2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-018-0983-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence for an Association between Men’s Spontaneous Objectifying Gazing Behavior and their Endorsement of Objectifying Attitudes toward Women

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
42
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
5
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The descriptive statistics for the four sexual objectification outcome variables were as follows: objectifying avatar ( M = 2.08, SD = 1.56), objectifying task preference ( M = 4.82, SD = 2.27), engagement in objectification ( M = .14, SD = .05), and explicit objectification ( M = 3.37, SD = 0.87). The three behavioral measures of sexual objectification positively correlated with the explicit, self-reported measure (whose construct validity was established in previous research, e.g., Bareket, Kahalon, et al, 2018; Bareket, Shnabel, et al, 2018), r s = .21–.42, p s < .03. This indicates that these behavioral measures (two of them developed for the purpose of this study and used here for the first time) tapped into the construct they were supposed to measure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 61%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The descriptive statistics for the four sexual objectification outcome variables were as follows: objectifying avatar ( M = 2.08, SD = 1.56), objectifying task preference ( M = 4.82, SD = 2.27), engagement in objectification ( M = .14, SD = .05), and explicit objectification ( M = 3.37, SD = 0.87). The three behavioral measures of sexual objectification positively correlated with the explicit, self-reported measure (whose construct validity was established in previous research, e.g., Bareket, Kahalon, et al, 2018; Bareket, Shnabel, et al, 2018), r s = .21–.42, p s < .03. This indicates that these behavioral measures (two of them developed for the purpose of this study and used here for the first time) tapped into the construct they were supposed to measure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Previous researchers reported obtaining good internal consistencies (α = .88 in an Israeli student sample; Bareket, Shnabel, et al, 2018; α = .82 in an Israeli convenience sample; Bareket, Kahalon, et al, 2018; α = .80 in a U.S. MTurk sample; and α = .78 in a German student sample; Kahalon et al, 2019) and test-retest reliability ( r = .88; Curran, 2004) for scores on this questionnaire. The scale’s positive correlations with objectifying gazing behavior provide evidence for predictive validity (Bareket, Shnabel, et al, 2018). Positive correlations with hostile and benevolent sexism, endorsement of sexual double standards, and polarized perceptions of women’s sexuality (i.e., the madonna-whore dichotomy; Bareket, Kahalon, et al, 2018) provide evidence for convergent validity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 3 more Smart Citations