In Study 1, our goal was to examine the correlations between men and women participants ’ dominance motivation and their tendency to sexually objectify the other sex. We hypothesized that men ’ mho tendency to sexually objectify women would positively correlate with their dominance motivation, as measured by their SDO. We did not expect the equate correlation to occur among women.
Results and Discussion
Missing values were as follows : intimate objectification of other gender ( 0 participants ; 0 % ) and social dominance predilection ( 12 participants, 8 % ). short ’ south ( 1988 ) Missing wholly at Random ( MCAR ) screen statistic indicated that missing data were randomly distributed, χ2 ( 1 ) = 0.02, p = .897 ( Graham, 2009 ; Schafer & Graham, 2002 ). In cable with Hypothesis 1, men ’ mho leaning to sexually objectify women ( M = 2.71, SD = 0.46 ) significantly correlated with their SDO ( M = 3.37, SD = 1.23 ), r ( 69 ) = .34, p = .004, 95 % CI [ .11, .53 ]. By contrast, women ’ south tendency to sexually objectify men ( M = 2.52, SD = 0.45 ) did not significantly correlate with their SDO ( M = 2.82, SD = 1.19 ), r ( 73 ) = .07, p = .559, 95 % CI [ −.16, .30 ]. We used Fisher ’ s r -to- z transformation to test for gender differences in this correlation coefficient. As expected, the correlation coefficient between SDO and intimate objectification of early gender was significantly larger for men than it was for women, z = 1.66, p = .048. These results are in full consistent with our theorize.
In Study 2a, we aimed to strengthen the causal inference about the link between men ’ s dominance motivation and their sexual objectification of women by using an experimental purpose. We tested the prediction that men who are high on SDO would respond to threats to their dominance over women by showing increase date in women ’ s sexual objectification. We led men participants to believe that they were going to work in a couple with a woman partner via a computer-based undertaking. After completing a measure of their SDO and a questionnaire that apparently assessed certain leadership traits, participants received bogus feedback that constituted the experimental manipulation : In the threat-to-dominance condition, we assigned participants to work ampere subordinates to their ( fabricated ) womanhood collaborator, allegedly based on the participant ’ s lower scores on the leadership questionnaire relative to his partner. therefore, we manipulated the relative stead of the player compared to his partner, implying that she had better leadership skills than him. We further told participants that their woman spouse would be the boss and direct the work process, whereas they would have no control over the way the exploit is performed, evaluated, and rewarded. In the control/no-threat circumstance, we told participants that they would perform the lapp task as their woman spouse, with whom they would work in cooperation. This blueprint allowed to isolate the effect on men ’ second betrothal in intimate objectification that stems from a threat to their dominance relative to a womanhood, from the potential effect on this consequence due to merely having an interaction with a woman—which may arouse a sexually-based motivation to engage in sexual objectification ( for a alike experimental design, which compared hierarchical vs. equality-based dyads, see Schaerer, du Plessis, Yap, & Thau, 2018 ). After the appointment to one of the two experimental conditions, and before measuring our result variable ( women ’ sulfur sexual objectification ), we measured participants ’ mood—to rule it out as an alternative explanation. Being hyponym to others could cause negative involve ( Berdahl & Martorana, 2006 ), and betrothal in women ’ mho sexual objectification may serve as a entail for emotion regulation ( because it could be enjoyable or distracting ). consistent with this possibility, Dahl and colleagues ( 2015 ) reported that the experience of anger following a masculinity threat increased men ’ s sexualization of women ( so possibly women ’ randomness sexualization served as a mean to distract from this negative emotional experience ). Yet, in course with our theorizing that women ’ sulfur intimate objectification functions to reassert men ’ mho dominance ( preferably than merely regulate their temper ), we expected the predict effect on objectification of threat to high-SDO participants ’ dominance over women to persist tied when controlling for climate. finally, we measured participants ’ sexual objectification of women. Because women ’ s intimate objectification manifests in many ways ( for example, the second of objectifying attitudes vs. the act of an depersonalize gaze ; Bareket, Shnabel, et al., 2018 ), we aimed to capture this multifaceted construct by using diverse measures ( for example, referring specifically to the objectification of the collaborator vs. to women in general ; referring to attitudes toward objectification vs. actual gazing demeanor ). therefore, besides the denotative, self-report quantify that we used in Study 1, we used three implicit behavioral measures of sexual objectification ( specified in the Method part ). Including such measures is important because explicit self-reports are influenced by social desirability concerns, particularly when referring to socially sensitive issues ( Dovidio & Fazio, 1992 ) —such as women ’ mho sexual objectification. furthermore, people have limited introspective awareness and much parade behaviors that officiate without their wide awareness or see ( Greenwald & Banaji, 1995 ). We expected men in the threat-to-dominance condition to exhibit a greater tendency to sexually objectify women than men in the control condition. Yet, coherent with research on elusive ways of laterality reassertion ( for example, Halabi et al., 2008 ), we expected this effect to be particularly pronounced, or even to occur lone among men high on SDO, who are motivated to maintain the existing gender hierarchy. This prediction is reproducible with findings that backlash responses against women were exacerbated and sometimes observed only among participants high on SDO ( Fowers & Fowers, 2010 ; Maass et al., 2003 ). We far expected the bode Condition × SDO interaction to persist when controlling for participants ’ mood.
