 female participants, the maximum based on possible credits we were awarded, and we were able to recruit 103 participants (M age = 18.57, SD age = 1.05). A sensitivity analysis revealed that this would give us .80 power to detect small effects (f ≈ .15). Procedure and Design In return for partial course credit, undergraduate women completed an in-laboratory task, which asked them to design two outfits: one for a small on-campus mixer for women interested in psychology and one for a small on-campus, mixed-sex social mixer. We chose not to include an all-male mixer condition (at which the participant would be the lone female in attendance), as it could seem an odd and potentially off-putting scenario for young women. In line with established methods for assessing participant-created outfits (Durante, Griskevicius, Hill, Perilloux, & Li, 2011; Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth, Bleske-Recheck, & Frederick, 2007), participants received a piece of 8½ × 11 in paper with two female figure outlines, depicted side-by-side, and a box of 24 crayons. Participants were instructed to draw the outfits they would wear to both of the events. Measures After the completion of data collection, undergraduate research assistants (RAs) who were blind to hypotheses used a graph paper transparency overlay to count the number of squares (to the nearest quarter) of skin showing versus not showing (out of all possible squares). We then calculated the proportion of skin revealed. To minimize RA error, an overlay was used to code figures (Figure B1). To further minimize error, the overlay itself contained a figural outline as well as 17 body areas for coding. First, two RAs independently coded the same five figures; coding matched exactly with one another (and an experimenter), thus RAs continued coding independently.

Experiment 3 Using a complementary behavioral measure, Experiment 3 conceptually replicates Experiment 2 and further tests whether women at greater individual risk for aggression (i.e., physically attractive women) dress more modestly to encounter other women. To mitigate concerns about confounding sex composition and context, we examine context (professional, social) orthogonally.

Methods Participants Although Experiment 2’s within-subjects design yielded a large effect, we determined 171 participants were required for .9 power to detect an interaction of medium-sized effect (f = .25) for this between-subjects design. Of 219 MTurk participants (5 males, 2 others, 1 missing data/non-binary) completing at least some portion of the study, 188 females (M age = 37.21, SD age = 12.89) completed focal dependent variables and passed attention checks. Procedure and Design Women were instructed to read a scenario about being new to an area, meeting another woman who seems friendly and accepting that new acquaintance’s invitation to meet a group of her friends at a small gathering. Women were asked to make clothing choices for that gathering. Women were randomly assigned to one of four small gatherings: an all-female networking event, an all-female birthday party, a mixed-sex networking event, or a mixed-sex birthday party. Complementing the method from Experiment 2, women were asked to choose one of 12 dress or skirt outfits and then also one of 12 jeans outfits (2 outfits total). Outfits were modeled on a realistic rendering of a young adult woman. We assembled each outfit with a web application, perhaps best understood as an electronic paper doll designer (“Street Style”; created by Rinmaru Games; accessed at https://www.dolldivine.com/street-style.php). Cropping from screen captures, we made an image of each outfit suitable for incorporation into surveys (Figure C1). Each outfit was prerated on modesty by a subset of a separate sample of participants consisting of 94 women living in the United States, between the ages of 20 and 35, who indicated a straight sexual orientation. These participants were recruited via TurkPrime and were paid 50 cents. Outfits were rated on Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all modest) to 7 (extremely modest). Each outfit was rated by between 40 and 52 women. Chosen outfits ranged in prerated modesty from 1.87 (lower modesty) to 6 (higher modesty). We averaged modesty ratings for the chosen dress/skirt and jeans outfits, creating one overall score of outfit modesty. (Because dress/skirt outfits vary in how much leg is bared, whereas all jeans outfits cover the entire leg, on average, jeans outfits were rated as more modest.) We also asked women to report their beliefs about how other women viewed them (e.g., “Upon just meeting me for a few minutes, other women think…I’m very physically attractive”). Women responded to the focal item (physical attractiveness) embedded alongside distractor and exploratory items (e.g., “I’m very intelligent”), which were not analyzed.

