Revealing Clothing Does Not Make the Object: ERP Evidences That Cognitive Objectification is Driven by Posture Suggestiveness, Not by Revealing Clothing

Abstract

Recent research found that sexualized bodies are visually processed similarly to objects. This article examines the effects of skin-to-clothing ratio and posture suggestiveness on cognitive objectification. Participants were presented images of upright versus inverted bodies while we recorded the N170. We used the N170 amplitude inversion effect (larger N170 amplitudes for inverted vs. upright stimuli) to assess cognitive objectification, with no N170 inversion effect indicating less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, skin-to-clothing ratio was not associated with cognitive objectification (Experiments 1-3). However, consistent with Hypothesis 2, we found that posture suggestiveness was the key driver of cognitive objectification (Experiment 2), even after controlling for body asymmetry (Experiment 3). This article showed that high (vs. low) posture suggestiveness caused cognitive objectification (regardless of body asymmetry), whereas high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratio did not. The implications for objectification and body perception literatures are discussed.

Measuring objectification through the Body Inversion Paradigm: Methodological issues

“…Therefore, it is crucial to continue studying this phenomenon, but with different methods and measures. For instance, a promising way to assess sexual objectification comes from studies investigating it at the neurophysiological level (e.g., [48,83,84]). In particular, empirical research has pointed to the N170, which is a negative amplitude Event Related Potential evoked by visual stimuli at occipitotemporal regions, approximately 140 to 200 ms after stimulus onset.…”

“…Moreover, the amplitude of N170 has been shown to be increased for images of bodies presented upside down, as compared to upright but, interestingly, this increase in amplitude did not emerge for objects [86]. Recently, Bernard and colleagues [48,83,84] showed that non-sexualized bodies presented larger N170 amplitudes when viewed upside-down than in upright positions, whereas bodies with sexually suggestive posturer failed to evoke a stronger N170 response when presented upside-down. This result suggests that the amplitude of the inversion in N170 might be a useful signal that stimuli are processed configurally.…”

“…Alongside results showing that the inversion effect for female photos is increased by stimulus alterations aimed at decreasing sexualization ( [5], Study 2; but see [27]) and by individuating instructions ( [5], Study 3), other evidence shows that even objects with a human shape suffer inversion effects [41]. Given its potential theoretical importance as a proof that sexualized women are not just perceived like objects in a metaphorical way but as objects at the cognitive level, and given its possible utility as a measure of objectification, we aim to replicate Bernard et al's study and analyze the role of asymmetry in their materials, which was claimed to be a critical issue but never demonstrated as such ( [27,28,41]; but see [48]). Moreover, we aim to investigate the role of social variables thought to affect objectification.…”

Why Is Sexualization Dehumanizing? The Effects of Posture Suggestiveness and Revealing Clothing on Dehumanization

“…globally whereas they rely on a more local, piecemeal processing when viewing images of sexualized bodies and ordinary objects, and this cognitive objectification occurs at both neural (e.g., Bernard, Content, Deltenre, & Colin, 2018;Bernard, Hanoteau et al, 2018;Bernard, Rizzo et al, 2018) and behavioral levels (Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2015;Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2012;Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Delmée, & Klein, 2015;Civile & Obhi, 2016). In accordance with feminist scholars who posited that objectification is related to a reduction of others to their sexual body parts (e.g., Bartky, 1990), this line of research shows that sexualized bodies are cognitively reduced to their parts akin to objects (for a review, see .…”

“…Fasoli et al (2018) found that the women in the sexualized revealing condition were perceived more as sexual objects in comparison with the women in the revealing condition, followed by the women in the nonrevealing condition, thereby suggesting that people perceive women as being sexual objects to a greater extent when targets are both wearing revealing clothing and displaying suggestive postures. In a related manner, another recent study manipulated revealing clothing and posture suggestiveness while assessing the neural correlates of the early visual processing of sexualized people (Bernard, Hanoteau, et al, 2018). Specifically, the authors manipulated revealing clothing and posture suggestiveness and examined whether revealing clothing, posture suggestiveness, or both cause bodies to be processed less configurally and more analytically, that is, similarly to the way most objects are perceived (Maurer, Le Grand, & Mondloch, 2002).…”