Using on-line ads, we recruited 117 heterosexual men undergraduates of a big Israeli university to take partially in a psychological analyze in exchange for 20 NIS ( about US $ 5 ). While actual sample size was determined by feasibility considerations ( numeral of participants who could be recruited over the class of one academic year ), it is noteworthy that a post hoc power analysis using the G*Power calculator ( choosing “ linear multiple regression : fixed exemplar, R 2 increase ” from the “ F tests ” class ) revealed that given the design of the study, its obtained sample size, and a 5 % significance degree ( biased ), we had adequate statistical power ( 90 % ) to detect small-to-medium effect sizes ( f 2 = .09 ). We excluded five participants from analysis : one for failing a manipulation check ( he did not identify correctly his assign function in the dyadic undertaking ) and four outliers with extreme responses ( studentized residuals > 3 ; see McClelland, 2002 ). 4 This left 112 participants, M historic period = 26.20, SD = 3.12, range = 18–35 years previous. The sample was demographically divers in terms of marital status : 60 ( 54 % ) single, 43 ( 38 % ) in a kinship, and 9 ( 8 % ) married. The majority of participants reported Hebrew as their native terminology, 108 ( 96 % ) ; the rest reported Russian, 4 ( 4 % ).
Procedure and Materials
We invited participants to the lab to take depart in a study that ( apparently ) examined decision make and work roles within organizations. Participants came to the lab in a prescheduled fourth dimension. A woman research assistant ( RA ) told them that they were going to work in a couple via a calculator based-task with another player who is presently in a nearby lab. The RA then led them to a private cubelike where they completed the study ( all the discipline ’ second materials were computerized ). To bolster the embrace narrative, the RA pretended to call another lab to verify that the other participant is quick to start working on the joint job. The study took approximately 20 minutes to complete, and it consisted of three parts. The beginning separate included a bowdlerize measure of SDO 5 ( α = .71, M = 3.12, SD = 1.08 ) and the experimental manipulation. The handling was based on the hierarchical character manipulation that is used in the sociable baron ( for example, Anderson & Berdahl, 2002 ; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003 ) and gender relations ( for example, Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012 ) literatures, with two adjustments. First, the handling typically used in the social power literature compares between two hierarchical conditions : one in which participants have less might than their partner and one in which participants have more power than their partner. In Study 2a, however, we compared between a hierarchical condition in which participants had less power than their partner and an equality-based stipulate in which participants had the same ability as their collaborator ( see Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012 ; Kunstman, Fitzpatrick, & Smith, 2017 ; Schaerer et al., 2018 ). second, experiments in the gender relations literature typically manipulate the spouse ’ s level of agency ( eminent vs. depleted ), whereas we manipulated the partner ’ s proportional placement compared to the player, without providing information about the collaborator ’ s absolute grade of agency ( for example, participants did not know whether their partner was assigned to be the “ foreman ” because she was particularly eminent on leadership or because they were particularly first gear on it ). As separate of the manipulation, participants assigned to the threat-to-dominance condition completed a questionnaire ( adapted from Williams, Gruenfeld, & Guillory, 2017 ), in which they had to indicate whether they have ever held a leadership position, concisely describe their leadership feel, and rate themselves across several traits ( for example, meek, dependent ). The function of this questionnaire was to leash participants to believe that we assessed their aptitude for a leadership function and that the subsequent grant to roles of boss and hyponym is based on this judgment. Participants in the control condition completed a questionnaire in which they had to indicate whether they had ever worked in a team, briefly describe their teamwork have, and rate themselves across respective traits ( for example, messy, buoyant ). following, participants completed the second depart of the sketch, in which we informed them that they would be randomly partnered with another participant to perform an approaching dyadic computer-based tax. In the threat-to-dominance condition, we further told participants that the undertaking requires an assignment to hierarchal roles of knob and dependent and that function grant would be determined by the relative scores of the participant and his collaborator on the leadership questionnaire. In reality, we assigned all participants to the subordinate function, and they learned that their women