Recent studies have shown that sexualized female bodies are objectified at a cognitive level. Research using the body-inversion recognition task, a robust indicator of configural (vs. analytic processing) within cognitive psychology, shows that for sexualized female bodies, people recognize upright and inverted bodies similarly rather than recognizing upright bodies better than inverted bodies (i.e., an inversion effect). This finding suggests that sexualized female bodies, like objects, are recognized analytically (rather than configurally). Nonetheless, it remains unclear when and why sexualized female bodies are objectified at a basic cognitive level. Grounded in objectification theory, the present experiments examine moderating factors that may prompt more configural processing (i.e., produce an inversion effect) and less objectification of sexualized female bodies. Replicating previous research, sexualized male bodies elicited more configural processing and less objectification compared to sexualized female bodies. We then examined whether reducing the salience of sexual body parts (Experiments 2a and 2b) and adding humanizing information about the targets (Experiment 3) causes perceivers to recognize female bodies more configurally, reducing the cognitive objectification of women. Implications for sexual objectification theory and research, as well as the role of humanizing often-dehumanized sexy women, are discussed. Additional online materials for this article are available to PWQ subscribers on PWQ’s website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental.
ArcherD.IritaniB.KimesD. D.BarriosM. (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex difference in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725–735. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.725
2.
BakerC. N. (2005). Images of women’s sexuality in advertisements: A content analysis of Black- and White-oriented women’s and men’s magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 13–27. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1190-y
3.
BartkyS. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BatsonC. D.AhmadN. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3, 141–177. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01013.x
5.
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
6.
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
7.
CalogeroR. M.JostJ. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 211–228. doi:10.1037/a0021864
8.
ChenZ.TengF.ZhangH. (2013). Sinful flesh: Sexual objectification threatens women’s moral self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1042–1048. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.008
9.
CikaraM.EberhardtJ. L.FiskeS. T. (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21497
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p < . 05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
12.
CowanN. (2005). Working memory capacity. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
13.
CummingG. (2008). Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 286–300. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00079.x
14.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966
15.
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 and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 513–527. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.008
16.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
17.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. (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
18.
GayR. K.CastanoE. (2010). My body or my mind: The impact of state and trait objectification on women’s cognitive resources. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 695–703. doi:10.1002/ejsp.731
19.
GervaisS. J.BernardP.AllenJ.KleinO. (2013). Toward a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization. In GervaisS. J. (Ed.), 60th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Objectification and (de)humanization (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_1
20.
GervaisS. J.DiLilloD.McChargueD. (2014). Understanding the link between men’s alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration: The mediating role of sexual objectification. Psychology of Violence, 4, 156–169. doi:10.1037/ a0033840
21.
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
22.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.AllenJ. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 5–17. doi:10.1177/0361684310386121
23.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.AllenJ. (2012). When are people interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and body type on sexual fungibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 499–513. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02016.x
24.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.MaassA.FörsterJ.SuitnerC. (2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743–553. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1890
25.
Giner-SorollaR. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571. doi:10.1177/1745691612457576
26.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619. doi:10.1126/science.1134475
27.
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
28.
GruenfeldD. H.InesiM. E.MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
29.
GurungR. A. R.ChrouserC. J. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observers characteristics matter?Sex Roles, 57, 91–99. doi:10.1007/ s11199-007-9219-z
30.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
31.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2007). Social groups that elicit disgust are differentially processed in mPFC. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 45–51. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl037
32.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
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.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L.CooperD. P.PuviaE. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020
36.
HugenbergK.CorneilleO. (2009). Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces. Cognitive Science, 33, 1173–1181. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01048.x
37.
JohnsonK. J.FredricksonB. L. (2005). ‘‘We all look the same to me’’: Positive emotions reduce the own-race bias in face recognition. Psychological Science, 16, 875–881. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01631.x
38.
JohnsonK. L.LuryeL. E.TassinaryL. G. (2010). Sex categorization among preschool children: Increasing utilization of sexually dimorphic cues. Child Development, 81, 1346–1355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01476
39.
JohnsonK. L.TassinaryL. G. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890–897. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01633
40.
JohnsonV.GurungR. A. (2011). Defusing the objectification of women by other women: The role of competence. Sex Roles, 65, 177–188. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0006-5
41.
KantI. (1797). Lectures on ethics. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
42.
KlineR. B. (2004). What’s wrong with statistical tests–and where we go from here. In KlineR. B. (Ed.), Beyond significance testing. Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research (pp. 61–91). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
LangtonR. (2009) Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
45.
LanisK.CovellK. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 32, 639–649. doi:10.1007/ BF01544216
46.
LeysC.LeyC.KleinO.BernardP.LicataL. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use the 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
47.
LindnerK. (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion magazine advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex Roles, 51, 409–421. doi:10.1023/B: SERS.0000049230.86869.4d
48.
LoughnanS.HaslamN. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
49.
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
50.
LoughnanS.PinaA.VasquezE. A.PuviaE. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461. doi:10.1177/0361684313485718
51.
MahalikJ.MorrayE.Coonerty-FemianoA.LudlowL.SlatteryS.SmilerA. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–435. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7
52.
MatthewsJ. L. (2007). Hidden sexism: Facial prominence and its connections to gender and occupational status in popular print media. Sex Roles, 57, 515–525. doi:10.1007/ s11199-007-9276-3
53.
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
54.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi:10.1037/ h0043158
55.
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
56.
MoradiB.HuangY. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
57.
NollS. M.FredricksonB. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x
58.
QuadfliegS.MacraeN. (2011). Stereotypes and stereotyping: What’s the brain got to do with it?European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 215–273. doi:10.1080/10463283.2011.627998
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
61.
ReichertT.CarpenterC. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823–837. doi:10.1177/ 107769900408100407
62.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276–1284.
63.
RossionB.GauthierI. (2002). How does the brain process upright and inverted faces?Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1, 63–75. doi:10.1177/1534582302001001004
64.
RudmanL. A.BorgidaE. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1022
65.
RudmanL. A.MescherK. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0146167212436401
66.
SaguyT.QuinnD. M.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2010). Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions. Psychological Science, 21, 178–182. doi:10.1177/0956797609357751
67.
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
68.
StankiewiczJ. M.RoselliF. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9359-1
69.
SwimJ.HyersL.CohenL.FergusonM. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00200
70.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245. doi:10.1080/14640749308401045
71.
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
72.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
73.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141–145. doi:10.1037/h0027474
74.
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.
