See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282847286

Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women

Article  in  Current Directions in Psychological Science · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
53 3,335

2 authors:

Nathan A Heflick Jamie L Goldenberg

University of Lincoln University of South Florida
23 PUBLICATIONS   1,125 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   5,728 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nathan A Heflick on 14 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

531599
research-article2014
CDPXXX10.1177/0963721414531599Heflick, GoldenbergThe Literal Objectification of Women

Current Directions in Psychological

Seeing Eye to Body: The Literal Science

2014, Vol. 23(3) 225­–229
© The Author(s) 2014
Objectification of Women Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963721414531599
cdps.sagepub.com

Nathan A. Heflick1 and Jamie L. Goldenberg2

1
University of Kent and 2University of South Florida

Abstract
Scholars have long argued that women are denied a basic sense of humanness—are objectified—when focus is
directed toward their physical rather than mental qualities. Early research on objectification focused on women’s
self-objectification and measured objectification indirectly (as an emphasis on physical appearance). Recent research,
however, has provided direct evidence that a focus on the physical aspects of women by others causes women to
be perceived like, and act like, objects lacking mind. Manifestations of this literal objectification include attributing
women less of the traits that distinguish people from objects and visual-recognition and neural responses consistent
with nonhuman-object perception. Women themselves also behave more like objects (by, e.g., speaking less) when
they are aware of this focus by others. Real-world implications and ways to defuse literal objectification are discussed.

Keywords
objectification, dehumanization, appearance focus, sexualization

For decades, feminist scholars (e.g., MacKinnon, 1993) perceptions of people, including the self, fall on a con-
have argued that the immense cultural emphasis on tinuum ranging from human to nonhuman; this includes
women’s physical appearance and sexual features under- a continuum from human to object (Gruenfeld, Inesi,
lies their objectification by others. Women then internal- Magee, & Galinsky, 2008; Harris & Fiske, 2009; Haslam,
ize these cultural standards, leading to self-objectification 2006). Building on these perspectives, we define literal
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). For nearly 15 years, objectification as any outcome in which a person is per-
research drawing on objectification theory (Fredrickson ceived as, or behaves, objectlike, relative to humanlike.
& Roberts, 1997) has examined aversive consequences Manifestations of literal objectification include attributing
for women resulting from their focus on their own physi- people less of the traits that distinguish people from
cal appearance. This self-objectification impairs cognitive objects (e.g., warmth, competence), visual and neural
performance, heightens negative affect, restricts eating, markers indicative of perceiving objects relative to peo-
and lessens sexual enjoyment, for instance (see Moradi & ple (e.g., reduced neural activity in the default-mode net-
Huang, 2008). work), and people themselves behaving in more
Recent work on objectification extends this research in objectlike manners (e.g., speaking less).
two key ways. It tests objectification as a direct response Literal objectification is distinct from animal/human
to a focus on women’s physical features by others. And it conceptualizations of dehumanization (Haslam, 2006;
tests objectification more literally—whether women are Leyens et al., 2000). Traits attributed to animals and to
perceived like, and behave like, an object relative to a objects are correlated weakly, if at all (Haslam, Bain,
person (i.e., literal objectification; Goldenberg, 2013; Bastian, Douge, & Lee, 2005). In turn, although women
Nussbaum, 1999)—in response to this interpersonal focus are implicitly associated more with animals than with
on their physical aspects. objects when they are depicted sexually (Vaes, Paladino,

Literal Objectification Corresponding Author:

Nathan A. Heflick, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University
Evidence across several conceptualizations of humanness of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT4 7RL, United Kingdom
(e.g., Leyens et al., 2000) converges in demonstrating that E-mail: n.a.heflick@kent.ac.uk

Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University of Lincoln on September 22, 2015

