Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-1
Revealing Clothing Does Not Make the Object: ERP Evidences That Cognitive Objectification is Driven by Posture Suggestiveness,Not by Revealing Clothing
Recent research found that sexualized bodies are visually processed similarly to objects. This article examines the effects of skin-to-clothing ratio and posture suggestiveness on cognitive objectification. Participants were presented images of upright versus inverted bodies while we recorded the N170. We used the N170 amplitude inversion effect (larger N170 amplitudes for inverted vs. upright stimuli) to assess cognitive objectification, with no N170 inversion effect indicating less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, skin-to-clothing ratio was not associated with cognitive objectification (Experiments 1-3). However, consistent with Hypothesis 2, we found that posture suggestiveness was the key driver of cognitive objectification (Experiment 2), even after controlling for body asymmetry (Experiment 3). This article showed that high (vs. low) posture suggestiveness caused cognitive objectification (regardless of body asymmetry), whereas high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratio did not. The implications for objectification and body perception literatures are discussed.
BartkyS. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BauserD. A. S.SuchanB. (2013). Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of intact and scrambled body perception. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 686-696. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.09.030
5.
BelouchraniA.Abed-MeraimK.CardosoJ. F.MoulinesE. (1997). A blind source separation technique using second-order statistics. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 45, 434-444. doi:10.1109/78.554307
6.
BentinS.AllisonT.PuceA.PerezE.McCarthyG. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 551-565. doi:10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.551
7.
BernardP.ContentJ.DeltenreP.ColinC. (2018). When the body becomes no more than the sum of its parts: The neural correlates of scrambled vs. intact sexualized bodies. NeuroReport, 29, 48-53. doi:10.1097/WNR.0000000000000926
8.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469-471. doi:10.1177/0956797611434748
9.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2015). Body parts reduction and self-objectification in the objectification of sexualized bodies. International Review of Social Psychology, 28, 39-61.
10.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.DelméeA.KleinO. (2015). From sex objects to human beings: Masked sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 432-446. doi:10.1177/0361684315580125
11.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.KleinO. (2013). Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don’t explain everything: A response to Tarr. Psychological Science, 24, 1071-1073. doi:10.1177/0956797612474672
12.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.KleinO. (2015). Commentary “The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?”Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 845. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00845
13.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.HollandA. M.DoddM. D. (2017). When do people “check out” male bodies? Appearance-focus increases the objectifying gaze toward men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/men0000122
14.
BernardP.LoughnanS.GodartA.MarchalC.KleinO. (2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72, 499-508. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0
15.
BernardP.RizzoT.HoonhorstI.DeliensG.GervaisS.EberlenJ.. . . KleinO. (2017). The neural correlates of cognitive objectification: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Social and Psychological Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550617714582
16.
BurgoonJ. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233-259. doi:10.1007/BF00986924
17.
CikaraM.EberhardtJ. L.FiskeS. T. (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21497
18.
CivileC.ObhiS. S. (2016). Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 199-212. doi:10.1177/0361684315604820
19.
CoulsonM. (2004). Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 117-139. doi:10.1023/B: JONB.0000023655.25550.be
20.
DaelN.MortillaroM.SchererK. R. (2012). Emotion expression in body action and posture. Emotion, 12, 1085-1101. doi:10.1037/a0025737
21.
de BeauvoirS. (1949). The second sex. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
22.
de GelderB. (2009). Why bodies? Twelve reasons for including bodily expressions in affective neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 364, 3475-3484. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0190
23.
de GelderB.Van den StockJ.MeerenH. K. M.SinkeC. B. A.KretM. E.TamiettoM. (2010). Standing up for the body. Recent progress in uncovering the networks involved in processing bodies and bodily expressions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 513-527. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.008
24.
DienesZ. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274-290. doi:10.1177/1745691611406920
25.
FengC.WangL.WangN.GuR.LuoY. J. (2012). The time course of implicit processing of erotic pictures: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1489, 48-55. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.019
26.
FörsterJ.EpstudeK.ÖzelselA. (2009). Why love has wings and sex has not: How reminders of love and sex influence creative and analytic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1479-1491. doi:10.1177/0146167209342755
27.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
28.
GervaisS. J.HollandA.DoddM. (2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557-570. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x
29.
GrayK.KnobeJ.SheskinM.BloomP.BarrettL. F. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207-1220. doi:10.1037/a0025883
30.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252-264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
31.
