We examined whether appearance compliments, despite their flattery, undermine cognitive performance. In Study 1, women participants (N = 88 Israeli university students) who wrote about past situations in which they had received appearance compliments (but not competence-related compliments) showed worse math performance than women in a control/no compliment condition—especially if they scored high on trait self-objectification (TSO). In Study 2, men and women participants (nwomen = 73, nmen = 75 Israeli university students) received bogus occupational evaluation feedback, which did or did not include an appearance compliment. Although appearance compliments led to mood improvement among participants with high TSO, they also undermined math performance among both women and men. Because receiving appearance compliments is a common experience for women (whereas men are typically complimented for their competencies), our findings suggest that appearance compliments serve as a mechanism that might subtly perpetuate gender inequality. For the promotion of societal gender equality, it is important that the public is aware that appearance compliments, even if meant well, may create sexist environments. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index
AshbyF. G.IsenA. M.TurkenA. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.529
2.
AubreyJ. S. (2006). Exposure to sexually objectifying media and body self-perceptions among college women: An examination of the selective exposure hypothesis and the role of moderating variables. Sex Roles, 55, 159–172. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9070-7
3.
AyalonH. (2003). Women and men go to university: Mathematical background and gender differences in choice of field in higher education. Sex Roles, 48, 277–290. doi:10.1023/A:1022829522556
4.
BartkyS. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BartkyS. L. (2002). Sympathy and solidarity and other essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. doi:10.1037/a0022615
7.
Ben-ZurH. (2002). Coping, affect and aging: The roles of mastery and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 357–372. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00031-9
8.
BerdahlJ. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 425–437. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425
9.
BreinesJ. G.CrockerJ.GarciaJ. A. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being in women’s daily lives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 583–598. doi:10.1177/0146167207313727
10.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146. doi:10.1177/147470490800600116
11.
CalogeroR. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x
12.
CalogeroR. M. (2011). Operationalizing self-objectification: Assessment and related methodological issues. In CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 23–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
CalogeroR. M. (2013). Objects don’t object: Evidence that self-objectification disrupts women’s social activism. Psychological Science, 24, 312–318. doi:10.1177/0956797612452574
14.
CalogeroR. M.HerbozoS.ThompsonJ. K. (2009). Complimentary weightism: The potential costs of appearance-related commentary for women’s self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 120–132. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01479.x
15.
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
16.
CarriereL. J.KluckA. S. (2014). Appearance commentary from romantic partners: Evaluation of an adapted measure. Body Image, 11, 137–145. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.12.003
17.
CejkaM. A.EaglyA. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002
18.
CookR. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 19, 15–18. doi:10.1080/00401706.1977.10489493
19.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
20.
DardenneB.DumontM.BollierT. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764
21.
EckertP.McConnell-GinetS. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511791147
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
23.
FeaC. J.BrannonL. A. (2006). Self-objectification and compliment type: Effects on negative mood. Body Image, 3, 183–188. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.01.005
24.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
25.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT.NollS. M.QuinnD. M.TwengeJ. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269
26.
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
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.AllenJ. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 5–17. doi:10.1177/0361684310386121
29.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
30.
GrahamF. K.CliftonR. K. (1966). Heart-rate change as a component of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305–320. doi:10.1037/h0023258
31.
GreenM. A.OhrtT. K.NguyenC.BlaskoK.KhatiwadaS.MartinA.…MarieC. (2014). Heart rate and affective reactions to state self-objectification as a function of gender. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 259–271. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.900620
32.
GuizzoF.CadinuM. (2016). Effects of objectifying gaze on female cognitive performance: The role of flow experience and internalization of beauty ideals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 281–292. doi:10.1111/bjso.12170
33.
HakimC. (2010). Erotic capital. European Sociological Review, 26, 499–518. doi:10.1093/esr/jcq014
34.
HammondM. D.OverallN. C. (2015). Benevolent sexism and support of romantic partner’s goals undermining women’s competence while fulfilling men’s intimacy needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1180–1194. doi:10.1177/0146167215593492
35.
HanischC. (1970). The personal is political. In FirestoneS.KoedtA. (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women’s liberation (pp. 77–86). New York, NY: Radical Feminism.
36.
HeblM. R.KingE. B.LinJ. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331. doi:10.1177/0146167204264052
37.
HeckmanJ. J.IchimuraH.SmithJ.ToddP. (1996). Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: An interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 13416–13420.
38.
HerbozoS.StevensS. D.MoldovanC. P.MorrellH. E. (2017). Positive comments, negative outcomes? The potential downsides of appearance-related commentary in ethnically diverse women. Body Image, 21, 6–14. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.01.008
39.
IsenA. M. (1999). Positive affect. In DalgleishT.PowerM. (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/0470013494.ch25
40.
