Immortal objects: the objectification of women as terror management

Objectifying Women's Bodies Is Acceptable from an Intimate Perpetrator, at Least for Female Sexists

Objectification of the female body is generating much research. Nevertheless, this has revealed little about whether women's evaluations depend on the level of psychological intimacy with the perpetrator of that objectification. Intimacy theory predicts that objectifying comments would seem more acceptable coming from a close partner, especially for sexist women. The present study begins to fill these gaps by analyzing responses from 301 heterosexual/bisexual adult women in the United States (M age = 37.02, range = 18-72) to appearance and sexual body comments made by four different male perpetrators: strangers, colleagues, friends, or partners. Measures assessed women's perceptions of objectification, as well as reported enjoyment of these comments. As long as they were not negative, comments from heterosexual partners were perceived as the least objectifying and enjoyed the most; comments from colleagues, strangers, and friends were linked with greater objectification and less enjoyment. Additionally, sexist attitudes toward men and women-but more clearly toward men-linked with objectification and enjoyment. Future research directions and practical implications are discussed.

Linked oppression: Connecting animal and gender attitudes

Ecofeminists and animal rights advocates have posited a connection between the oppression of women and the oppression of animals. Although male/female comparisons regarding attitudes toward animals have frequently been considered, only limited research has focused on gender roles and animal attitudes. We therefore examined the relation between gender roles and animal attitudes with undergraduate students (260 males, 484 females) at a public university in Texas. Participants responded to an online Qualtrics survey that assessed their attitudes toward animals, gender norms, and several forms of sexism. The survey also presented participants with questions about their justifications for meat consumption. As hypothesized, pro meat-eating justifications were positively related to sexist attitudes as well as traditional gender roles and negatively related to gender role transcendent attitudes. On the other hand, pro-animal attitudes were positively correlated with gender role transcendent attitudes and negatively correlated with benevolent/hostile sexism and traditional gender attitudes. Our results empirically supported “the linked oppression thesis,” that gender and animal attitudes are connected.

On the Nature of Objectification: Implications of Considering People as Means to Goals

People are objectified when they are treated as a means to a goal. The most common example is when women are sexually objectified and reduced to their physical appearance, sexuality, or individual body parts. In such instances, people are used in the same way as objects and are evaluated according to their instrumentality to the others' goals. The aim of this paper is to gain a better understanding of objectification. We will (a) outline basic principles of means-goal relations during goal pursuit, (b) review research in which people are means to goals, (c) explain objectification according to a means-goal psychology in which people serve as means to goals, and (d) explain the implications of our account for the consequences of objectification. Specifically, we argue objectification is inevitable and that the consequences of objectification, including its morality, depend on the goal to which a person serves and whether the objectified person wants to serve that goal.

Interacting with dehumanized others? Only if they are objectified

Members of dehumanized groups are somehow accepted in a variety of menial roles. Three studies verified when and why people might approach members of animalistically and mechanistically dehumanized groups. In Studies 1 and 2, participants showed a greater intention to interact with (Study 1) and attributed higher ratings of success (Study 2) to members of an animalistically dehumanized group in a social context. On the contrary, participants expected that members of a mechanistically dehumanized group would be more successful and were preferred to interact with in a professional context. In Study 3, the psychological process underlying these preferences was investigated. Interestingly, results showed that the objectification of dehumanized group members led participants to interact with them. Taken together these studies show that people approach dehumanized others not because they are liked, but because they are objectified.

Seeing Eye to Body

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.

Discrimination, objectification, and dehumanization: toward a pantheoretical framework

In this chapter, I have called for greater attention to targets' experiences in theory and research on dehumanization. I have also argued that what we know from theory and research on targets' experiences of stigma and discrimination can inform how we pursue the understanding of targets' experiences of dehumanization. To this end, I have emphasized the utility of attention to the intersectionality of minority statuses in shaping discrimination experiences. I have also described theoretical frameworks grounded in different populations' experiences--including theories of discrimination as stressful life events or daily hassles, minority stress frameworks, and objectification theory--and offered examples of integrating these frameworks as a way to attend to intersectionality. As well, I have noted parallels between the areas of convergence across discrimination theories and emerging findings regarding the consequences of dehumanization for targets. Finally, I have described the broad outlines of a pantheoretical framework that reflects areas of convergence and complementary integration across the discrimination and dehumanization literatures. My hope is that this framework will encourage further attention to the potential distinctions between internalization and cognizance of discrimination, exploration of their potentially distinctive intermediary consequences, and consideration of a broader range of outcomes beyond individual health and well-being indicators, and including individual and collective social activism. I also hope that readers will contribute to the critical evaluation and refinement of this pantheoretical framework with continued attention to the intersectionality that characterizes people's identities and experiences of discrimination.