HastingA. S.KotzS. A. (2008). Speeding up syntax: On the relative timing and automaticity of local phrase structure and morphosyntactic processing as reflected in event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1207-1219. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20083
32.
HattonE.TrautnerM. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 256-278. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2
33.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598-601. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008
34.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 225-229. doi:10.1177/0963721414531599
35.
HietanenJ. K.NummenmaaL. (2011). The naked truth: The face and body sensitive N170 response is enhanced for nude bodies. PLoS ONE, 6, e24408. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024408
36.
HollandE.HaslamN. (2016). Cute little things: The objectification of prepubescent girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 108-119. doi:10.1177/0361684315602887
37.
HugenbergK.YoungS.RydellR. J.AlmarazS.StankoK. A.SeeP. E.WilsonJ. P. (2016). The face of humanity: Configural face processing influences ascriptions of humanness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 167-175. doi:10.1177/1948550615609734
38.
JeffreysH. (1961). The theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
KubotaJ. T.ItoT. A. (2007). Multiple cues in social perception: The time course of processing race and facial expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 738-752. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.023
40.
LangtonR. (2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
LeysC.LeyC.KleinO.BernardP.LicataL. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764-766. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
42.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.MurnaneT.VaesJ.ReynoldsC.SuitnerC. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709-717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755
43.
LoughnanS.PinaA.VasquezE. A.PuviaE. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 7455-7461. doi:10.1177/0361684313485718
44.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255-260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
45.
McKoneE.KanwisherN.DuchaineB. C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 8-15. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.002
46.
MeerenH. K.van HeijnsbergenC. C.de GelderB. (2005). Rapid perceptual integration of facial expression and emotional body language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16518-16523. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507650102
47.
MinnebuschD. A.KeuneP. M.SuchanB.DaumI. (2010). Gradual inversion affects the processing of human body shapes. NeuroImage, 49, 2746-2755. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.046
48.
MinnebuschD. A.SuchanB.DaumI. (2009). Losing your head: Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of body inversion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 865-874. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21074
49.
NummenmaaL.HietanenJ. K.SanttilaP.HyönäJ. (2012). Gender and visibility of sexual cues influence eye movements while viewing faces and bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1439-1451. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9911-0
50.
ReedC. L.StoneV. E.BozovaS.TanakaJ. (2003). The body inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14, 302-308. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.14431.
51.
ReedC. L.StoneV. E.GrubbJ. D.McGoldrickJ. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 73-87. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73
52.
RighartR.de GelderB. (2007). Impaired face and body perception in developmental prosopagnosia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17234-17238. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707753104
53.
RobbinsR. A.ColtheartM. (2012). Left-right holistic integration of human bodies. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1962-1974. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.674145
54.
RossionB.JacquesC. (2008). Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170. NeuroImage, 39, 1959-1979. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.011
55.
SchmidtA. F. (2015). Response: Commentary “The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?”Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1360. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01360
56.
SchmidtA. F.KistemakerL. M. (2015). The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?Cognition, 134, 77-84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.003
57.
SeitzK. (2002). Parts and wholes in person recognition: Developmental trends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 367-381. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00106-6
58.
SmolakL.MurnenS. K.MyersT. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self: What college women and men think about and do to be “sexy.”Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 379-397. doi:10.1177/0361684314524168
59.
Soria BauserD.ThomaP.SuchanB. (2012). Turn to me: Electrophysiological correlates of frontal vs. averted view face and body processing are associated with trait empathy. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, Article 106. doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00106
60.
StekelenburgJ. J.de GelderB. (2004). The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect. NeuroReport, 15, 777-780.
61.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245. doi:10.1080/14640749308401045
62.
TarrM. (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Commentary on “Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis (Bernard et al., 2012).”Psychological Science, 24, 1069-1070. doi:10.1177/0956797612474669
63.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774-785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
64.
van HeijnsbergenC. C. R. J.MeerenH. K. M.GrezesJ.de GelderB. (2007). Rapid detection of fear in body expressions, an ERP study. Brain Research, 1186, 233-−241. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.093
65.
WardL. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 560-577. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496
66.
WoodmanG. F. (2010). A brief introduction to the use of event-related potentials in studies of perception and attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2031-2046. doi:10.3758/APP.72.8.2031
67.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145. doi:10.1037/h0027474
68.
YovelG.PelcT.LubetskyI. (2010). It’s all in your head: Why is the body inversion effect abolished for headless bodies?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 36, 759-767. doi:10.1037/a0017451
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