226 Heflick, Goldenberg
& Puvia, 2011), this is indicative of dehumanization, not
literal objectification. Relatedly, although sexualized
women may be objectified (Loughnan et al., 2010), literal
objectification is not specific to a focus on the body that
is sexual. Lastly, literal objectification differs from holding
negative views of others or the self; traits people perceive
as separating humans from objects can be positive or
negative (Haslam et al., 2005).
Interpersonal Focus on Women’s
Physical Aspects
In their daily experiences (Kozee, Tylka, Augustus-
Horvath, & Denchik, 2007) and in the media (Archer,
Iritani, Kimes, & Barios, 1983), women are subject to dis-
proportionate focus on their physical traits. Scholars have
argued that this underlies women’s objectification. Until
recently, however, empirical research was limited to self-
objectification—and objectification was induced through
or measured as a focus on one’s own appearance (e.g.,
trying on a swimsuit in front of a mirror; Fredrickson,
Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). In the newest
work, researchers have employed several different
manipulations that prompt focus on the physical, relative
to the mental, aspects of others or make women aware of
this focus by others.
Most directly, these manipulations have involved hav-
ing people write about or observe an individual’s physical
appearance in contrast to his or her personality (e.g.,
Heflick, Goldenberg, Cooper, & Puvia, 2011). Using eye-
tracker software, Gervais, Holland, and Dodd (2013)
found that this prompt increased the amount of time men
and women spent looking at women’s body parts (i.e.,
breasts and hips) and decreased the amount of time spent
looking at their faces. Studies in which persons are explic-
itly sexualized, usually via the amount of clothes worn
(e.g., Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein,
2012), also highlight the physical rather than mental
aspects of a person. In addition, studies in which the pro-
portion of people’s bodies relative to their faces is
increased in photos (Loughnan et al., 2010) promote more
physical, less mental, focus in others. Finally, experienc-
ing or recalling prior experiences in which others’ atten-
tion is directed toward one’s body is also consistent with
our operationalization of interpersonal physical focus.
Building on the evidence that women (but typically not
men) experience a myriad of aversive consequences when
focusing on their own physical appearance (see Moradi &
Huang, 2008), we now examine the evidence that inter-
personal focus on women’s physical aspects causes both
men and women to literally objectify women. (But we
acknowledge that a minority of studies have found that
males are similarly objectified; e.g., Loughnan et al., 2010.)
Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University of Lincoln on September 22, 2015
Women Perceived as Objects
Trait attribution
Haslam’s (2006) research has demonstrated that people
perceive traits indicative of human nature to separate
humans from objects. When people are described as low
in human-nature traits (e.g., “How much is this group like
robots?”), they are subsequently rated as more objectlike,
and vice versa (Loughnan, Haslam, & Kashima, 2009). On
this basis, Heflick and Goldenberg (2009) had participants
write about a woman’s physical appearance or about the
woman as a person before rating her on several traits and
rating how essential each trait is to human nature. Within-
person correlations between the perceived typicality of
each trait for the target person and the perceived human-
ness of each trait were less positive when participants
focused on the woman’s appearance. This effect repli-
cated across female targets and was independent of how
positively participants wrote about the woman.
The specific attributes of warmth and competence are
also associated with being a human and not an object
(Harris & Fiske, 2009). Consistent with this, only images of
people perceived as low in warmth and competence (e.g.,
the homeless) fail to elicit brain activation in the medial
prefrontal cortex, an area involved in the recognition and
processing of human faces but not nonhuman objects
(Harris & Fiske, 2006). Building on this, and on research
demonstrating that morality is a component of warmth
(Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007), Heflick et al. (2011)
demonstrated that focusing on a woman’s physical
appearance, in a video or still image, reduces her per-
ceived competence, warmth, and morality. This effect rep-
licated across female targets of varying attractiveness,
status, familiarity, and race (Heflick et al., 2011), but not in
response to comparable male targets. Women are also
rated as less intelligent after people view them with more
of their body showing relative to their face (Loughnan
et  al., 2010) and after people view them in revealing
clothes (Rudman & Borgida, 1995). This is true even when
the women being evaluated are not the women wearing
the revealing clothing (Rudman & Borgida, 1995).
Research into perceptions of “mind” (H. M. Gray, Gray,
& Wegner, 2007) indicates that people believe the mind
has two primary components: agency (ability to think)
and experience (ability to feel). Objects and machines
are attributed less agency and experience than humans
(H. M. Gray et al., 2007). Likewise, women are perceived
to have less agency (K. Gray, Knobe, Sheskin, Bloom, &
Barrett, 2011), as well as fewer thoughts (reason, think-
ing), intentions (wishes, plans), and perceptions (seeing,
hearing), when they are depicted sexually, relative to
when they are depicted as fully clothed (Holland &