Results and Discussion Detailed results of a 2 (sex composition: all-female, mixed-sex) × 2 (context: professional, social) between-subjects ANOVA are reported in the Supplementary Materials and pictured in Figure 3A. To test whether physically attractive women show an exaggerated tendency to choose more modest outfits when meeting other women, we regressed outfit modesty onto participants’ reports of how physically attractive they believe other women find them (attractiveness), sex composition, context, and resultant interaction terms. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint Results suggest that physically attractive women show an exaggerated tendency to choose more modest outfits when meeting other women—regardless of context (see Figure 3B). We find main effects of attractiveness, t(180) = 3.02, p = .003, r p = .22, 95% CI = [.08, .35], such that more attractive women chose more modest outfits, sex composition, t(180) = −2.68, p = .008, r p = −.20, 95% CI = [−.33, −.05], such that women chose more modest outfits to encounter other women versus men, and context, t(180) = −2.20, p = .029, r p = −.16, 95% CI = [−.30, −.02], such that women chose more modest outfits for professional versus social contexts. These were qualified by the predicted Sex Composition × Context Interaction, t(180) = −3.34, p = .001, r p = −.24, 95% CI = [−.37, −.10]. More germane, we also found a significant Attractiveness × Sex Composition interaction, t(180) = −2.87, p = .005, r p = −.21, 95% CI = [−.34, −.06]. No other interactions were significant (ps > .351). Probing this interaction revealed that women reporting less attractiveness (−1 SD) did not differ in clothing choices for meeting all-female or mixed-sex groups (p = .858). However, women reporting greater attractiveness (+1 SD) chose more modest clothing for meeting a same-sex group (M = 4.27, SE = 0.10) as compared to meeting a mixed-sex group (M = 4.06, SE = 0.10), t(180) = −3.99, p < .001, r p = −.28, 95% CI = [−.41, −.14]).

Experiment 4 Experiment 4 conceptually replicates the focal effect and explores boundary conditions. Women reported desired outfit provocativeness for drinks with a prospective or existing female friend, male friend, or male romantic partner. Because people may be more likely to aggress against newcomers than friends, and females are thought to be especially aggressive toward same-sex newcomers (Benenson et al., 2013; Feshbach, 1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971), we expected that highly physically attractive women would intend to dress less provocatively to meet prospective (but not existing) female friends.

Method Participants Given that intrasexual competition for mates, and thus defenses against it, are likely to be more prevalent among younger women, we restricted participation to women under 45 years. Due to an error, we originally began recruiting both males and females on MTurk Prime but later corrected this. Our final sample included 293 women 45 years old or younger (M age = 27.67, SD age = 4.18) who passed attention checks and twice affirmed that their biological sex was female. Sensitivity analysis reveals that this yielded high power (≈.99) to detect smaller (f ≈ .15) effects. Procedure After giving consent and affirming their biological sex, women were randomly assigned to read one of six scenarios about meeting a prospective or existing female friend, male friend, or male romantic partner for drinks. Women then provided information about their desired clothing for the event and next completed individual difference and common demographic measures. Scenarios In the prospective relationship partner conditions, each scenario began, “You’ve just started a new job in a new city. Because you don’t know anyone in your new city too well yet, you’ve used a phone app called FriendFinder [RomanceFinder], which connects women who are looking to meet new [female friends, friends, romantic partners].” Each scenario ended, “She [He] seems to have the same taste in music as you do! You two decide to meet for drinks tonight.” In the prospective female friend condition, women were told they had just started texting with “Carol, a woman you met through FriendFinder. Carol already has great friends in the city, but they all work together, and she’s looking to meet other female friends.” This text was identical in the prospective male friend condition, except the person was male (Joshua), and an additional sentence noted that “Joshua is not looking to meet romantic partners, as he’s newly married.” In the prospective male romantic partner condition, women were told they had just started texting with “Joshua, a man you met through RomanceFinder. Joshua already has great friends in the city, and they all work together, but he’s looking to meet someone special.” In the existing female friend condition, women were told they had been texting with your friend Carol, a woman you actually met through a friend-finding app, FriendFinder last year. It turns out that you and she knew each other in college, and reconnected last year, when you became friends. These days, she even seems to have the same taste in music as you do! You two decide to meet for drinks tonight. You haven’t seen her in almost a week. The text was identical in the male friend condition, except the person was male (Joshua), and there was an additional statement that “[during college] you even lived in the same housing complex as his now-wife.” For the existing male romantic partner condition, women were told they had been texting with “the man you’ve been dating, Joshua, whom you actually met through a romance-finding app, RomanceFinder, which connects people who are looking to meet significant others,” although all other text was again the same (e.g., “You haven’t seen him in almost a week”). Measures After reading the scenario, women reported how “sexy” they wanted to dress and also how much skin they wanted their outfit to reveal for drinks that night. Both items were assessed on separate sliders with respective labels (0 = wear an everyday outfit, not sexy; 10 = wear a very sexy outfit or 0 = barely any skin showing; 10 = very much skin showing). Responses were averaged to yield a provocative dress score (α = .87). Women also responded to the same focal item from Experiment 3 (“Upon just meeting me for a few minutes, other women think…that I’m very physically attractive”), allowing us to assess self-reported physical attractiveness.

