Body Part 1 THIS ONE.pdf

The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. Biological Basis of BehaviourPSY2304Body ObjectificationPart 1: Behavioural The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 3Agenda •Sexual Objectification...

The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. Biological Basis of BehaviourPSY2304Body ObjectificationPart 1: Behavioural The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 3Agenda •Sexual Objectification•Objectifying Gaze •Sexual Objectification indexed by the Body Inversion Effect The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 4The Objectification Theory•Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) defines sexual objectification as the appraisal of women in terms of their bodies as objects for utilization leading to negative psychological consequences such as feelings of shame, anxiety, and self-objectification•“Objectification ‘occurs when a woman’s sexual parts or functions are separated out from her person, reduced to the status of mere instruments, or else regarded as if they were capable of representing her’’ (Bartky, 1990)•Heflick and Goldenberg (2009) showed that when male and female participants were asked to focus on the appearance of a famous woman (Angelina Jolie or Sarah Palin), they tended to dehumanizeher and perceive her less human (lack of of warmth and human traits) and less competent than when they were asked to focus on the woman as a person -this was the first study to show objectification results in females being seen as less human Gervais et al (2011): Objectifying Gaze, Cognitive abilities and Self-Body perception •In daily life, objectification can besubtle like for exampleobjectifying gaze. Objectifying gaze occurs when a man visually inspects a woman, focusing particular attention to her body features. This can result in women feeling negative emotions such as shame, anxiety, and depression. And it can alsoimpair women’s cognitive abilities•Sexual objectification experiences can promote self-objectification or the internalization of a third person’s perspective of their bodies and women may regard their looks as more important than other aspects of themselves (e.g., their thoughts, feelings, and physical health). •Gervais et al (2011) examined the effect of the objectifying gaze on undergraduate women’s and men’s cognitive performance (e.g., math performance) and body image outcomes, including body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 5 Gervais et al (2011): Objectifying Gaze, Cognitive abilities and Self-Body perception Body surveillance: Habitual monitoring of the body’s outward appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997)Body shame: Emotional response that follows from measuring oneself against an internalized or cultural standard and perceiving oneself as failing to meet that standard (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Because the objectifying gaze focuses women’s attention on their looks, women may experience a shameful response because their actual bodies fail to meet cultural appearance ideals.Body dissatisfaction: Awareness of potential discrepancies between women’s actual bodies and cultural appearance ideals (Smolak& Levine, 2001). There is higher body dissatisfaction when women interpret weight related criticisms more negatively or weight-related compliments more positively. In fact, women experienced the most body dissatisfaction when they received an appearance compliment (Gervais et al., 2011). The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 6 The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 7Gervais et al (2011)’s Methodology The pict ure can't be displ aye d. The pict ure can't be displ aye d. Woman ParticipantMan ConfederateLeaderWorker The pict ure can't be displ aye d. The pict ure can't be displ aye d. Woman ParticipantMan ConfederateLeaderWorkerb) Staged Interviewa) Rigged Questionnaire The pict ure can't be displ aye d. The pict ure can't be displ aye d. Woman ParticipantMan ConfederateLeaderWorkerc) Objectifying GazeChest The pict ure can't be displ aye d. The pict ure can't be displ aye d. Woman ParticipantMan ConfederateLeaderWorkerc) ControlFaced) MeasuresParticipants:150undergraduates(67women&83men)fromaU.S.Midwesternuniversityparticipatedinthestudy.Participantsrangedinagefrom18to29years.Asindicatedbyself-identification,participantswere89%EuropeanAmerican.98%ofparticipantsself-identifiedasheterosexual. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 8Gervais et al (2011)’s measures The picture can't be displayed. Math Performance: Graduate Record Examination (GRE) The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996) The picture can't be displayed. Figure Rating Scale (Stunkard, Sorenson, & Schulsinger, 1983); Body Dissatisfactiond) MeasuresParticipantswereallotted10minutestocomplete12mathproblemsParticipantswereaskedtocircletheiractualfigure(‘‘Whichdrawinglooksmostlikeyourcurrentfigure?’’)anddifferentgenderidealfigure(‘‘Whichfiguredoyouthinkmostpeopleoftheoppositegenderlikeorthinkisattractive?’’) 44.555.566.57Wom e n O b jec tif iyi ngWom e n C o ntr olMen O bj ect fiy in gMen C on tro lWomenMenObjectifyingControlObjectifyingControlP=.011P=.028InteractionP<.001 The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 9Math Problems Accuracy ScoresGervais et al (2011)’s results: Objectifying Gaze affects Women’s math scores 00.511.522.533.544.55Wom e n S ur ve illa nc eMen S urv ei lla nc eWom e n S ha m eMen S ha meWom e n D is sa tis fac tio nMen D iss at isfa ct ionBody SurveillanceBody ShameBody DissatisfactionWomenMenWomenMenWomenMenObjectifying Gaze affects Women’s body perception P<.001P<.001P<.001Mean Likert Scale Scores The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 10 The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 11Gervais et al (2011): Discussion The picture can't be displayed. Padlet Wallpaper QR-Code•Gervais et al. (2011) directly manipulated objectifying gaze and investigated the effects on math performance in men and women. •Objectifying gaze caused a reduction in women’s math performance but not men’s•Objectifying gaze affected women’s body self-perception indexed by measures of body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction. The picture can't be displayed. Face inversion effect(Yin,1969) The picture can't be displayed. Inversion disrupts our ability to exploit configural information (Maurer et al., 2002)Configural informationObjectification and Cognitive Processes The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 12 The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. Body inversion effect(Reed et al., 2003)•No/less inversion effect for objects e.g., chairs, cars, houses, planes•Face/body recognition -configural processing•Object recognition–featural/analytical processing Bernard et al (2012)’s experimental procedure The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. 