Power, Objectification, and Recognition of Sexualized Women and Men

Psychology of Women Quarterly

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 199-212

  Civile, Ciro ^a   Obhi, Sukhvinder S ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

cognitive processes; objectification; perceptual discrimination; power; recognition

Indexed keywords

GENDER; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION; STIMULUS; TEACHING;

EID: 84969835568     PISSN: 03616843     EISSN: 14716402     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0361684315604820     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. C.AndersonJ.Berdahl (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
2. D.ArcherB.IritaniD.D.KimesM.Barrios (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725–735. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.725
3. J.A.BarghP.RaymondJ.B.PryorF.Strack (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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768
4. S.Bartky (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge Press.
5. P.BernardS.GervaisJ.AllenS.CampomizziO.Klein (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471. doi:10.1177/0956797611434748
6. P.BernardS.GervaisJ.AllenA.DelmeeO.Klein (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. doi:10.1177/0361684315580125
7. R.K.BothwellJ.C.BrighamR.S.Malpass (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19–25. doi:10.1177/0146167289151002
8. J.Burgoon (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.
9. M.CikaraJ.L.EberhardtS.T.Fiske (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21497
10. P.ChiroroT.Valentine (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 879–894. doi:10.1080/14640749508401421
11. C.CivileR.McLarenI.P.L.McLaren (2014). The face inversion effect-parts and wholes: Individual features and their configurations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 728–746. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.828315
12. C.CivileD.ZhaoY.KuH.ElchleppA.LavricI.P.L.McLaren (2014). Perceptual learning and inversion effect: Recognition of prototype-defined familiar checkerboards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 144–161. doi:10.1037/xan0000013
13. S.CollishawG.Hole (2002). Is there a linear or a nonlinear relationship between rotation and configural processing of faces?Perception, 31, 287–296. doi:10.1068/p3195
14. J.Copeland (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioural confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 264–277. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.264
15. R.Dahl (1957). The concept of power. Behavioural Science, 2, 201–215. doi:10.1002/bs.3830020303
16. R.A.Depue (1995). Neurobiological factors in personality and depression. European Journal of Personality, 9, 413–439.
17. R.DiamondS.Carey (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107
18. S.T.Fiske (1993). Controlling other people. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621
19. B.FredricksonT.Roberts (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
20. A.D.GalinskyD.GruenfeldJ.Magee (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
21. A.D.GalinskyJ.MageeM.InesiD.Gruenfeld (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
22. A.D.GalinskyJ.C.MageeD.H.GruenfeldJ.A.WhitsonK.A.Liljenquist (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466. doi:10.1037/a0012633
23. S.GervaisT.VescioJ.ForsterA.MaassC.Suitner (2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743–753. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1890
24. E.Goffman (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. D.GruenfeldM.InesiJ.MageeA.Galinsky (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
26. A.Guinote (2007a). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685–697. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008
27. A.Guinote (2007b). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076–1087. doi:10.1177/0146167207301011
28. J.A.Hall (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. N.Haslam (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
30. N.HeflickJ.Goldenberg (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. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008
31. N.HeflickJ.GoldenbergD.CooperE.Puvia (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020
32. J.HogeveenM.InzlichtS.Obhi (2013). Power changes how the brain responds to others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 755–762. doi:10.1037/a0033477
33. G.Hole (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74. doi:10.1068/p230065
34. G.HoleP.GeorgeV.Dunsmore (1999). Evidence for holistic processing of faces viewed as photographic negatives. Perception, 28, 341–359. doi:10.1068/p2622
35. D.KeltnerD.GruenfeldC.Anderson (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
36. J.KunstmanJ.Maner (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 282–294. doi:10.1037/a0021135
37. O.LecarmeK.Delvare (2013). The book of GIMP: The complete guide to nearly everything. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
38. H.LederV.Bruce (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 513–536. doi:10.1080/713755889
39. K.Lindner (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion magazine advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex Roles, 51, 409–421. doi:10.1023/B: SERS.0000049230.86869.4d
40. S.LoughnanN.Haslam (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2007. 01858.x
41. S.LoughnanN.HaslamT.MurnaneJ.VaesC.ReynoldsC.Suitner (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709–717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755
42. D.MaurerR.LeGrandC.Mondloch (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
43. J.MondlochD.Maurer (2008). The effect of face orientation on holistic processing. Perception, 37, 1175–1186. doi:10.1068/p6048
44. B.MoradiY.Huang (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
45. M.C.Nussbaum (1999). Sex and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46. S.S.ObhiK.M.SwiderskiS.P.Brubacher (2012). Induced power changes the sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1547–1550. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2012.06.008
47. C.L.ReedV.E.StoneJ.D.GrubbJ.E.McGoldrick (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 73–87. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73
48. T.ReichertC.Carpenter (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823–837. doi:10.1177/ 107769900408100407
49. G.RhodesS.TanS.BrakeK.Taylor (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313–331. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02323.x
50. K.Seitz (2002). Parts and wholes in person recognition: Developmental trends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 367–381. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00106-6
51. P.SmithY.Trope (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578
52. H.StanislawN.Todorov (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behaviours Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149.
53. J.M.StankiewiczF.Roselli (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9359-1
54. J.TanakaM.Farah (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245. doi:10.1080/14640749308401045
55. M.Tarr (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Commentary on Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein (2012). Psychological Science, 24, 1069–1070. doi:10.1177/0956797612474669
56. J.VaesM.P.PaladinoE.Puvia (2011). Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
57. M.WeickA.GuinoteD.Wilkinson (2011). Lack of power enhances visual perceptual discrimination. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 208–213. doi:10.1037/a0024258
58. R.Yin (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141–145. doi:10.1037/h0027474