Haslam, 2013; Loughnan et al., 2010; but see K. Gray
The Literal Objectification of Women 227
et  al., 2011, for a contradictory finding). They are also
explicitly perceived as having less of a mind (i.e., in
response to an item asking, “How much mind does this
woman have?”; Loughnan et al., 2010). Further, women
wearing bikinis are attributed fewer thoughts, percep-
tions, and intentions when their body is exclusively
shown in a photograph than when their face alone or
their face and body are shown (Loughnan et al., 2010).
Visual processing and recognition
People are less able to recognize images of humans
when they are inverted, but this is not true for objects
(Reed, Stone, Bozova, & Tanaka, 2003). Bernard et al.
(2012) recently illustrated an exception to this finding:
Images of sexualized women (i.e., women wearing swim-
suits) are recognized equally well when inverted and
right side up. This is in contrast to images of men, sexual-
ized or not, and nonsexualized images of women. The
authors reasoned that people focus on specific aspects of
women’s bodies—like they would objects—when women
are sexualized, which impairs configural processing (i.e.,
the connection of distinct features to form a coherent
whole) and subsequent recognition.
Objects are interchangeable (i.e., fungible; Nussbaum,
1999). Consistent with our position, Gervais, Vescio, and
Allen (2012) showed people images of women and men
and then, in a subsequent task, asked them to match the
faces to bodies. Overall, men and women were worse at
matching women’s than men’s faces to their bodies. The
exception was highly muscular male images, presumably
because their muscularity drew attention to their physical
bodies. Similarly, Cikara, Eberhardt, and Fiske (2011)
found that participants were better able to recognize the
bodies, but not the faces, of sexualized women relative to
clothed women or sexualized or clothed men. Men and
women are also more likely to mistake women’s faces for
objects (images created by computers) than men’s faces,
and computer-generated faces are more likely to be mis-
taken for female than male faces (Balas, 2013).
Neural processing
When people read or hear about ways in which humans
are similar to objects, there is reduced activation in a
network of brain regions (i.e., the default-mode network)
that are highly involved in theory-of-mind reasoning
( Jack, Dawson, & Norr, 2013). Part of this network, the
temporoparietal junction, is activated when people read
statements about human minds, but not when they read
statements about a woman’s physical features (e.g., her
height) or about nonhuman objects (e.g., a pot of tea;
Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003). In turn, both likening humans
to objects and focusing on women’s physical traits
Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University of Lincoln on September 22, 2015
reduces neural activity associated with inferring others’
mental traits. Moreover, when males high in hostile sex-
ism view images of scantily dressed, but not fully dressed,
women, this results in reduced activation of the medial
prefrontal cortex (part of the default-mode network),
consistent with neural activity when viewing objects
(Cikara et al., 2011).
Women Behaving as Objects
There is also evidence that when women’s appearance is
focused on by others (male or female), they literally
objectify themselves. Gervais, Vescio, and Allen (2011)
had male and female confederates “ogle” female partici-
pants, gazing at them from face to body as opposed to
gazing at only their face. After the full-body gazing,
women performed less competently on a series of math
problems. Women also become more passive—like
objects—under conditions in which others are focused
on their physical bodies, and they are less willing to pro-
test for women’s rights (Calogero, 2013) when recalling a
past instance of being ogled or receiving sexual com-
ments from a man. Finally, women talk less, such as by
spending less time introducing themselves, when their
body is obviously salient to others (Saguy, Quinn,
Dovidio, & Pratto, 2010).
Supporting a foundational premise of self-objectification
theory (see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), these findings
provide direct empirical evidence that self-objectification
is a response to a focus on women’s physical aspects by
others. Consistent with objectification as literal, women
in these studies (and in previous studies, too; e.g.,
Fredrickson & Harrison, 2005; Fredrickson et al., 1998)
behaved in ways consistent with being an object (e.g.,
restraining their eating and movement).
Real-World Implications
In an experiment conducted weeks prior to the 2008 U.S.
presidential election (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009), par-
ticipants were instructed to write about the Republican
vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, or about her
physical appearance. People reported decreased percep-
tions of Palin’s competence and reduced intentions to
vote for the Republican ticket when they had focused on
Palin’s appearance. Moreover, these effects were attribut-
able to reductions in her perceived humanness (human-
nature ratings). These findings, in conjunction with the
media attention to Palin’s appearance, including cover-
age of her alleged $150,000 makeover, led us to speculate
that literal objectification may have played a role in the
outcome of the election (see Heflick & Goldenberg,
2011). In other research, purported female job applicants
were viewed as less competent by men who had recently
228 Heflick, Goldenberg
viewed images of other women who were scantily
