Now you see me, now you don’t: detecting sexual objectification through a change blindness paradigm
- 107 Downloads
The goal of this work is to provide evidence for the cognitive objectification of sexualized targets via a change blindness paradigm. Since sexual objectification involves a fragmented perception of the target in which individuating features (i.e., the face) have less information potential than sexualized features (i.e., body parts), we hypothesized that changes in faces of sexualized targets would be detected with less accuracy than changes in faces of nonsexualized targets. Conversely, we expected that changes in body parts would be detected with higher accuracy for sexualized than nonsexualized targets. These hypotheses were supported by the results of two studies that employed a change blindness task in which stimuli with changes both to faces and bodies of sexualized and nonsexualized images were presented. Unexpectedly, the hypothesized effects emerged both for female and male targets.
KeywordsSexual objectification Change blindness Objectifying gaze Information potential
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local Ethical Research Committee, with the APA ethical guidelines and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.
Full informed consent was obtained before participants started the studies.
- American Psychological Association (2007) Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
- Bartky S (1990) Femininity and domination. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bernard P, Rizzo T, Hoonhorst I, Deliens G, Gervais SJ, Eberlen J, Bayard C, Deltenre P, Colin C, Klein O (2017) The neural correlates of cognitive objectification: an ERP study on the body-inversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Code L (1995) Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cogoni C, Carnaghi A, Mitrovic A, Leder H, Fantoni C, Silani G (2018) Understanding the mechanisms behind the sexualized-body inversion hypothesis: the role of asymmetry and attention biases. PLoS ONE 13:e0193944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193944 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Ekman P, Oster H (1979) Facial expressions of emotion. Annu Rev Psychol 30:527–554. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.30.020179.002523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fredrickson BL, Roberts T (1997) Objectification theory: toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol Women Q 21:173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rensink RA (2002) Change detection. Ann Rev Psychol 53:245–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rensink RA, O’Regan JK, Clark JJ (1997) To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol Sci 8:368–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Simons DJ (1996) In sight, out of mind: when object representations fail. Psychol Sci 7:301–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00378.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar