Integrating Sexual Objectification With Object Versus Person Recognition: The Sexualized-Body-Inversion Hypothesis

Psychological Science

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 469-471

  Bernard, Philippe ^a   Gervais, Sarah J ^b   Allen, Jill ^b   Campomizzi, Sophie ^a   Klein, Olivier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861747067     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434748     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bartky S. L.Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge; 1990:.
2. Cikara M.,Eberhardt J. L.,Fiske S. T.From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2010;23:540-551.
3. Fredrickson B. L.,Roberts T.-A.Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks.Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1997;21:173-206.
4. Gervais S. J.,Vescio T. K.,Allen J.When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men.Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2011a;35:5-17.
5. Gervais S. J.,Vescio T. K.,Allen J.When are people interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and body type on sexual fungibility.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2011b;:.
6. Gervais S. J.,Vescio T. K.,Maass A.,Förster J.,Suitner C.When her whole = the sum of her parts: Seeing women as sexual objects. 2012;:.
7. Heflick N. A.,Goldenberg J. L.Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009;45:598-601.
8. Heflick N. A.,Goldenberg J. L.,Cooper D. P.,Puvia E.From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011;47:572-581.
9. Loughnan S.,Haslam N.Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans.Psychological Science. 2007;18:116-121.
10. Loughnan S.,Haslam N.,Murnane T.,Vaes J.,Reynolds C.,Suitner C.Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others.European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010;40:709-717.
11. Maurer D.,Le Grand R.,Mondloch C. J.The many faces of configural processing.Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002;6:255-260.
12. Moradi B.,Huang Y.-P.Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions.Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2008;32:377-398.
13. Reed C. L.,Stone V. E.,Bozova S.,Tanaka J.The body-inversion effect.Psychological Science. 2003;14:302-308.
14. Reed C. L.,Stone V. E.,Grubb J. D.,McGoldrick J. E.Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2006;32:73-87.
15. Saguy T.,Quinn D. M.,Dovidio J. F.,Pratto F.Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions.Psychological Science. 2010;21:178-182.
16. Vaes J.,Paladino M. P.,Puvia E.Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women.European Journal of Social Psychology. 2011;41:774-785.
17. Yin R. K.Looking at upside-down faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1969;81:141-145.