IsenA. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 75–85. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP110201
41.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
JoyL. (2000). Do colleges shortchange women? Gender differences in the transition from college to work. American Economic Review, 90, 471–475. doi:10.1257/aer.90.2.471
43.
KellerJ. (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and stereotype threat on female students’ math performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 323–338. doi:10.1348/000709906X113662
44.
KoudenburgN.GordijnE. H. (2011). “My date can call me sweet, but my colleague can’t”: Meta-stereotypic behavioral intentions as a function of context and liking of the outgroup. Social Cognition, 29, 221–230. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.2.221
45.
KwanS.TrautnerM. N. (2009). Beauty work: Individual and institutional rewards, the reproduction of gender, and questions of agency. Sociology Compass, 3, 49–71. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00179.x
46.
LindnerD.Tantleff-DunnS. (2017). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Self-Objectification Beliefs and Behaviors Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 254–272. doi:10.1177/0361684317692109
47.
LissM.ErchullM. J.RamseyL. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68. doi:10.1177/0146167210386119
48.
LoughnanS.BaldissarriC.SpaccatiniF.ElderL. (2017). Internalizing objectification: Objectified individuals see themselves as less warm, competent, moral, and human. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 217–232. doi:10.1111/bjso.12188
49.
MackinnonA.JormA. F.ChristensenH.KortenA. E.JacombP. A.RodgersB. (1999). A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405–416. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00251-7
50.
McKinleyN. M. (1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35, 760–769. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.35.3.760
51.
McKinleyN. M. (2011). Continuity and change in self-objectification: Taking a life-span approach to women’s experiences of objectified body consciousness. In CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 101–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52.
McKinleyN. M.HydeJ. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
53.
MercurioA. E.LandryL. J. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being: The impact of self-objectification on women’s overall sense of self-worth and life satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58, 458–466. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9357-3
54.
MoffittL. B.SzymanskiD. M. (2011). Experiencing sexually objectifying environments: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 67–106. doi:10.1177/0011000010364551
55.
MoradiB.HuangY. (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
56.
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
57.
NowellC.RicciardelliL. A. (2008). Appearance-based comments, body dissatisfaction and drive for muscularity in males. Body Image, 5, 337–345. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.06.002
58.
ParisiC.WoganP. (2006). Compliment topics and gender. Women and Language, 29, 21–29.
59.
PinelE. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114
60.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
61.
QuinnB. A. (2002). Sexual harassment and masculinity: The power and meaning of “girl watching.”Gender & Society, 16, 386–402. doi:10.1177/0891243202016003007
62.
QuinnD. M.ChaudoirS. R.KallenR. W. (2011). Performance and flow: A review and integration of self-objectification research. In CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 119–138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
63.
QuinnD. M.KallenR. W.TwengeJ. M.FredricksonB. L. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 59–64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00262.x
64.
RhodeD. L. (2010). The beauty bias: The injustice of appearance in life and law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (2010). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
66.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
67.
SchusterE.NegyC.Tantleff-DunnS. (2013). The effects of appearance-related commentary on body dissatisfaction, eating pathology, and body change behaviors in men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 76–87. doi:10.1037/a0025625
68.
ShnabelN.Purdie-VaughnsV.CookJ. E.GarciaJ.CohenG. L. (2013). Demystifying values-affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 663–676. doi:10.1177/0146167213480816
69.
SlaterA.TiggemannM. (2015). Media exposure, extracurricular activities, and appearance-related comments as predictors of female adolescents’ self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 375–389. doi:10.1177/0361684314554606
70.
StaniecJ. F. O. (2004). The effects of race, sex, and expected returns on the choice of college major. Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 549–562.
71.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
72.
StreetA. E.GradusJ. L.StaffordJ.KellyK. (2007). Gender differences in experiences of sexual harassment: Data from a male-dominated environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 464–474. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.464
73.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L.CohenL. L.FergusonM. J. (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
74.
ThompsonW. F.SchellenbergE. G.HusainG. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12, 248–251. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00345
75.
TiggemannM.BoundyM. (2008). Effect of environment and appearance compliment on college women’s self-objectification, mood, body shame, and cognitive performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 399–405. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00453.x
76.
Van de VijverF. J. R.TanzerN. K. (1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 263–280. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
77.
VescioT. K.GervaisS. J.SnyderM.HooverA. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658–672. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.658
78.
WaltonG. M.SpencerS. J. (2009). Latent ability grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x
79.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
80.
WolfN. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York, NY: William Morrow.
81.
WollastR.KleinO.BernardP. (2017, 7). Do sexism and sensitivity to inequality explain cultural differences in self-objectification?Paper presented at the 18th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.
82.
XuY. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54, 349–382. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2
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.
