Current Directions in Psychological Science 2014, Vol. 23(3) 225 –229 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0963721414531599 cdps.sagepub.com

For decades, feminist scholars (e.g., MacKinnon, 1993) have argued that the immense cultural emphasis on women’s physical appearance and sexual features under- lies their objectification by others. Women then internal- ize these cultural standards, leading to self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). For nearly 15 years, research drawing on objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) has examined aversive consequences for women resulting from their focus on their own physi- cal appearance. This self-objectification impairs cognitive performance, heightens negative affect, restricts eating, and lessens sexual enjoyment, for instance (see Moradi & Huang, 2008).

Recent work on objectification extends this research in two key ways. It tests objectification as a direct response to a focus on women’s physical features by others. And it tests objectification more literally—whether women are perceived like, and behave like, an object relative to a person (i.e., literal objectification; Goldenberg, 2013; Nussbaum, 1999)—in response to this interpersonal focus on their physical aspects.

Literal Objectification

Evidence across several conceptualizations of humanness (e.g., Leyens et al., 2000) converges in demonstrating that

perceptions of people, including the self, fall on a con- tinuum ranging from human to nonhuman; this includes a continuum from human to object (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008; Harris & Fiske, 2009; Haslam, 2006). Building on these perspectives, we define literal objectification as any outcome in which a person is per- ceived as, or behaves, objectlike, relative to humanlike. Manifestations of literal objectification include attributing people less of the traits that distinguish people from objects (e.g., warmth, competence), visual and neural markers indicative of perceiving objects relative to peo- ple (e.g., reduced neural activity in the default-mode net- work), and people themselves behaving in more objectlike manners (e.g., speaking less).

Literal objectification is distinct from animal/human conceptualizations of dehumanization (Haslam, 2006; Leyens et al., 2000). Traits attributed to animals and to objects are correlated weakly, if at all (Haslam, Bain, Bastian, Douge, & Lee, 2005). In turn, although women are implicitly associated more with animals than with objects when they are depicted sexually (Vaes, Paladino,

531599CDPXXX10.1177/0963721414531599Heflick, GoldenbergThe Literal Objectification of Women research-article2014

Corresponding Author: Nathan A. Heflick, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT4 7RL, United Kingdom E-mail: n.a.heflick@kent.ac.uk

Seeing Eye to Body: The Literal Objectification of Women

Nathan A. Heflick1 and Jamie L. Goldenberg2 1University of Kent and 2University of South Florida

Abstract Scholars have long argued that women are denied a basic sense of humanness—are objectified—when focus is directed toward their physical rather than mental qualities. Early research on objectification focused on women’s self-objectification and measured objectification indirectly (as an emphasis on physical appearance). Recent research, however, has provided direct evidence that a focus on the physical aspects of women by others causes women to be perceived like, and act like, objects lacking mind. Manifestations of this literal objectification include attributing women less of the traits that distinguish people from objects and visual-recognition and neural responses consistent with nonhuman-object perception. Women themselves also behave more like objects (by, e.g., speaking less) when they are aware of this focus by others. Real-world implications and ways to defuse literal objectification are discussed.

Keywords objectification, dehumanization, appearance focus, sexualization

at ARKANSAS STATE UNIV on January 29, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

226 Heflick, Goldenberg

& Puvia, 2011), this is indicative of dehumanization, not literal objectification. Relatedly, although sexualized women may be objectified (Loughnan et al., 2010), literal objectification is not specific to a focus on the body that is sexual. Lastly, literal objectification differs from holding negative views of others or the self; traits people perceive as separating humans from objects can be positive or negative (Haslam et al., 2005).

Interpersonal Focus on Women’s Physical Aspects

In their daily experiences (Kozee, Tylka, Augustus- Horvath, & Denchik, 2007) and in the media (Archer, Iritani, Kimes, & Barios, 1983), women are subject to dis- proportionate focus on their physical traits. Scholars have argued that this underlies women’s objectification. Until recently, however, empirical research was limited to self- objectification—and objectification was induced through or measured as a focus on one’s own appearance (e.g., trying on a swimsuit in front of a mirror; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). In the newest work, researchers have employed several different manipulations that prompt focus on the physical, relative to the mental, aspects of others or make women aware of this focus by others.