General Discussion In four experiments, we find (1) women (and men) expect women—and especially physically attractive women—to evoke greater indirect (but not direct) intrasexual aggression when revealingly versus modestly dressed; (2) women dress more modestly for encountering same- versus mixed-sex groups—across contexts (professional, social); (3) more physically attractive women, who may be at greater risk of incurring intrasexual aggression, demonstrate an exaggerated tendency to do this; and (4) this effect is apparent only when such women dress to meet a prospective (but not existing) female friend. Findings are consistent with theorizing that women are not only aware that certain perceptually-salient cues (e.g., revealing clothes, physical attractiveness) render them more likely targets of intrasexual aggression, but also that women might thus seek to avoid such aggression by strategically manipulating their appearance—specifically, by damping their outfit provocativeness. Importantly, this damping is flexibly engaged when aggression risk is highest: by individuals who may already be frequent targets (physically attractive women), and in situations when aggression is more likely (when women are newcomers). Our focus on women’s interactions with other women was, in part, to address the fact that the majority of research on women’s clothing and consumption has focused on women's male audiences and the possible benefits associated with attracting such audiences (e.g., Buss, 1988; Durante et al., 2011; Elliott et al., 2013; Haselton et al., 2007; Padza, Elliott, & Greitemeyer, 2012; Saad, 2013; Sacco, Bermond, & Young, 2016; but see Blake, Fourati, & Brooks, 2018; Hudders, De Backer, Fisher, & Vyncke, 2014). We would not argue that other women are always the sole intended audience for women’s sartorial cues and/or signals, and even when other women are the intended audience, we would not expect that women’s sartorial choices are always calibrated only toward avoiding intrasexual aggression. Rather, because attracting and maintaining same-sex friends can confer numerous important benefits for women (e.g., Campbell, 2002), future work could benefit from exploring how women might manipulate their appearances to establish and maintain same-sex friendships—as well as to avoid same-sex aggression. For example, donning the baggy sorority t-shirts and short shorts common to young women on some college campuses may communicate not only the wearer’s on-campus status but also her dedication to her coalition. Similarly, we do not assume that attracting the attention of male audiences yields only opportunities (and not also threats). Our data imply that women are attuned to the possible benefits and costs of male attention, damping provocative dress when encountering prospective male friends (but not romantic partners), whose unwanted sexual interest could be threatening. In all, findings suggest that women’s sartorial behavior is attuned to multiple factors, including women’s own attractiveness, the social context, and several audience features (e.g., audience gender composition, familiarity with their audience). Future work might further investigate these and other nuances (e.g., Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Branstiter, 2005). This work adds to literature suggesting that features cuing women’s intentions to attract men (e.g., provocative dress) can evoke aggression, but so too can features cuing women’s ability to attract men (e.g., physical attractiveness). This implies that some women might attract intrasexual aggression without having engaged in behavior to prompt it. That is, women might be aggressed against for being competitive (e.g., for desirable romantic partners), even if those women were not actively competing. One might speculate that, in contrast, men are unlikely to evoke intrasexual aggression without having actively provoked it. Whereas past work has uncovered sex differences in tactics of intrasexual aggression, future work might benefit from systematically exploring possible sex differences in what features evoke intrasexual aggression. We also note some limitations. One might speculate that stimulus effects drove the results of Experiment 1. This is possible; Experiment 1 used one stimulus per condition, and this can be problematic for issues of validity and generalizability. Perhaps somewhat mitigating these concerns, findings were consistent with previous research examining actual aggression toward those stimuli (Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011); women were more indirectly aggressive to an average-weight, revealingly (versus modestly) dressed target, and we find that people expect the average-weight, revealingly dressed target to receive heightened intrasexual indirect aggression. Additionally, we knowingly confounded sex composition and social context in Experiment 2, which could also have suffered from demand characteristics given its within-subjects design. To address this, Experiment 3 conceptually replicated Experiment 2, setting sex composition orthogonal to social context, and using a between-subjects design.

Conclusion Understandably, much work on women’s appearances and related consumer behavior has focused on aspects of intersexual sociality—what men find attractive and how women manipulate their appearances to attract men. To the extent that desirable men and/or male attention are contested resources (e.g., Benenson & Abdazi, 2019), recent work suggests that women should be expected to compete over them, and one way that women might do this is by selectively directing aggression toward those other women who seem best able to attain those contested resources (i.e., sexually desirable and/or physically attractive women, e.g., Arnocky et al., 2012; Leenaars et al., 2008; Reynolds, et al., 2018). Thus, the opportunities and threats of women’s social landscape are shaped not only by men (e.g., prospective male mates) but also by other women (e.g., prospective female rivals). The present work suggests that women are cognizant of the ways in which other women shape this social landscape, and also that women themselves strategically and flexibly navigate the affordances of this social landscape in ways that might minimize threats and maximize opportunities. More broadly, this work also suggests that attending to the often understudied opportunities and threats women afford one another can generate novel predictions about women’s cognition and behavior.

Acknowledgments We thank David Pietraszewski and Amanda Baraldi for their helpful advice. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. 1746055. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

Ashley Rankin was supported by an NSF GRFP: NSF#1746055. ORCID iD

Jaimie Arona Krems https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2590-2241 Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.