dressed (Rudman & Borgida, 1995), and women per-
formed less well on items from the GRE, a critical factor
for admittance into most graduate schools in the United
States, after being ogled (Gervais et al., 2012).
Further, the moral concern people afford beings (human
or not) is directly attributable to their perception that the
beings have humanlike traits (e.g., H. M. Gray et al., 2007).
Loughnan and colleagues (2010) asked to what extent
people were willing to administer pills that caused pain to
hypothetical targets that had either been sexualized or not.
People were more willing to give the pain-inducing pills to
the sexualized male and female targets. Further, implicit
association of women with object words (e.g., tool) is pre-
dictive of men’s acceptance of sexual aggression toward
women (Rudman & Mescher, 2012). Even playing video
games with sexually depicted female characters increases
men’s acceptance of sexual aggression (Yao, Mahood, &
Linz, 2010). Additionally, when a woman is depicted in a
bikini, men and women show her less moral concern; she
is also more likely to be blamed for a man’s pinning her
down, removing her clothing, and forcing her to have sex
(Loughnan, Pina, Vasquez, & Puvia, 2013). Women them-
selves also assume less moral standing (i.e., they feel more
sinful) when recalling instances of being gazed at sexually
(Chen, Teng, & Zhang, 2013). In turn, women may encoun-
ter risks to their actual physical safety when they are liter-
ally objectified.
Defusing Literal Objectification
Bernard, Gervais, Allen, and Klein (2014) found that
reading descriptions emphasizing female warmth and
competence counteracted the tendency to perceive sexu-
alized women as similar to objects in an image-inversion
recognition task. Portraying women with clear signs of
competence (i.e., trophies) also made people less likely
to gaze at their sexual body parts ( Johnson & Gurung,
2011). In accord with evidence that men with particularly
negative views of women are prone to literal objectifica-
tion (Cikara et al., 2011), one route to defusing literal
objectification could be to promote positive, more human
views of women. Other possible routes include a general
sociocultural de-emphasis on women’s physical features
relative to their mental traits (Heflick & Goldenberg,
2009) and women’s continuing to gain status and power
(Gruenfeld et al., 2008), both of which are associated
with reduced objectification.
Conclusion
A growing body of evidence indicates that when people
focus on women’s physical attributes, women are literally
objectified. The ways in which this objectification is
Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University of Lincoln on September 22, 2015
manifested include people’s attributing women less of
the traits that distinguish people from objects, visual and
neural markers indicative of perceiving objects relative to
people, and women themselves behaving in a more
objectlike manner. In short, “seeing eye to body” causes
women to be perceived, and to behave, more like an
object and less like a human being.
Recommended Reading
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). (See References).
The original formulation of objectification theory, which
sparked nearly all research on self-objectification.
Gervais, S. J. (Ed.). (2013). Objectification and (de)humaniza-
tion: 60th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. New York:
Springer. An edited volume that includes contributions
from scholars researching the objectification of others.
Haslam, N. (2006). (See References). The original formulation
of object-based and animal-based distinctions in dehuman-
ization
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). (See References). A philosophical trea-
tise into what it means to be objectified
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
References
Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D.D., & Barios, M. (1983). Face-
ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 723–735.
Balas, B. (2013). Biological sex determines whether faces look
real. Visual Cognition, 21, 766–788.
Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O.
(2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus
person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypoth-
esis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471.
Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2014). From
sex-objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts
and humanization as antidotes to women’s objectification.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Calogero, R. (2013). Objects don’t object: Evidence that objec-
tification disrupts women’s social activism. Psychological
Science, 24, 312–318.
Chen, Z., Teng, F., & Zhang, H. (2013). Sinful flesh: Sexual
objectification threatens women’s moral self. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1042–1048.
Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to
objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized
targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). Throwing like a girl:
Self-objectification predicts adolescent girls’ motor perfor-
mance. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29, 79–101.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women’s lived experience and men-
tal health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M.,
& Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you:
The Literal Objectification of Women 229
Sex ­ differences in self-objectification, restrained eating,
and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 269–284.
Gervais, S. J., Holland, A., & Dodd, M. (2013). My eyes are up
