Measuring objectification through the Body Inversion Paradigm: Methodological issues

Abstract

Objectification occurs when a person is perceived and/or treated like an object. With the present work, we overview the available measures of objectification and present a series of studies aimed at investigating the validity of the task of inverted body recognition proposed by Bernard and colleagues (2012), which might potentially be a useful cognitive measure of objectification. We conducted three studies. Study 1 (N = 101) is a direct replication of Bernard et al.'s study: participants were presented with the same photos of sexualized male and female targets used in the original research. Study 2a (N = 100) is a conceptual replication: we used different images of scantily dressed male and female models. Finally, in Study 2b (N = 100), we investigated a boundary condition by presenting to participants photos of the same models as in Study 2a, but fully dressed and non-sexualized. Using mixed-effects models for completely-crossed classified data structures, we investigated the relationship between the inversion effect and the stimulus' asymmetry, sexualization and attractiveness, and the perceivers' self-objectification, sexism, and automatic woman-human association. Study 1 replicated the original results, showing a stronger inversion effect for male photos. However, no difference between male and female stimuli emerged in either Study 2a or 2b. Moreover, the impact of the other variables on the inversion effect was highly unstable across the studies. These aspects together indicate that the inversion effect depends on the specific set of stimuli and limits the generalizability of results collected using this method. Measuring objectification through the inversion paradigm: Methodological issues On first approach, the meaning of objectification is straightforward: It refers to all circumstances under which a person is treated like an object [1]. Under these circumstances, the person may be denied autonomy and subjectivity, considered instrumental, fungible, violable, ownable by others [1] reduced to body and appearance, or silenced [2]. Over the last decade, many empirical and theoretical works have addressed the phenomenon of objectification and, more specifically, of sexual objectification, which is also the focus of the present work. Nevertheless, we still need to solve important issues, the most important of which is probably how to methodologically address this phenomenon (see [3]).

A Systematic Literature Review Exploring Objectification and Motherhood

“…For example, other-objectification has been assessed using the body inversion paradigm that asks participants to identify upright and inverted images of sexualized and non-sexualized men and women (e.g., Bernard et al, 2012). Measures that assess the accuracy or speed of implicit associations (that pair pictures of women with words representing the categories of human, e.g., “culture,” vs. animal, e.g., “snout”; Puvia & Vaes, 2012) are also increasingly common, and a growing body of evidence shows that these findings are well replicated (e.g., Zogmaister et al, 2020). Of note, a small body of literature exploring implicit self-objectification also exists (see Dryden & Anderson, 2019; Morris et al, 2014).…”

Making heads or tails of body inversion effects: Do heads matter?

“…Previous studies have found an effect of gender of the stimuli with an absence of a BIE with sexualised female bodies, which they interpreted as showing that female bodies are less configurally processed or “objectified” [e.g., 22 ]. However, cautions have been raised such as the task being mirror reversal rather than visual processing of bodies [see 23 , 24 ]. More recently, Cazzato et al [ 25 ] found no effect of participant gender and found BIEs for both female and male stimuli, but with better processing of inverted male bodies.…”

The Sexual OBjectification and EMotion database: A free stimulus set and norming data of sexually objectified and non-objectified female targets expressing multiple emotions

“…This study has been questioned due to the use of non-standardized and controlled target stimuli. Indeed, the original stimuli seemed to differ in the amount of asymmetry in body postures not only between male and female targets, but also between the inverted and upright female targets influencing the outcome of the experiment in the expected direction (Schmidt & Kistemaker, 2015;Tarr, 2013;Zogmaister et al, 2020). Even though the sexualized body inversion effect has been replicated with other stimuli, these debates could be avoided introducing a set of standardized pictorial stimuli.…”