2017
DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2017.1411790
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dehumanizing representations of women: the shaping of hostile sexist attitudes through animalistic metaphors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
1
4

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
25
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…As in Disney films, associations with animals draw on "primal fears" that heighten the dangers animals can pose (Bell 1995, p. 117). This assertion is supported by a study of how animals have links to gender: Women described as predatory (versus prey-like) were more apt to be perceived as unfeminine (Tipler and Ruscher 2019). This finding is also consistent with research showing that men are more likely to identify with animals that are predators rather than prey (Robinson et al 2017).…”
Section: Ehsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…As in Disney films, associations with animals draw on "primal fears" that heighten the dangers animals can pose (Bell 1995, p. 117). This assertion is supported by a study of how animals have links to gender: Women described as predatory (versus prey-like) were more apt to be perceived as unfeminine (Tipler and Ruscher 2019). This finding is also consistent with research showing that men are more likely to identify with animals that are predators rather than prey (Robinson et al 2017).…”
Section: Ehsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Assuming a medium effect size for the hypothesised interaction of microaggressions x minority status on global life satisfaction, and using the following parameters -effect size (f) = .30, α = .05, power = .80 -it was found that 90 participants would be sufficient for adequate power. These power calculations were based on assumptions used in a large volume of research across a variety of disciplines, including social psychology, that reached the similar conclusions concerning the number of participants required to find the hypothesised interaction effect (see, e.g., Dowd et al, 2014;Gothe & McAuley, 2016;Hadjichristidis, Geipel, & Surian, 2017;Mackillop, Goldenson, Kirkpatrick, & Leventhal, 2018;Tipler & Ruscher, 2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Across gender, animal metaphors are associated with dehumanization (Haslam, Loughnan, & Sun, 2011) and social exclusion (Andrighetto, Riva, Gabbiadini, & Volpato, 2016), signifying a base and immoral nature, that lacks agency and rationality (Haslam, 2006). When women are animalized they are invariably positioned as creatures of emotion, nature and desire, and inferior to men (Tipler & Ruscher, 2019), with pig and whale metaphors, in particular, signifying depravity (Haslam et al., 2011). Such dehumanization is also associated with the objectification of the female body (Morris, Goldenberg, & Boyd, 2018), and thus self-positioning as animalistic serves to both denigrate the reproductive body and reinforce women’s self-objectification during the premenstrual phase of the cycle.…”
Section: Inhabiting the Abject Premenstrual Bodymentioning
confidence: 99%