here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women.
Sex Roles, 69, 557–570.
Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011). When what you
see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying
gaze for men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
35, 5–17.
Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2012). When are people
interchangeable sexual objects? The effect of gender and
body type on sexual fungibility. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 51, 499–513.
Goldenberg, J. L. (2013). Immortal objects: The objectification
of women as terror management. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.),
Motivation perspectives on objectification and (de)human-
ization (pp. 73–95). New York, NY: Springer.
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of
mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. (2011).
More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objec-
tification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101, 1207–1220.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D.
(2008). Power and the objectification of social targets.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127.
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of
the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups.
Psychological Science, 17, 847–853.
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social neuroscience evidence
for dehumanised perception. European Review of Social
Psychology, 20, 192–231.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Bastian, B., Douge, L., & Lee, M. (2005).
More human than you: Attributing humanness to the self
and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89, 228–235.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah
Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be
perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598–601.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2011). Sarah Palin, a nation
object(ifie)s: The role of appearance focus in the 2008 U.S.
presidential election. Sex Roles, 65, 149–155.
Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011).
From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender,
and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581.
Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2013). Worth the weight: The objec-
tification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 37, 462–468.
Jack, A. I., Dawson, A. J., & Norr, M. E. (2013). Seeing human:
Distinct and overlapping neural signatures associated with
two forms of dehumanization. NeuroImage, 79, 313–328.
Johnson, V., & Gurung, R. (2011). Defusing the objectification
of women by other women: The role of competence. Sex
Roles, 65, 177–188.
Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com at University of Lincoln on September 22, 2015
View publication stats
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. T., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik,
A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of
the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group vir-
tue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and soci-
ality) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.
Leyens, J. P., Paladino, M. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Vaes, J.,
Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000).
The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of second-
ary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Understanding
the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-
based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12, 747–762.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C.,
& Suitner, C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonali-
zation: The denial of mind and moral concern to objec-
tified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
709–717.
Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual
objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases
perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37,
455–461.
MacKinnon, C. (1993). Only words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory
and psychology of women: A decade of advances and
future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,
377–398.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York, NY:
Oxford Press.
Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The
body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 4, 302–308.
Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct
accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men
to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 31, 493–517.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects:
Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual
aggression. Personalty and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38,
734–746.
Saguy, T., Quinn, D. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2010).
Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to
narrow their presence in social interactions. Psychological
Science, 21, 178–182.
Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about think-
ing people: The role of the temporo-parietal junction in
“theory of mind.” NeuroImage, 19, 1835–1842.
Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women
complete human beings? Why men and women dehuman-
ize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 774–785.
Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming,
gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass:
Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-
explicit video game. Sex Roles, 62, 77–88.