Behavioural Body Objectification

Question 1

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: FREDRICKSON & ROBERTS (1997)

Answer 1

• defines sexual objectification as appraisal of women aka. their bodies = objects for utilisation -> negative psychological consequences (ie. shame/anxiety/self-objectification)

Question 2

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: BARTKY (1990)

Answer 2

• objectification: “…when woman’s sexual parts/functions = separated from person/reduced to mere instrument status/regarded as representing her…”

Question 3

THE OBJECTIFICATION THEORY: HEFLICK & GOLDENBERG (2009)

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICTION

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION: GERVAIS ET AL. (2011)

Answer 5

• examined objectifying gaze effect on undergraduate women’s/men’s cognitive performance (ie. maths) + body image outcomes
• incl. body surveillance/body shame/body dissatisfaction

Question 6

BODY SURVEILLANCE

Answer 6

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

Question 7

BODY SHAME

Answer 7

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

Question 8

BODY DISSATISFACTION

Answer 8

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

Question 9

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): STIMULI

Question 10

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): PROCEDURE

Question 11

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MANIPULATION

Question 12

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MATH PERFORMANCE

Question 13

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): BODY PERCEPTION

Question 14

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): MATH RESULTS

Question 15

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): BODY PERCEPTION RESULTS

Question 16

GERVAIS ET AL. (2011): DISCUSSION

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

OBJECTIFICATION & COGNITIVE PROCESSES

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): STIMULI

Question 19

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): PROCEDURE

Question 20

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): RESULTS

Question 21

BERNARD ET AL. (2012): DISCUSSION

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): REPLICATION

Question 23

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

Question 24

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

Question 25

BERNARD ET AL. (2015): HUMANISING INFO

Question 26

BERNARD ET AL: OVERALL RESULTS

Answer 26

• 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