Body Objectification Part 2: Neuroscience PDF

Biological Basis of BehaviourPSY2304Body ObjectificationPart 2: Neuroscience Face inversion effect(Yin,1969)Inversion disrupts our ability to exploit configural information (Maurer et al., 2002)Configural informationReminder from Lecture 5: Objectification Processes3Body inversion effect(Reed et al...

Biological Basis of BehaviourPSY2304Body ObjectificationPart 2: Neuroscience Face inversion effect(Yin,1969)Inversion disrupts our ability to exploit configural information (Maurer et al., 2002)Configural informationReminder from Lecture 5: Objectification Processes3Body 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 Inversion effect = configural processing typical of face/body recognitionNo inversion effect = featural processing typical of object recognitionReminder from Lecture 5: Bernard et al (2012)’s results4 Reminder from Lecture 2: Face Inversion Effect & N1705Itier& Taylor (2004): N170 to upright and inverted faces and seven object categories recorded at temporal parietal sites P7/P8.Notethe delayed and larger N170 to inverted than upright faces.Face Inversion Effect on the N170 Bernard et al (2018): Introduction6•HietanenandNummenmaa(2011)foundthatbothnakedbodiesandsexualizedbodies(i.e.,bodiesinswimsuits)evokedlargeranddelayedN170scomparedtononsexualizedbodiesandfaces,andthiseffectemergedforbothmaleandfemaletargets.•Fengetal(2012)foundthatsexualizedpicturesareselectivelyprocessedatbothearly(includingtheN170)andlate(e.g.,theP300)temporalstagesregardlessofstimulusvalence.•Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththenotionthattargetsexualizationisassociatedwithspecificcorticalprocessingthroughlargerneuralresponses,includinglargerN170amplitudes. Bernard et al (2018): Introduction7•StekelenburganddeGelder(2004)foundthatimagesofinvertedbodieselicitedalargerN170atposterioroccipito-temporalsitescomparedtouprightbodies,whereasthisdifferentiationforinverted(vs.upright)objectsdidnotemerge•Minnebuschetal(2009)foundsimilarresultsforintactbodies,whereasheadlessbodieseliciteda“reversed”bodyinversioneffectwithsmallerN170amplitudeforinverted(vs.upright)headlessbodies.•BauserandSuchan(2013)foundanN170inversioneffectforintactbodies,butnotforscrambledbodies.Altogether,thesestudiesprovideevidencethattheN170amplitudeisareliablemarkerindicatingthatintactbodiesareprocessedconfigurally. Bernard et al (2018)’s experimental procedure8Nonsexualized stimuliSexualized stimuliControl object stimuliOrientation Judgment Task+Upright Inverted+Upright Inverted250ms1500ms500ms250ms1500ms500ms Bernard et al (2018)’s results9Figure.Grand-averaged event-related potentials at occipitotemporal electrodes sites (P7/P8) to upright and inverted in response to non-sexualized bodies (Panel a), sexualized bodies (Panel b), and objects (Panel c).a)b)c)UprightInvertedN170 non-sexualized bodiesN170 sexualized bodiesN170 shoes Bernard et al (2018)’s results10µV-12-10-8-6-4-2Non Se xu UpNon Se xu In vSe xU pSe xI nvSh o es UpSh o es I nvInteractionP<.001InteractionP=.007 Bernard et al (2018)’s results (Inversion x Gender)11µVInteraction-9.5-9-8.5-8-7.5-7-6.5-6Fe m al e U pFe m al e I n vMal e U pMal e I nvP<.001 Bernard et al (2018)’s results12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3Non Se x f emal e UpNon Se x f emal e I nvNon Se x Ma le UpNon Se x Ma le InvSe x f em a l e UpSe x f em a l e I nvSe x Ma l e U pSe x Ma l e I n vSh o es UpSh o es I nvµV 13Bernard et al (2018): DiscussionPadlet Wallpaper QR-Code•A larger N170 amplitudes for inverted (vs. upright) nonsexualizedbodies. In contrast, no inversion effect was found for either sexualized bodies or objects. •An interaction between target gender and picture position, indicating that the N170 amplitude inversion effect was significant for male but not for female bodies. •Women may thus suffer from a double “penalty:” They are more likely to be portrayed in sexualized ways, and even when not portrayed in sexualized ways, they are still less likely to be processed configurally(Bernard et al., 2018). Bernard et al (2019): Introduction14•Themainobjectiveofthisworkwastoexaminewhetherskin-to-clothingratioand/orposturesuggestivenesscausedcognitiveobjectificationofbodies.