Most directly, these manipulations have involved hav- ing people write about or observe an individual’s physical appearance in contrast to his or her personality (e.g., Heflick, Goldenberg, Cooper, & Puvia, 2011). Using eye- tracker software, Gervais, Holland, and Dodd (2013) found that this prompt increased the amount of time men and women spent looking at women’s body parts (i.e., breasts and hips) and decreased the amount of time spent looking at their faces. Studies in which persons are explic- itly sexualized, usually via the amount of clothes worn (e.g., Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2012), also highlight the physical rather than mental aspects of a person. In addition, studies in which the pro- portion of people’s bodies relative to their faces is increased in photos (Loughnan et al., 2010) promote more physical, less mental, focus in others. Finally, experienc- ing or recalling prior experiences in which others’ atten- tion is directed toward one’s body is also consistent with our operationalization of interpersonal physical focus.

Building on the evidence that women (but typically not men) experience a myriad of aversive consequences when focusing on their own physical appearance (see Moradi & Huang, 2008), we now examine the evidence that inter- personal focus on women’s physical aspects causes both men and women to literally objectify women. (But we acknowledge that a minority of studies have found that males are similarly objectified; e.g., Loughnan et al., 2010.)

Women Perceived as Objects

Trait attribution

Haslam’s (2006) research has demonstrated that people perceive traits indicative of human nature to separate humans from objects. When people are described as low in human-nature traits (e.g., “How much is this group like robots?”), they are subsequently rated as more objectlike, and vice versa (Loughnan, Haslam, & Kashima, 2009). On this basis, Heflick and Goldenberg (2009) had participants write about a woman’s physical appearance or about the woman as a person before rating her on several traits and rating how essential each trait is to human nature. Within- person correlations between the perceived typicality of each trait for the target person and the perceived human- ness of each trait were less positive when participants focused on the woman’s appearance. This effect repli- cated across female targets and was independent of how positively participants wrote about the woman.

The specific attributes of warmth and competence are also associated with being a human and not an object (Harris & Fiske, 2009). Consistent with this, only images of people perceived as low in warmth and competence (e.g., the homeless) fail to elicit brain activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area involved in the recognition and processing of human faces but not nonhuman objects (Harris & Fiske, 2006). Building on this, and on research demonstrating that morality is a component of warmth (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007), Heflick et al. (2011) demonstrated that focusing on a woman’s physical appearance, in a video or still image, reduces her per- ceived competence, warmth, and morality. This effect rep- licated across female targets of varying attractiveness, status, familiarity, and race (Heflick et al., 2011), but not in response to comparable male targets. Women are also rated as less intelligent after people view them with more of their body showing relative to their face (Loughnan et  al., 2010) and after people view them in revealing clothes (Rudman & Borgida, 1995). This is true even when the women being evaluated are not the women wearing the revealing clothing (Rudman & Borgida, 1995).

Research into perceptions of “mind” (H. M. Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007) indicates that people believe the mind has two primary components: agency (ability to think) and experience (ability to feel). Objects and machines are attributed less agency and experience than humans (H. M. Gray et al., 2007). Likewise, women are perceived to have less agency (K. Gray, Knobe, Sheskin, Bloom, & Barrett, 2011), as well as fewer thoughts (reason, think- ing), intentions (wishes, plans), and perceptions (seeing, hearing), when they are depicted sexually, relative to when they are depicted as fully clothed (Holland & Haslam, 2013; Loughnan et al., 2010; but see K. Gray

at ARKANSAS STATE UNIV on January 29, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Literal Objectification of Women 227

et  al., 2011, for a contradictory finding). They are also explicitly perceived as having less of a mind (i.e., in response to an item asking, “How much mind does this woman have?”; Loughnan et al., 2010). Further, women wearing bikinis are attributed fewer thoughts, percep- tions, and intentions when their body is exclusively shown in a photograph than when their face alone or their face and body are shown (Loughnan et al., 2010).

Visual processing and recognition

People are less able to recognize images of humans when they are inverted, but this is not true for objects (Reed, Stone, Bozova, & Tanaka, 2003). Bernard et al. (2012) recently illustrated an exception to this finding: Images of sexualized women (i.e., women wearing swim- suits) are recognized equally well when inverted and right side up. This is in contrast to images of men, sexual- ized or not, and nonsexualized images of women. The authors reasoned that people focus on specific aspects of women’s bodies—like they would objects—when women are sexualized, which impairs configural processing (i.e., the connection of distinct features to form a coherent whole) and subsequent recognition.