spouse would be their party boss. Disguised among filler questions about the partner ’ second name and age, we included a handling determine to verify that participants correctly identified their partner ’ second character and sex ( all participants learned that their collaborator was a charwoman ). then, participants read the job ’ s instructions ( adapted from Galinsky et al., 2003 ; full moon protocols are available at osf.io/agx3f ), which stated that the bos would direct the influence procedure and evaluate their work and that this evaluation would determine how much bonus money they would receive at the end of the tax. In the control discipline, we told participants that the undertaking required concerted teamwork with another player. After verifying that they correctly identified their partner ’ south role and sex ( as in the menace condition, all participants had a womanhood partner ), participants read the tax ’ sulfur instructions which stated that both the player and his partner would direct the bring process together and receive an adequate sum of bonus money at the end of the job. then, participants in both conditions filled out a 5-item adapted adaptation of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ( PANAS ; Thompson, 2007 ), rat the extent to which they felt diverse emotions ( for example, irritated ) on a scale from 1 ( not at all ) to 5 ( very much ). We reversed the items that denote negative emotions and averaged all items such that higher scores indicated a more positivist mood, α = .68, M = 3.75, SD = 0.62. As a handling check, participants indicated the extent to which they felt solid, influential, and agentic. We averaged these 3 items such that lower scores indicated less power, α = .82, M = 3.54, SD = 0.80. next, we measured participants ’ sexual objectification of women using four different measures. In the first quantify ( developed by Dahl et al., 2015 ), we assessed participants ’ tendency to sexually objectify their woman spouse in the joint tax, by asking them to choose an avatar to represent their charwoman collaborator, apparently in order to aid communication throughout the dyadic undertaking. The avatars of choice were all of the lapp women digit so far with different invest that varied in terms of hide exposure : from 0 ( least exposure, for example, a perspirer ) through 5 ( extreme exposure, for example, a bikini top ). Choosing an avatar with a more revealing equip indicated a higher level of sexual objectification ( we refer to this quantify as Objectifying Avatar ). Afterward, while the calculator purportedly synchronized the connection between them and their woman partner, we directed participants to a part of the survey that was allegedly unrelated to the early parts. In this part of the sketch, we told participants that they were going to perform a job and to complete a questionnaire in homework for the dyadic tax ( see Galinsky et al., 2003, for a similar cover history ). We emphasized to participants that this separate of the study would be done independently ( with no relation back to their spouse in the dyadic tax ). actually, this contribution included the early three measures of intimate objectification that assessed a cosmopolitan tendency to sexually objectify women. The first separate involved a photograph-ranking task—which served as an implicit behavioral measure of sexual objectification. Adapted from Forbes and Schmader ’ s ( 2010 ) “ mathematics motivation task, ” participants ’ tax was to determine, for a series pair of photograph, which is more beautiful. For this determination, they first rated their preference of photography topics, from 1 ( prefer not to rank at all ) to 8 ( most want to rank ), out of a number that included landscapes, food, historic events, artwork pieces, animals, furniture, cars, and—most importantly for our purposes—magazine photograph of women ’ mho bodies in swimsuits. A higher predilection for rate the women-in-swimsuits photography subject indicated a greater inclination to sexually objectify women ( we refer to this measuring stick as the Objectifying Task Preference ). following, participants actually ranked the photograph. The eight photography topics appeared in a random order ( unrelated to participants ’ preferences ) ; for each topic, there was one couple of photograph. We sampled all photograph from Internet advertisements and standardized them for image size. The percentage of time that participants devoted to looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ sulfur bodies in swimsuits out of the total sum of time they spent on the photograph-ranking job served as an extra behavioral quantify of intimate objectification ( we refer to this measuring stick as betrothal in Objectification ). Since the aim photograph included alone the bodies ( but not the faces ) of women in swimsuits, this quantify is similar to the behavioral measure of objectification that is used in eye tracking research ( e.g., Bareket, Shnabel, et al., 2018 ), in which researchers assess men ’ s sexually objectifying gaze as the sum of fourth dimension they devote to the ocular inspection of women ’ randomness bodies. finally, participants completed the Men ’ s Sexual Objectification of Women measure ( see Study 1 ; Curran, 2004 ), using a 7-point scale, α = .85 ( we refer to this standard as Explicit Objectification ). Upon completion of this measure, we told participants that the dyadic job ( purportedly the one-third part of the study ) was canceled due to synchronization problems and that both of them ( the player and his charwoman partner ) would get the requital for the experiment as planned, deoxyadenosine monophosphate well as half of the bonus total, for an extra 5 NIS ( about US $ 1 ). Participants then completed a short demographic questionnaire. finally, they responded to an open-ended wonder, included to probe for misgiving, in which we encouraged them to write their comments about the experiment. none of the participants expressed strong suspicions about the survey ’ s aim or about whether their collaborator existed. Upon completion, we thanked and debriefed the participants.
The results of Study 2a partially supported Hypothesis 2. specifically, under a terror to their dominance over women, namely, when we assigned them to be subordinated to a womanhood knob ( vs. work with a woman teammate ), men who were high on SDO endorsed more explicitly objectifying attitudes ( for example, the impression that commenting on women ’ s bodies is natural ) and spent more time engaging in an objectifying task of looking at and ranking photograph of sexually exteriorize women targets ( women ’ sulfur bodies in swimsuits ). inconsistent with our predictions, however, the menace to men ’ randomness dominance over women did not have a meaning consequence on high-SDO participants ’ choice of a sexually objectifying embodiment ( i.e., a human body with more reveal clothes ) and predilection to engage in an exteriorize tax ( i.e., preference to rank photograph of women ’ south bodies in swimsuits as compared to other photography topics ). In hindsight, we suspect that these unexpected results stemmed from limitations of these two particular measures. The Objectifying Avatar measure, in which we presented participants with avatars wearing clothing with varying degrees of coverage, was developed in the United States ( by Dahl et al., 2015 ). Yet the same clothes convey different signals in different cultures ( Argyle, 2013 ). Hence, Dahl and colleagues ’ ( 2015 ) bill might have been unsuited to measure objectification among israeli participants, whose culture has a well different dress code than american participants ( for example, due to the warm climate or a general preference for cozy clothing ; Almog, 2015 ). As for the Objectifying Task Preference measure, which we developed and used in Study 2a for the beginning time : We suspect that participants ’ preferences might have been influenced by early factors ( for example, being athirst might have affected the predilection for ranking photograph of food ) that obscured the effect of the experimental manipulation. ascribable to these retrospective insights, in the next studies ( Studies 2b and 3 ), we refrained from farther using these measures. notably, as seen in Figure 1, even though it reached significance in lone two of them, the general model of results was coherent across all four measures. As for Engagement in Objectification, although the results for this measure were in line with predictions, a limit of this measure is that it included lone a single pair of photograph ( to avoid respondents ’ fatigue duty ). current recommendations, however, are to include multiple stimuli ( Judd, Westfall, & Kenny, 2012 ). however, we used it as is in the subsequent studies for the sake of consistency. That the Engagement in Objectification measure was moderately correlated with the Explicit Objectification measure strengthened our confidence in its concept cogency. Besides the predict increase in battle in objectification among high-SDO participants in the threat-to-dominance condition, there was an unexpected course in the opposite management among low-SDO participants, who showed lower levels of objectification in the terror versus control condition. specifically, participants depleted on SDO spent significantly less time on looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ second bodies in swimsuits ( compared to the time spent on the other photograph ) when subordinated to a charwoman knob ( vs. working with a woman teammate ). A exchangeable swerve, albeit not significant, can be observed for the early measures of objectification. This course is consistent with previous findings that individuals who are low on SDO sometimes actively disapprove culturally available ideologies and practices whose function is to reinforce the existing hierarchy ( quite than plainly adopt these hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and practices to a lesser extent than high-SDO individuals ). For model, low-SDO individuals sometimes engage in corporate carry through in solidarity with subordinate group members