•Skin-to-ClothingRatio:itcanbedefinedastheamountofskinversusclothingthatisvisiblewhenapersonisportrayed:Peoplepresentedinbikinisorlingerierepresentinghigherskin-to-clothingratioandpeoplepresentedfullydressedasrepresentinglowerskin-to-clothingratio.•PostureSuggestiveness:itisapotentiallyimportantaspectofsexualizationbecausetheyrepresentopenbodylanguagethatappearstoinvitesexualactivity.Theycanbeillustratedinsubtlewayssuchasplacingahandonone’shipsandnot-so-subtlewayssuchassittingwithone’slegsspreadwideopen(Hatton&Tra u t n e r,2011).Acloseexaminationofthestimuliusedinpriorobjectificationstudiesrevealsthatpeoplewhoarepresentedinrevealingclothingarealsooftenpresentedwithbodylanguagethatissexuallyconnoted(Civile&Obhi,2016;Civileetal.,2017;Bernardetal.,2018). Bernard et al (2019): Experiment 115Low Skin-to-clothing stimuliControl object stimuliOrientation Judgment Task+Upright Inverted+Upright Inverted250ms1500ms500ms250ms1500ms500msHigh Skin-to-clothing stimuliNonsuggestive postureNonsuggestive posture Bernard et al (2019)’S Experiment 1 HYPOTHESES16•Theyexpectedtofindaninteractionbetweenskin-to-clothingratioandpicturepositionconfirming:•Forbodieswithlowskin-to-clothingratios,theypredictedthatlargerN170swillbeassociatedwithinvertedbodiesincomparisonwithuprightbodies,evidencingmoreconfiguralprocessingandnocognitiveobjectification•Forbodieswithhighskin-to-clothingratios(andobjects),theyexpectedtofindsimilarN170amplitudesforinvertedanduprightstimuli,evidencinglessconfiguralprocessingandmorecognitiveobjectification. 17Bernard et al (2019)’s Experiment 1 resultsµVP=.002-4-3.5-3-2.5-2Upr igh tIn ve rte dOverall Inversion Effect 18Bernard et al (2019)’s Experiment 1 results-5.5-5-4.5-4-3.5-3-2.5-2-1.5-1Lo w U pr i gh tLo w I n ve r t e dHigh Upr igh tHigh In ve rte dSh o es Up r i g htSh o es I nv er t e dµVP=.003P=.002Inversion Effect Inversion Effect Bernard et al (2019): Experiment 219Non-Suggestive stimuliOrientation Judgment Task+Upright Inverted+Upright Inverted250ms1500ms500ms250ms1500ms500msSuggestive stimuliLow Skin-to-clothing stimuliHigh Skin-to-clothing stimuli Bernard et al (2019)’S Experiment 2 HYPOTHESES20•TheobjectiveofExperiment2wastoexaminewhetherposturesuggestivenesscausescognitiveobjectification.Thustwocompetinghypothesesweretested:A.CognitiveobjectificationonlyoccursforhighlysexualizedtargetswhichwouldbeevidencedbysimilarN170amplitudesforuprightandinvertedbodieswithhighskin-to-clothingratiosandsuggestiveposturesatthesametimeB.Posturesuggestivenessissufficienttotriggercognitiveobjectification,whichwouldbeevidencedbysimilarN170amplitudesforinvertedanduprightbodiesdisplayingsuggestivepostures(regardlessskin-to-clothingratio). 21Bernard et al (2019)’s Experiment 2 results-5.2-5-4.8-4.6-4.4-4.2-4Non Su gg es tiv e UpNon Su gg es tiv e I nvSu gg es t i v e Up r i g htSu gg es t i v e I nv er t edµVP=.03InteractionP<.001Non-Suggestive stimuliSuggestive stimuli 22Bernard et al (2019)’s Experiment 1 & 2: Discussion•TheresultsfromExperiments1and2corroboratedthenotionthatskin-to-clothingratioalonedoesnotcausecognitiveobjectificationofbodies.•Peoplewithhighandlowskin-to-clothingratioswereprocessedconfigurally(largerN170sforinvertedbodiesincomparisonwithuprightbodies)andnotobjectified.•Posturesuggestivenesswasthekeydriverofcognitiveobjectification.Bodieswithnonsuggestivepostureswereprocessedconfigurallyandnotobjectified.Incontrast,invertedanduprightbodieswithsuggestiveposturestriggeredsimilarN170s,evidencinglessconfiguralprocessingandmorecognitiveobjectification.Thispatternwasthesameformaleandfemaletargets. Bernard et al (2019): Experiment 323Matched Asymmetry Non-Suggestive stimuliOrientation Judgment Task+Upright Inverted+Upright Inverted250ms1500ms500ms250ms1500ms500msSuggestive stimuli Bernard et al (2019)’S Experiment 3 HYPOTHESES24•TheyexpectedtoreplicateresultsfoundinExperiment2whileusingpicturesdifferingintermsofposturesuggestivenessbutmatchedintermsofasymmetry.•Thatis,theyexpectedthatthenewlycreatedimagesofasymmetricalbodiesdisplayingnon-suggestivepostureswouldbeprocessedconfigurally(largerN170sforinvertedvs.uprightbodies)•Whereastheasymmetry-matchedbodiesdisplayingsuggestivepostureswouldbeprocessedlessconfigurally(similarN170sforinvertedanduprightbodies)andmorecognitivelyobjectified. 25Bernard et al (2019)’s Experiment 3 results-3.5-3-2.5-2-1.5-1-0.50Mat ch ed no ns ug ge st ive up ri gh tMat ch ed no ns ug ge st ive In ve rte dSu gg es t i v e Up r i g htSu gg es t i v e i nv er t edµVP=.019InteractionP=.005Matched Asymmetry Non-SuggestiveSuggestive UprightSuggestive invertedUprightInverted 26Bernard et al (2019): Overall Discussion•To examine the effects of skin-to-clothing ratio and posture suggestiveness—on cognitive objectification •Experiment 1 found that bodies with nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally, regardless of whether they had a high or low skin-to-clothing ratio. •Experiment 2 revealed that bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally and not objectified, regardless of skin-to-clothing ratio. However, bodies displaying suggestive postures were processed less configurally—akin to objects. •Experiment3showedthatwhenbodieswithnonsuggestivepostureswerepresentedtoparticipantsinanasymmetricmannertherewasnoincreaseincognitiveobjectification,whereasbodieswithsuggestivepostureswereprocessedlessconfigurallyandobjectified.•This provides strong evidence that posture suggestiveness, is the key driver of cognitive objectification. Padlet Wallpaper QR-Code References (suggested readings inbold)•Bauser, D. A. S., & Suchan, B. (2013). Behavioraland electro-physiological correlates of intact and scrambled body perception. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 686-696. •Bernard, P., Hanoteau, F., Gervais, S., Servais, L., Bertolone, I., Deltenre, P., & Colin, C. (2019). Revealing clothing does not make the object: Erpevidences that cognitive objectification is driven by posture suggestiveness, not by revealing clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 16–36. •Bernard, P., Rizzo, T., Hoonhorst, I., Deliens, G., Gervais, S., Eberlen, J., ... Klein, O. (2018). The neural correlates of cognitive objectification: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 550–559 •Civile, C., & Obhi, S. S. (2016). Power, objectification, and recog-nitionof sexualized women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 199-212•Feng, C., Wang, L., Wang, N., Gu, R., & Luo, Y. J. (2012). The time course of implicit processing of erotic pictures: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1489, 48-55. •Hatton, E., & Tra u t n e r, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectifi-cation? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 256-278. •Hietanen, J. K., & Nummenmaa, L. (2011). The naked truth: The face and body sensitive N170 response is enhanced for nude bodies. PLoSONE, 6, e24408. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024408 •Minnebusch, D. A., Suchan, B., & Daum, I. (2009). Losing your head: Behavioraland electrophysiological effects of body inversion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 865-874. •Stekelenburg, J. J., & de Gelder, B. (2004). The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect. NeuroReport, 15, 777-780.