Objects are interchangeable (i.e., fungible; Nussbaum, 1999). Consistent with our position, Gervais, Vescio, and Allen (2012) showed people images of women and men and then, in a subsequent task, asked them to match the faces to bodies. Overall, men and women were worse at matching women’s than men’s faces to their bodies. The exception was highly muscular male images, presumably because their muscularity drew attention to their physical bodies. Similarly, Cikara, Eberhardt, and Fiske (2011) found that participants were better able to recognize the bodies, but not the faces, of sexualized women relative to clothed women or sexualized or clothed men. Men and women are also more likely to mistake women’s faces for objects (images created by computers) than men’s faces, and computer-generated faces are more likely to be mis- taken for female than male faces (Balas, 2013).

Neural processing

When people read or hear about ways in which humans are similar to objects, there is reduced activation in a network of brain regions (i.e., the default-mode network) that are highly involved in theory-of-mind reasoning ( Jack, Dawson, & Norr, 2013). Part of this network, the temporoparietal junction, is activated when people read statements about human minds, but not when they read statements about a woman’s physical features (e.g., her height) or about nonhuman objects (e.g., a pot of tea; Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003). In turn, both likening humans to objects and focusing on women’s physical traits

reduces neural activity associated with inferring others’ mental traits. Moreover, when males high in hostile sex- ism view images of scantily dressed, but not fully dressed, women, this results in reduced activation of the medial prefrontal cortex (part of the default-mode network), consistent with neural activity when viewing objects (Cikara et al., 2011).

Women Behaving as Objects

There is also evidence that when women’s appearance is focused on by others (male or female), they literally objectify themselves. Gervais, Vescio, and Allen (2011) had male and female confederates “ogle” female partici- pants, gazing at them from face to body as opposed to gazing at only their face. After the full-body gazing, women performed less competently on a series of math problems. Women also become more passive—like objects—under conditions in which others are focused on their physical bodies, and they are less willing to pro- test for women’s rights (Calogero, 2013) when recalling a past instance of being ogled or receiving sexual com- ments from a man. Finally, women talk less, such as by spending less time introducing themselves, when their body is obviously salient to others (Saguy, Quinn, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2010).

Supporting a foundational premise of self-objectification theory (see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), these findings provide direct empirical evidence that self-objectification is a response to a focus on women’s physical aspects by others. Consistent with objectification as literal, women in these studies (and in previous studies, too; e.g., Fredrickson & Harrison, 2005; Fredrickson et al., 1998) behaved in ways consistent with being an object (e.g., restraining their eating and movement).

Real-World Implications

In an experiment conducted weeks prior to the 2008 U.S. presidential election (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009), par- ticipants were instructed to write about the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, or about her physical appearance. People reported decreased percep- tions of Palin’s competence and reduced intentions to vote for the Republican ticket when they had focused on Palin’s appearance. Moreover, these effects were attribut- able to reductions in her perceived humanness (human- nature ratings). These findings, in conjunction with the media attention to Palin’s appearance, including cover- age of her alleged $150,000 makeover, led us to speculate that literal objectification may have played a role in the outcome of the election (see Heflick & Goldenberg, 2011). In other research, purported female job applicants were viewed as less competent by men who had recently

at ARKANSAS STATE UNIV on January 29, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

228 Heflick, Goldenberg

viewed images of other women who were scantily dressed (Rudman & Borgida, 1995), and women per- formed less well on items from the GRE, a critical factor for admittance into most graduate schools in the United States, after being ogled (Gervais et al., 2012).

Further, the moral concern people afford beings (human or not) is directly attributable to their perception that the beings have humanlike traits (e.g., H. M. Gray et al., 2007). Loughnan and colleagues (2010) asked to what extent people were willing to administer pills that caused pain to hypothetical targets that had either been sexualized or not. People were more willing to give the pain-inducing pills to the sexualized male and female targets. Further, implicit association of women with object words (e.g., tool) is pre- dictive of men’s acceptance of sexual aggression toward women (Rudman & Mescher, 2012). Even playing video games with sexually depicted female characters increases men’s acceptance of sexual aggression (Yao, Mahood, & Linz, 2010). Additionally, when a woman is depicted in a bikini, men and women show her less moral concern; she is also more likely to be blamed for a man’s pinning her down, removing her clothing, and forcing her to have sex (Loughnan, Pina, Vasquez, & Puvia, 2013). Women them- selves also assume less moral standing (i.e., they feel more sinful) when recalling instances of being gazed at sexually (Chen, Teng, & Zhang, 2013). In turn, women may encoun- ter risks to their actual physical safety when they are liter- ally objectified.

Defusing Literal Objectification

Bernard, Gervais, Allen, and Klein (2014) found that reading descriptions emphasizing female warmth and competence counteracted the tendency to perceive sexu- alized women as similar to objects in an image-inversion recognition task. Portraying women with clear signs of competence (i.e., trophies) also made people less likely to gaze at their sexual body parts ( Johnson & Gurung, 2011). In accord with evidence that men with particularly negative views of women are prone to literal objectifica- tion (Cikara et al., 2011), one route to defusing literal objectification could be to promote positive, more human views of women. Other possible routes include a general sociocultural de-emphasis on women’s physical features relative to their mental traits (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009) and women’s continuing to gain status and power (Gruenfeld et al., 2008), both of which are associated with reduced objectification.

Conclusion

A growing body of evidence indicates that when people focus on women’s physical attributes, women are literally objectified. The ways in which this objectification is

manifested include people’s attributing women less of the traits that distinguish people from objects, visual and neural markers indicative of perceiving objects relative to people, and women themselves behaving in a more objectlike manner. In short, “seeing eye to body” causes women to be perceived, and to behave, more like an object and less like a human being.

Recommended Reading

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). (See References). The original formulation of objectification theory, which sparked nearly all research on self-objectification.

Gervais, S. J. (Ed.). (2013). Objectification and (de)humaniza- tion: 60th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. New York: Springer. An edited volume that includes contributions from scholars researching the objectification of others.

Haslam, N. (2006). (See References). The original formulation of object-based and animal-based distinctions in dehuman- ization

Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). (See References). A philosophical trea- tise into what it means to be objectified

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

References

Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D.D., & Barios, M. (1983). Face- ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 723–735.

Balas, B. (2013). Biological sex determines whether faces look real. Visual Cognition, 21, 766–788.

Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypoth- esis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471.

Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2014). From sex-objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts and humanization as antidotes to women’s objectification. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Calogero, R. (2013). Objects don’t object: Evidence that objec- tification disrupts women’s social activism. Psychological Science, 24, 312–318.

Chen, Z., Teng, F., & Zhang, H. (2013). Sinful flesh: Sexual objectification threatens women’s moral self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1042–1048.

Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). Throwing like a girl: Self-objectification predicts adolescent girls’ motor perfor- mance. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29, 79–101.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and men- tal health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.

Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you:

at ARKANSAS STATE UNIV on January 29, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Literal Objectification of Women 229

Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.

Gervais, S. J., Holland, A., & Dodd, M. (2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557–570.

Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 5–17.

Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2012). When are people interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and body type on sexual fungibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 499–513.

Goldenberg, J. L. (2013). Immortal objects: The objectification of women as terror management. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Motivation perspectives on objectification and (de)human- ization (pp. 73–95). New York, NY: Springer.

Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.

Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objec- tification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207–1220.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127.

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853.

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social neuroscience evidence for dehumanised perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 192–231.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.

Haslam, N., Bain, P., Bastian, B., Douge, L., & Lee, M. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 228–235.

Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598–601.

Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2011). Sarah Palin, a nation object(ifie)s: The role of appearance focus in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Sex Roles, 65, 149–155.

Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581.

Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2013). Worth the weight: The objec- tification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 462–468.

Jack, A. I., Dawson, A. J., & Norr, M. E. (2013). Seeing human: Distinct and overlapping neural signatures associated with two forms of dehumanization. NeuroImage, 79, 313–328.

Johnson, V., & Gurung, R. (2011). Defusing the objectification of women by other women: The role of competence. Sex Roles, 65, 177–188.

Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. T., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189.

Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group vir- tue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and soci- ality) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.

Leyens, J. P., Paladino, M. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of second- ary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor- based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 747–762.

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonali- zation: The denial of mind and moral concern to objec- tified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709–717.

Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461.

MacKinnon, C. (1993). Only words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 4, 302–308.

Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517.

Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual aggression. Personalty and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746.

Saguy, T., Quinn, D. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2010). Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions. Psychological Science, 21, 178–182.

Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about think- ing people: The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.” NeuroImage, 19, 1835–1842.

Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehuman- ize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785.

Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually- explicit video game. Sex Roles, 62, 77–88.

at ARKANSAS STATE UNIV on January 29, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from