Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 598–601
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp
Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectiﬁcation causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human Nathan A. Heﬂick *, Jamie L. Goldenberg
University of South Florida, 4202 E. Florida Avenue, PCD4118G Tampa, FL 33618, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Although a great deal of research has examined the effects of objectiﬁcation on women’s self-perceptions and behavior, empirical research has yet to address how objectifying a woman affects the way she is perceived by others. We hypothesize that focusing on a woman’s appearance will promote reduced perceptions of competence, and also, by virtue of construing the women as an ‘‘object”, perceptions of the woman as less human. We found initial experimental evidence for these hypotheses as a function of objectifying two targets – Sarah Palin and Angelina Jolie. In addition, focusing on Palin’s appearance reduced intentions to vote for the McCain–Palin ticket (prior to the 2008 US Presidential election). We discuss these ﬁndings in the context of the election and the objectiﬁcation of women. Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 12 December 2008 Revised 11 February 2009 Available online 1 March 2009 Keywords: Objectiﬁcation of women Political psychology Infrahumanization
‘‘There is a gigantic difference between. . .me and my Vice-Presidential opponent. She’s good-looking”. Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States The Republican National Committee reportedly spent upwards of $150,000 improving US Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s wardrobe and appearance (Isikoff & Smalley, 2008). And, despite facing criticism for this, in a sense, it ‘‘worked”. A clip of her wearing a swimsuit on the internet site YouTube received well over a million views, and Time magazine declared her a ‘‘sex symbol”, reporting that ‘‘photos” and ‘‘beauty pageant” were the second and third most popular internet search words in conjunction with Palin’s name (Tancer, September, 2, 2008). In addition to the focus on her appearance, exit polls indicated that 60% of American voters thought that Palin was unqualiﬁed for the job (Barnes, 2008). But, is there a link between the focus on Palin’s appearance and negative views of her? In this study, we examined three questions. One, does focusing on a woman’s appearance reduce perceptions of her competence? Second, does it promote perceptions of the woman as an object – and consequently, as less fully human? Third, although there are undoubtedly a number of reasons for the McCain–Palin defeat, could the focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance have contributed to reduced willingness to vote for their ticket in the 2008 US Presidential election? Objectiﬁcation Building on the work of feminist scholars (e.g., Bartky, 1990), Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) argued that women are objectiﬁed * Corresponding author. E-mail address: nheﬂick@mail.usf.edu (N.A. Heﬂick). 0022-1031/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008
when they are viewed as if their body is capable of representing them. Research on objectiﬁcation has provided an in depth analysis of the psychological consequences for objectiﬁed women (see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997); but, researchers have yet to address how focusing on a woman’s appearance affects perceptions of her. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum (1999) speculated about several possible ways that objectiﬁcation inﬂuences perceptions of objectiﬁed persons, including females valued solely for appearance. Some of these are directly related to minimizing their competence: denying self-determination, agentic qualities and uniqueness of talents (i.e., they can easily be replaced). Others likely minimize the...
References: Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119. Barnes, R. (2008 November 14). Palin shares the stage with her GOP peers. Washington Post (p. A06). Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Bartky, S. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge Press. Chiao, J. Y., Bowman, N. E., & Gill, H. (2008). The political gender gap: Gender bias in facial inferences that predict voting behavior. PLoS ONE, 3(10), e3666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003666. Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectiﬁcation theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. Fredrickson, B., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectiﬁcation, restrained eating and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–274. Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body objectiﬁcation and ‘‘fat talk”: Effects of emotion, motivation and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377–388. Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low and high status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389–395. Goldenberg, J. L., & Roberts, T. (2004). The beauty within the beast: An existential perspective on the objectiﬁcation and condemnation of women. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 71–85). New York: Guilford. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Reynolds, C., & Wilson, S. (2007). Dehumanization: A new perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 409–422. doi:10.1111/ j.1751-9004.2007.00030.x. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 202–212.
N.A. Heﬂick, J.L. Goldenberg / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 598–601 Isikoff, M., & Smalley, S. (2008, October 25). Not the change they wanted. Retrieved 03.12.08. Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 108–122. Loughnan, S., & Haslam, N. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. Michela, J. L. (1991). Within person correlational design and analysis. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 279–311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paladino, M. P., Vaes, J. (in press). Ours is human: On the pervasiveness of infrahumanisation in inter-group relations. British Journal of Social Psychology. Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectiﬁcation on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 59–64. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sex objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. Tancer, R. (2008, September 2). Searching for Palin’s ‘hot photos’. Retrieved 02.12.08.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document