to promote group-based equality ( Saeri, Iyer, & Louis, 2015 ). possibly, because individuals with lower SDO are motivated to promote equality ( Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998 ), they perceived the position of being subordinated to a woman knob in a positive light, namely as implying a guarantee change in the existing social hierarchy rather than as a menace. Their reply may have reflected their increase efforts to further advance this change by reducing their engagement in sexually objectifying women. This explanation is conceptually coherent with findings that men who were low on sexism provided less dependency-oriented avail to women than to men—thus exhibiting an opposite behavioral traffic pattern, preferably than the lapp form however weaker—than men who were high on sexism ( Shnabel, Bar-Anan, Kende, Bareket, & Lazar, 2016 ). obviously, men who support gender equality actively reject the dominant allele behaviors prescribed by patriarchal ideology and are motivated to behave in ways that defy patriarchal arrangements. overall, Study 2a provides preliminary attest that a threat to men ’ sulfur laterality over women may increase the leaning to sexually objectify women among men who support social hierarchy. As such, it complements Study 1, which focused on the link between men ’ s dispositional laterality motivation and tendency to sexually objectify women, by examining the effect on objectification of situationally induced laterality motivation. Besides its contribution to internal validity ( by strengthening causal inference ), the handling that we used in Study 2a extends the generalizability of our conclusions by examining actual behavior in a realistic set that simulates a real-life interaction. furthermore, the impression of a terror to men ’ randomness laterality over women on objectification among high-SDO men persisted even when controlling for mood, allowing to rule out temper regulation as an alternative explanation. This find supports our theorize that ( some ) men may attempt to reassert their dominance through sexually objectifying women. The main findings of Study 2a are consistent with backfire hypothesis ( for a review, see Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, & Phelan, 2012 ), as they demonstrate that the intimate objectification of women functions as a backfire response to situations that challenge the sex hierarchy. true, our operationalization was slightly different than the operationalization typically used in backlash inquiry. Backlash researchers ( for example, Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012 ) conceptualize backlash as the negative reactions ( i.e., sociable and economic penalties ) directed toward women who behave counter-stereotypically ( e.g., women who exhibit high means and thus violate proscriptive norms about how women should not act ). In the present research, we conceptualized backlash as the negative reactions to a exchange in the traditional might relations between men and women ( see Faludi, 1992 ). Despite this little deviation in approaches, backlash researchers ( Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, & Phelan, 2012 ) do identify the preservation of social hierarchies as a chief motive for backlash—in course with the conceptualization and operationalization we used in the show study. The fact that the threat-to-dominance-over-women effect on sexual objectification occurred merely among men high on SDO is besides coherent with backfire hypothesis, which predicts greater recoil among people who more powerfully endorse the sex condition quo ( Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012 ).
In Study 2b, we tested whether high-SDO women would respond to being subordinated to a man foreman by sexually objectifying men. Based on Study 1 ’ s finding that women ’ mho SDO was not associated with their tendency to sexually objectify men, we did not expect to find the effect obtained on Study 2a. We reasoned that a direct test of this nothing hypothesis would be valuable—because if an effect corresponding to that found in Study 2a would have been found, it would undermine our theoretical explanation. Using a like routine to that used in Study 2a, the participants of Study 2b were women, whom we led to believe that they were going to work in a couple with a man partner. After completing a measurement of their SDO and a bogus personality questionnaire that apparently assesses leadership traits, we assigned them to work either as subordinates to or as teammates with their valet collaborator. then, we measured their intimate objectification of men using the Engagement in Objectification bill. As explained above, we refrained from using the baffling Objectifying Avatar and Objectifying Task Preference measures again. We besides refrained from using the Explicit Objectification measure because we were concerned that its blatant nature would impair the dependability of our binding story—which was specially authoritative because the cogitation was conducted online preferably than in the lab ( see below ).
Using on-line ads, we recruited 129 heterosexual women undergraduates of a large Israeli university to take function in a psychological study in exchange for 20 NIS ( about US $ 5 ). We aimed for a sample of about the like size as in Study 2a. Two outliers with extreme responses ( studentized residuals > 3 ) were excluded ( McClelland, 2002 ). 7 This left 127 participants, M old age = 23.85, SD = 2.96, range = 19–36 years old. The sample was demographically diverse in terms of marital condition : 67 ( 53 % ) one, 42 ( 33 % ) in a relationship, and 18 ( 14 % ) married. The majority of participants reported Hebrew as their native speech, 119 ( 94 % ) ; the stay reported Arabic, 5 ( 4 % ) ; russian, 2 ( 1 % ) ; or other, 1 ( 1 % ).
Procedure and Measures
The routine was identical to that of Study 2a, except for the follow changes : ( a ) To minimize social desirability consequence, participants conducted the experiment from their family ( without a face-to-face interaction with an experimenter ) in a prescheduled time. A couple of minutes anterior to the time in which the experiment was scheduled to begin, the experimenter called the player to verify that she and the other ( assumed ) player were on-line and ready to begin ( the real function of this call was to increase the dependability of the cover history, according to which they should work with a partner ) ; ( b ) the collaborator ’ south sex in the dyadic tax was a man ; and ( hundred ) the dependent variable was ( only ) battle in objectification—namely the percentage of time that the player devoted to looking at and ranking photograph of men ’ sulfur bodies in swimsuits, out of the total sum of clock time they spent on the photograph-ranking job. Upon completion, we encouraged participants to write their comments about the experiment in an open-ended interrogate ( none of the participants expressed strong suspicions ) and then thanked and debriefed them.
All participants correctly identified the function to which we assigned them, arsenic well as their partner ’ randomness gender. As for the manipulation check ( α = .84 ), an independent samples t -test revealed that, as intended, participants felt weak in the threat ( M = 2.96, SD = 0.94 ) compared to the control condition ( M = 3.41, SD = 0.84 ), t ( 125 ) = 2.87, p = .005, d = .51.
Engagement in Objectification
We conducted a hierarchical multiple arrested development analysis with Engagement in Objectification ( M = .14, SD = 0.05 ) as the consequence variable ( standardized ). The predictors were SDO ( standardized ; α = .70, M = 3.01, SD = 0.97 ), condition ( dummy coded ), and their bipartisan interaction. We entered SDO and condition in the foremost block and added the bipartisan interaction in the second gear block. The effects of condition and SDO were non-significant, βs < .04, p s > .752. Most importantly, the Condition × SDO bipartisan interaction was non-significant, β = −.06, t ( 123 ) = −0.52, p = .602. In lineage with recommendations to quantify the testify in favor of the nothing hypothesis using bayesian hypothesis test ( Kruschke, 2015 ; Wagenmakers et al., 2018 ), we performed bayesian linear regression using the JASP statistical software. bayesian analyses provide a Bayes factor ( BF ) that denotes the weight of evidence provided by the data for competing hypotheses. As such, BFs can indicate how strongly the data documentation either the nothing hypothesis ( BF01 ; representing the absence of a significant effect ) or the alternative hypothesis ( BF10 ; representing the presence of a significant effect ). BF scores can be computed for both the nothing and the alternate guess. BF01 scores smaller than 1, between 1 and 3, and higher than 3 designate no evidence, anecdotic evidence, and solid testify in favor of the nothing hypothesis ( H. Jeffreys, 1961 ; see besides Wagenmakers et al., 2018 ). In the bayesian analogue regression, we compared the null model, which included the two chief effects of circumstance and SDO, to a model with the two chief effects ( condition, SDO ) and the Condition × SDO two-way interaction. The Bayes divisor BF01 was 2.58 ( i, BF10 = 1/2.58 = 0.39 ), providing anecdotal evidence that the data were more than 2.58 times more likely to have been observed under the null hypothesis than under the hypothesis that the terror did increase high-SDO women ’ s tendency to sexually objectify men.
We conducted a multiple regression analysis in which we entered SDO, condition, and participants ’ mood ( α = .73, M = 3.52, SD = 0.67 ) in the first block and the Condition × SDO interaction in the second block ; the interaction remained non-significant, β = −.07, t ( 122 ) = −0.55, p = .586. The effect of climate on engagement in objectification was non-significant, p = .250.
In Study 2b, we did not find tell that women participants, careless of their SDO level, sexually depersonalize men when subordinated to a man bos. This finding is coherent with our theorizing that laterality motivations in women would not translate into sexually objectifying men because this is not an effective means for women to gain baron. We acknowledge, however, that an alternate explanation for the miss of consequence among women is that women—even if high in SDO—are unlikely to experience working as subordinates to a man boss as baleful, as it is perceived to reflect “ the lifelike ” social order ( Newport & Wilke, 2013 ). consequently, they do not experience a motivation “ to do something about it, ” whereas men—especially if high in SDO—may experience working as subordinates to a woman boss as threaten and consequently feel a need to “ do something ” to restore the natural order of things. frankincense, even though women in the experimental condition felt weaker than women in the control condition ( as indicated by the manipulation check ), possibly this helplessness was experienced as natural rather than threatening. Either direction, the two possibilities are the consequence of the gender hierarchy and are consistent with our general claim regarding the asymmetrical function of women ’ south and men ’ randomness intimate objectification in maintaining this hierarchy.
The goal of Study 3 was to bolster the conclusion derived from Study 2a, according to which high-SDO men ’ sulfur heightened engagement in women ’ sulfur sexual objectification is driven by a threat to their laterality over women. An alternative explanation would be that men who are high gear on SDO are threatened merely by being subordinated to a bos, regardless of his or her gender, because it means that they are presently at the buttocks of a given social hierarchy. In addition, although working in equality-based teams has been used in the literature as a control condition to test the effects of being subordinated to a knob, we acknowledge that these conditions may differ in extra dimensions besides the one of matter to. First, participants completed a questionnaire about leadership in the experimental discipline and about teamwork in the operate condition—which possibly activated different parts of their self-concept. furthermore, participants assigned to work under a boss ( vs. as teammates ) possibly experienced lower levels of control, competence, or self-esteem. To conceptually replicate the consequence observed in Study 2a while ruling out these option explanations, we used a two-cell experimental purpose in which, after completing a measure of their SDO and a bogus leadership assessment questionnaire, men participants were randomly assigned to work deoxyadenosine monophosphate subordinates to either a womanhood or a man boss. We assessed the dependent variable star, women ’ mho sexual objectification, as the relative sum of time participants spent on looking at and ranking photograph of women ’ mho bodies in swimsuits ( relative to other photography topics ). We expected that high ( but not broken ) SDO men would exhibit a heighten inclination to sexually objectify women when subordinate to a charwoman, as compared to a world boss.
Using on-line ads, we recruited 138 heterosexual men undergraduates of a large Israeli university to take part in a psychological sketch in substitute for 20 NIS ( about US $ 5 ). We conducted an a priori world power analysis using the G*Power calculator ( using the statistical test of “ analogue multiple regression : fixed model, R 2 addition ” from the “ F tests ” family ) which revealed that a sample distribution size of 90 was sufficient for detecting small-to-medium effect sizes ( based on the effect size obtained in Study 2a ; f 2 = .09 ) with a 5 % significance level ( nonreversible ) and ability of 80 %. We aimed to exceed the minimal sample distribution size. After the exclusion of three outliers ( studentized residuals > 3 ), 8 the sample included 135 participants, M historic period = 26.04, SD = 3.50, range = 18–37 years old. The sample distribution was demographically diverse in terms of marital status : 68 ( 50 % ) unmarried, 48 ( 36 % ) in a kinship, 18 ( 13 % ) married, and 1 ( 1 % ) divorced. The majority of participants reported Hebrew as their native lyric, 131 ( 97 % ) ; the pillow reported russian or other, 4 ( 3 % ).
