Neuroscience Body Objectification

Question 1

HIETANEN & NUMMENMAA (2011)

Answer 1

• found body naked/sexualised (ie. in bathing suits) bodies evoked larger/delayed N170s > non-sexualised bodies/faces
• effect emerged for both male/female pps

Question 2

FENG ET AL. (2012)

Answer 2

• sexualised pictures = selectively processed at both early (incl. N170) & late (ie. P300) temporal stages regardless of stimulus valence

Question 3

SEXUALISATION STUDIES: CONCLUSION

Answer 3

• target sexualisation = associated w/specific cortical processing via larger neural responses incl. ^ N170 amplitudes
• studies support this

Question 4

STEKELENBURG & DE GELDER (2004)

Answer 4

• inverted body images elicited ^ N170 at posterior occipito-temporal sites > upright bodies
• differentiation for inverted (VS upright) didn’t emerge

Question 5

MINNEBUSCH ET AL. (2009)

Answer 5

• intact bodies elicited ^ N170 at posterior occipito-temporal sites
• headless bodies elicited “reversed” body inversion effect w/smaller N170 amplitude for inverted (VS upright) headless bodies

Question 6

BAUSER & SUCHAN (2013)

Answer 6

• N170 inversion effect for intact bodies BUT not scrambled

Question 7

N170 STUDIES: CONCLUSION

Answer 7

• N170 amplitude = reliable marker indicating that intact bodies = processed configurally

Question 8

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): PROCEDURE

Question 9

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): N170 AMPLITUDES

Question 10

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): N170 LATENCIES

Question 11

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): RESULTS

Question 12

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): DISCUSSION

Answer 12

• ^ N170 amplitudes for inverted (VS upright) non-sexualised bodies; no inversion for sexualised bodies/objects
• interaction between target gender/picture position; indicated N170 amplitude inversion effect = STATSIG for male BUT not female bodies
• so women may suffer from x2 “penalty”:
  1. more likely to be portrayed in sexualised ways
  2. less likely to be processed configurally even when not sexualised

Question 13

BERNARD ET AL. (2018): DISCUSSION

Answer 13

• ^ N170 amplitudes for inverted (VS upright) non-sexualised bodies; no inversion for sexualised bodies/objects
• interaction between target gender/picture position; indicated N170 amplitude inversion effect = STATSIG for male BUT not female bodies
• so women may suffer from x2 “penalty”:
  1. more likely to be portrayed in sexualised ways
  2. less likely to be processed configurally even when not sexualised

Question 14

SKIN-TO-CLOTHING RATIO

Answer 14

• amount of skin VS clothing visible when person portrayed
• people presented in bikinis/lingerie = ^ skin-to-clothing ratio
• people presented fully dressed = lower STC ratio

Question 15

POSTURE SUGGESTIVENESS: HATTON & TRATNER (2011)

Answer 15

• potentially important sexualisation aspect
• represent open body language appearing to invite sexual activity
• illustrated subtly (ie. hand on hip)/unsubtly (ie. manspreading)

Question 16

POSTURE SUGGESTIVENESS: CIVILE & OBHI (2016)

Answer 16

• close examination of stimuli from prior objectification studies -> people presented in revealing clothing ALSO oft presented w/sexually connotated body language

Question 17

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 1: PROCEDURE

Question 18

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 1: HYPOTHESES

Answer 18

• to find interaction between STC ratio/picture position confirming:
  1. low STC bodies = larger N170s associated w/inverted bodies > upright aka. ^ configural processing & no cognitive objectification
  2. high STC bodies/objects = similar N170 amplitudes for inverted/upright stimuli aka. less configural processing/^ cognitive objectification

Question 19

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 1: RESULTS

Question 20

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 2: HYPOTHESES

Answer 20

• objective = examining if posture suggestiveness -> cognitive objectification aka:
  1. cognitive objectification only occurs for ^ sexualised targets; evidenced by similar N170 amplitudes for upright/inverted bodies w/^ STC ratio & suggestive postures together
  2. posture suggestiveness = sufficient to trigger cognitive objectification; evidence by similar N170 amplitudes for inverted/upright bodies displaying suggestive postures regardless of STC

Question 21

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 2: RESULTS

Question 22

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 1 & 2: DISCUSSION

Answer 22

• exp 1/2 corroborated notion that STC ratio alone does NOT cause cognitive body objectification
• people w/^/low STC ratios = processed configurally (^ N170s for inverted bodies > upright) & NOT objectified
• posture suggestiveness = key cognitive objectification driver
• bodies w/non-suggestive postures = processed configurally BUT inverted/upright bodies w/suggestive postures -> similar N170s aka. less configural processing/^ cognitive objectification
• same pattern for male/female pps

Question 23

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 3: BODY ASYMMETRY CONTROL

Question 24

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 3: HYPOTHESES

Answer 24

• expected to replicate results from EXP 2 via pictures differing in posture suggestiveness BUT w/matching asymmetry
• aka. expected newly created asymmetrical body images displaying non-suggestive postures = processed configurally (^ N170s for inverted VS upright bodies)
• asymmetry matched bodies displaying suggestive postures = processed less configurally (similar N170s for inverted/upright bodies) aka. ^ cognitively objectified

Question 25

BERNARD ET AL. (2019) EXP 3: RESULTS

Question 26

BERNARD ET AL. (2019): DISCUSSION

Answer 26

• examined STC ratio/posture suggestiveness effects on cognitive objectification:
  EXP 1
• bodies w/non-suggestive postures = processed configurally regardless of STC ratio
  EXP 2
• bodies displaying non-suggestive postures = processed configurally regardless of STC ratio BUT bodies displaying suggestive postures = processed less configurally aka. akin to objects
  EXP 3
• bodies w/non-suggestive postures presented in asymmetric manner = no cognitive objectification increase
• BUT bodies w/suggestive postures = processed less configurally aka. objectified