250ms The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. 1000ms The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 13StimuliMatching Task The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. 1000ms250msMirrored DistractorMirrored Distractor The picture can't be displayed. Inversion effect = configural processing typical of face/body recognitionNo inversion effect = featural processing typical of object recognitionBernard et al (2012)’s results The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 14 The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 15Bernard et al (2012): Discussion•Both male and female participants showed a reduced inversion effect for sexualized women thus perceiving them as object-like / featural processing•Both male and female participants showed a robust inversion effect for sexualized men perceiving them as face/body-like / configural processing•They authors suggested that the reduced inversion effect for sexualized women for male participants is based on sexual attraction, whereas for female participants is based on lack of identification. Bernard et al (2015)’s Experiment 1: A replication The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. Stimuli250ms1000msMatching Task The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. Mirrored Distractor T h e p i c t u r e c a n ' t b e d i s p l a y e d . 160.50.60.70.80.9Upr igh t ma lein v m a leup f emalin v f em a Th e pic tur e ca n't be dis pla ye d. Th e pic tur e ca n't be dis pla ye d. Th e pi ct ur e ca n't be di sp la ye d. Th e pi ct ur e ca n't be di sp la ye d. InteractionP=.01Accuracy Scores Bernard et al (2015)’s Experiment 2a: Pixelated Sexual Body parts T h e p i c t u r e c a n ' t b e d i s p l a y e d . 17 The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. 250ms1000msMirrored Distractor The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be displaye d. The picture can't be displaye d. StimuliMatching Task0.50.60.70.80.91Upr igh t ma lein v m a leup f emalin v f em a T h e pi ct ur e ca n't b e di sp la ye d. T h e p i c t u r e c a n ' t b e d i s p l a y e d . T h e pi ct ur e c a n' t b e di s pl a y e d. T h e pi ct ur e c a n' t b e di s pl a y e d. Accuracy ScoresInteractionP=.56 Bernard et al (2015)’s Experiment 2b: Pixelated Sexual Body parts T h e p i c t u r e c a n ' t b e d i s p l a y e d . 18 The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. StimuliInteractionP=.05 The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. 0.80.820.840.860.880.90.920.94se xu al upse xu al i n vnon-sexual upnon-sexual inv The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. Accuracy ScoresThemethodwasthesameasExperiment2abutwithtwoexceptions:1)participantssawonlyfemalebodies2)between-subjectspixelationconditionPixelated Sexual-Body partsPixelated Non-Sexual-Body parts T he pi ct ur e ca n't be di sp la ye d. 19The pictures you will see are those of women who recently got their medical degree with honors. Deeply concerned by the cancer issue, they decided to create a sexy calendar in order to raise funds destined to an association whose purpose is to finance caring for cancer patients. The money raised by this calendar is directly paid to this association. Pictures you will see stem from this calendarGroup a) Humanizing information The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. Stimuli250ms1000msMatching Task The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. The picture can't be display ed. Mirrored DistractorBernard et al (2015)’s Experiment 3: Humanizing informationGroup b) Neutral Same as previous studies:We are going to show you a series of female and male bodies’ pictures. Next, you will see an image of a person for a brief moment…The method was the same as Experiment 1, with two exceptions: 1)only female bodies were 2)authors included humanization as a between-subjects variable. T he pi ct ur e ca n't be di sp la ye d. 20Bernard et al (2015)’s Experiment 3: Humanizing information0.80.820.840.860.880.90.92netr ual UpNeu tra l i nvhumani uphumani i nvInteractionP=.02Accuracy ScoresHumanizing UprightHumanizing InvertedNeutral UprightNeutral Inverted The pictur e can't be displ ayed. 21Overall Results: The inversion effect and objectification•Cognitive phenomena (the inversion effect) can be used to study the perceptual processes at the basis of body objectification. •Both men and women show a reduced inversion effect (index of object-like featural processing) in response to sexualized images of women compared to that of men.•Pixelating the sexual body parts, or providing humanizing information about the sexualized images of women can increase the inversion effect (index of face-like configural processing) thus reduce objectification. The picture can't be displayed. Padlet Wallpaper QR-Code The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The picture can't be displayed. The pictur e can't be displ ayed. References (suggested readings inbold)•Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power–sex association•and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.•Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471. •Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., Delmee, A., & Klein, O. (2015). From sex-objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 432–446•Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2015). Commentary on “The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact.”. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 845. •Civile, C., & Obhi, S. S. (2016). Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualised women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 199–212. •Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental•health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.•Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (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. •Gervais, S., Vescio, T., Forster, J., Maass, A., & Suitner, C. (2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743–753.•Schmidt, A. F., and Kistemaker, L. M. (2015). The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact? Cognition 134, 77-84.•Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Grubb, J. D., & McGoldrick, J. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 73−87. •Ta r r, M. (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Commentary on ‘Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualised-body-inversion hypothesis (Bernard et al., 2012)’. Psychological Science, 24, 1069–1070.