Jill Allen

Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized body-inversion hypothesis

Objectification refers to treating people as objects rather than persons. When people are sexually objectified, they are reduced to their sexualized bodies or body parts, available for satisfying the desires of others. At the same time, research on object and person recognition suggests that people are perceived configurally, whereas objects are perceived analytically. For example, the inversion effect (i.e, inverted stimuli are more difficult to recognize than upright ones) occurs for person recognition and not object recognition. Based on our suggestion that sexualized women are perceived similarly to objects, we hypothesized that an inversion effect would emerge for the recognition of sexualized men, but not women. Consistently, an inversion effect only occurred for sexualized men, but not women. Implications for objectification theory are discussed.

When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men

This research examined the effects of the objectifying gaze on math performance, interaction motivation, body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction. In an experiment, undergraduate participants (67 women and 83 men) received an objectifying gaze during an interaction with a trained confederate of the other sex. As hypothesized, the objectifying gaze caused decrements in women’s math performance but not men’s. Interestingly, the objectifying gaze also increased women’s, but not men’s, motivation to engage in subsequent interactions with their partner. Finally, the objectifying gaze did not influence body surveillance, body shame, or body dissatisfaction for women or men. One explanation for the math performance and interaction motivation findings is stereotype threat. To the degree that the objectifying gaze arouses stereotype threat, math performance may decrease because it conveys that women’s looks are valued over their other qualities. Furthermore, interaction motivation may increase because stereotype threat arouses belonging uncertainty or concerns about social connections. As a result, the objectifying gaze may trigger a vicious cycle in which women underperform but continue to interact with the people who led them to underperform in the first place. Implications for long-term consequences of the objectifying gaze and directions for future research are discussed.

When are people interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and body type on sexual fungibility

The purpose of this research was to empirically examine the fungibility hypothesis derived from sexual objectification theory. Sexual objectification theorists have suggested that like objects, people, typically women, may be fungible or interchangeable with similar others. Despite its provocative nature and potential adverse psychological consequences, the fungibility hypothesis has yet to be empirically examined. We suggested that women, regardless of body types, but also men with body types that resemble the cultural ideal of attractiveness (e.g., large arms and chests and narrow waists), would be more fungible than men with body types that resemble the cultural average. Participants (n = 66) saw images of average and ideal women and men once before they completed a surprise matching task requiring that they match the bodies and faces that appeared together in the original images. Consistent with hypotheses, we found that women with ideal bodies, women with average bodies, and men with ideal bodies were more fungible (perceivers made more body-face pairing errors) than men with average bodies. Furthermore, it appears that when people are fungible they are interchangeable with people with similar body types. Implications and directions for future research on objectification and fungibility are discussed.

From Sex Objects to Human Beings Masking Sexual Body Parts and Humanization as Moderators to Women’s Objectification

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.

Toward a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization

Objectification and dehumanization represent motivational conundrums because they are phenomena in which people are seen in ways that are fundamentally inaccurate; seeing people as objects, as animals, or not as people. The purpose of the 60th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation was to examine the motivational underpinnings of objectification and dehumanization of the self and others. To provide an overall context for this volume, we first provide classic conceptualizations of objectification and dehumanization and speculate about relations between the two. We then introduce a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization within the global versus local processing model (GLOMO) and provide initial supporting evidence. Finally, we introduce the chapters in this volume, which provide additional significant and novel motivational perspectives on objectification and dehumanization.

Power increases situated creativity

The present paper examined whether power was linked with situated creativity. We proposed that powerful (vs powerless) people engage in creative thought when creativity contributes to contextual goals but avoid creative thought when creativity impedes contextual goals. Extending the Situated Focus Theory of Power (Guinote, 2007a; 2010) to creativity, we suggested that powerful people are better able to achieve situational goals because they can flexibly focus on cues that indicate what is required for success in a given context. Across three experiments, we found that powerful (vs powerless) people engaged in more creative thinking when creativity facilitated contextual goals. This was not the case when creativity hindered contextual goals. Further, neither affect (Experiment 2) nor effort (Experiments 1 and 3) contributed to these effects. However, local processing undermined creativity for powerful people, indicating that processing style may contribute to the link between power and situated creativity. These findings suggest that powerful people flexibly vary creativity in line with the situation. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation awarded to Sarah J. Gervais and Theresa K. Vescio for dissertation enhancement

Sit Big to Eat Big The Interaction of Body Posture and Body Concern on Restrained Eating

Body image concern has long been linked with unhealthy restrained eating patterns among women, yet scant research has examined factors to disrupt this process. At the same time, feminine stereotypes prescribe that women should be small, restrict their movements, speak softly, and limit their food intake (e.g., through dieting). Here, we examined whether women’s postural constriction or expansion moderated the relation between body shape concern and restrained eating, predicting that expansive postures would interrupt this robust relation. As a secondary aim, we investigated whether women spontaneously adopted constrictive postures and to what extent postures contributed to restrained eating under baseline conditions. Specifically, women’s postural position (constricted, expanded, or baseline posture) was manipulated and restrained eating was measured. Results showed that at high levels of body shape concern, women sitting in expansive postures restrained their eating less compared to women in constrictive postures. Further, spontaneously expansive (vs. spontaneously constrictive) postures were associated with less restrained eating among women. Thus, postural expansion attenuated the link between body shape concern and restrained eating whereas postural constriction exacerbated the link. Implications for gender performativity and possible interventions for restrained eating are discussed.

Perceptual Determinants Are Critical, but They Don't Explain Everything: A Response to Tarr (2013)

Commenting on our research (Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2012), Tarr (2013) stated that inferring that different visual-recognition processes (analytic vs. configural) are applied to images of sexualized males and females is “unwarranted on empirical, methodological, and logical grounds” (p. 1069). Here, we address Tarr’s comments with additional analyses from Bernard et al. (2012). Regarding methodology, Tarr (2013) raised the possibility that our results could be explained by a speedaccuracy trade-off:

Commentary “The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?”

Recent objectification research found results consistent with the sexualized body-inversion hypothesis (SBIH): People relied on analytic, “object-like” processing when recognizing sexualized female bodies and on configural processing when recognizing sexualized male bodies (Bernard et al., 2012). Specifically, Bernard et al. (2012) showed that perceivers were better at recognizing sexualized male bodies when the bodies were presented upright than upside down, whereas this pattern did not emerge for sexualized female bodies; thus, male bodies were recognized configurally similar to other human stimuli whereas female bodies were recognized analytically, similarly to most objects (see Kostic, 2013 for an exact replication). Based on two studies, Schmidt and Kistemaker (2015) concluded that Bernard et al. (2012)s findings were: (i) due to a symmetry confound; (ii) not due to targets sexualization. This commentary challenges these conclusions.

Fluctuating team science: Perceiving science as collaborative improves science motivation.

Scientific research is viewed as uncollaborative; yet little is known regarding when, and for whom, such perceptions emerge and whether these fluctuating perceptions matter. We investigated students’ development of perceiving research as a collaborative, team-based endeavor and the resulting motivational consequences. Among 522 biomedical RAs across 10 universities/colleges, longitudinal analysis showed that after only a short exposure to research, students’ social-collaborative science perceptions decreased. This is troubling given our results showing greater social-collaborative science perceptions predicted enhanced intrinsic interest in science over time, which in turn predicted greater intentions to attend a biomedical graduate program. Using an intersectionality lens, we also found ethnic minority women (compared to other groups) showed the most stability in social-collaborative science perceptions over time. Results underscore the potential impact of mentors creating an inclusive team science environment early in students’ training to discourage “opting out” of science. We discuss implications for broadening participation in the scientific workforce.