Behavioural Body Objectification Flashcards

1
Q

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: FREDRICKSON & ROBERTS (1997)

A
  • defines sexual objectification as appraisal of women aka. their bodies = objects for utilisation -> negative psychological consequences (ie. shame/anxiety/self-objectification)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: BARTKY (1990)

A
  • objectification: “…when woman’s sexual parts/functions = separated from person/reduced to mere instrument status/regarded as representing her…”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: HEFLICK & GOLDENBERG (2009)

A
  • male/female pps asked to focus on famous woman’s (Angelina Jolie/Sarah Palin) appearance
  • dehumanised/perceived her as less human (no warmth/human traits)/competent > when asked to focus on her as a person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICTION

A
  • daily life objectification = subtle (ie. gaze aka. when man visually inspects woman; focuses particular attention to body features)
  • results = negative emotions (ie. anxiety/depression)/impaired cognitive abilities
  • sexual objectification experiences promote self-objectification/3rd person perspective internalisation of body/”looks > other aspects” (ie. thoughts/feelings/health) view
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION: GERVAIS ET AL. (2011)

A
  • examined objectifying gaze effect on undergraduate women’s/men’s cognitive performance (ie. maths) + body image outcomes
  • incl. body surveillance/body shame/body dissatisfaction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

BODY SURVEILLANCE

A

FREDRICKSON & ROBERTS (1997)
- habitual monitoring of body’s outward appearance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

BODY SHAME

A

FREDRICKSON & ROBERTS (1997)
- emotional response following measuring oneself against internalised/cultural standard & perceiving oneself as failing to meet it
- objectifying gaze focuses on women’s attention on look -> women experience shameful response as actual bodies fail to meet cultural appearance ideals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

BODY DISSATISFACTION

A

SMOLAK & LEVINE (2001)
- awareness of potential discrepancies between women’s actual bodies VS cultural appearance ideals
GERVAIS ET AL. (2011)
- ^ body dissatisfaction when women interpret weight related criticisms ^ negatively/weight compliments ^ positively
- women experienced most body dissatisfaction when receiving appearance compliments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): STIMULI

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): PROCEDURE

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MANIPULATION

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MATH PERFORMANCE

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): BODY PERCEPTION

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MATH RESULTS

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): BODY PERCEPTION RESULTS

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): DISCUSSION

A
  • directly manipulated objectifying gaze
  • investigated effects on math performance in men/women
  • objectifying gaze -> reduction in female math performance BUT not male
  • objectifying gaze affected women’s body self-perception indexed by body surveillance/shame/dissatisfaction measures
17
Q

OBJECTIFICATION & COGNITIVE PROCESSES

A
  • no/less inversion effect for objects (ie. chairs)
  • face/body recognition = configural processing (aka. higher male body part recognition)
  • object recognition = featural/analytical processing (aka. higher female body part recognition)
  • aka. women more seen as features/separate objects; men = wholes
    MAURER ET AL. (2002)
  • inversion disrupts ability to exploit configural info
18
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): STIMULI

A
19
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): PROCEDURE

A
20
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): RESULTS

A
21
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): DISCUSSION

A
  • both male/female pps showed reduced inversion effect for sexualised women aka. perceived them as object-like via featural processing
  • both male/female pps showed robust inversion effect for sexualised men aka. perceived them as face/body-like via configural processing
  • suggested that:
    1. reduced inversion effect in sexualised women w/male pps = based on sexual attraction
    2. w/female pps = lack of identification
22
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): REPLICATION

A
23
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): PIXELATED SEXUAL BODY PARTS (2A)

A
24
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): PIXELATED SEXUAL BODY PARTS (2B)

A
25
Q

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): HUMANISING INFO

A
26
Q

BERNARD ET AL: OVERALL RESULTS

A
  • cognitive phenomena (inversion effect) can be used to study perceptual processes at body objectification basis
  • both men/women show reduced inversion effect (object-like featural processing index) responding to sexualised women > men
  • pixelating sexual body parts/providing humanising info about sexualised women -> ^ inversion effect (face-like configural processing index) aka. reduces objectification