The study was similar to Study 2b, with two modifications : ( a ) All participants were assigned to the hyponym function in the dyadic job and ( barn ) we manipulated the partner ’ second gender ( the emboss in the dyadic task ) to be either a valet or a woman. alike to Studies 2a and 2b, none of the participants expressed potent intuition about the study ’ s purpose or whether their partner existed.
All participants correctly identified the function to which they had been assigned deoxyadenosine monophosphate well as their party boss ’ gender. As intended, an mugwump samples t -test revealed that participants ’ sense of power ( α = .76 ) was similar across the two experimental conditions, t ( 133 ) = 0.03, p = .978 ( M = 3.04, SD = 0.87, and M = 3.04, SD = 0.96, in the womanhood and man boss conditions ).
Engagement in Objectification
We conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with engagement in objectification ( M = .16, SD = 0.06 ) as the consequence variable. The predictors were SDO ( standardized ; α = .70, M = 3.52, SD = 1.01 ), boss ’ sex ( dummy coded ), and their interaction. We entered SDO and boss ’ sex in the first block and their bipartisan interaction in the second block. The regression model is presented in table 2, and the two-way interaction is illustrated in Figure 2. The predict Boss ’ Gender × SDO interaction was significant. As expected, participants who were relatively high gear on SDO ( +1 SD ) spent a significantly higher percentage of their fourth dimension looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ s bodies in swimsuits in the womanhood bos, compared to the man boss condition, simple slope = 0.50 ( 0.24 ), t = 2.07, p = .040. By contrast, participants who were relatively low on SDO ( −1 SD ) spent similar percentage of their time looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ second bodies in swimsuits in both conditions, simple slope = −0.28 ( 0.24 ), t = −1.15, p = .254 . table 2. regression Analysis Results on Engagement in Objectification ( Study 3 ) .View larger versionDownloadOpen in new tabDownload in PowerPoint
When conducting a multiple regression analysis in which we entered SDO, knob ’ sex, and participants ’ climate ( α = .71, M = 3.38, SD = 0.70 ) in the first base engine block and the Boss ’ Gender × SDO interaction in the second block, the interaction remained significant, β = .26, t ( 130 ) = 2.12, p = .036. The effect of climate on engagement in objectification was non-significant, p = .118.
far supporting Hypothesis 2, in Study 3 we found that, even though there was no remainder in participants ’ sense of office in the two experimental conditions, high-SDO men engaged more in sexually objectifying women when subordinated to a womanhood as compared to a man boss. This line up strengthens our termination that the effect of laterality terror on men ’ sulfur sexual objectification of women occurs only when the generator of this menace are women ( who therefore pose a threat to the gender hierarchy ). Put differently, sexually objectifying women does not reflect a general strategy to cope with situations in which matchless is put in a hyponym character. Study 3 extended Study 2a—in which we examined reactions to women who either or not threatened men ’ s laterality ( alike to studies that demonstrated recoil against dominant women, for example, Dall ’ Ara & Maass, 1999 ) —by comparing reactions to dominance threats posed by both women and men. Our results are coherent with findings that women ( but not men ) leaders give resurrect to defensive responses—because they threaten what is perceived to be the natural social order, in which women are in a subordinate situation ( Hoover, Hack, Garcia, Goodfriend, & Habashi, 2018 ; Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Sheppard, 2015 ; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012 ; see besides Newport & Wilke, 2013, for the detect that the majority of people in a U.S. sample distribution reported preferring to work under a valet over a womanhood bos ). As illustrated in Figure 2, compared to low-SDO men, men high on SDO seemed to engage less in sexually objectifying women when subordinated to a world bos. possibly, high-SDO men are particularly sensitive to hierarchy-related cues, and hence—besides their increase efforts to restore their sensed natural hierarchy in reply to situations that disrupt it ( such as when having a woman foreman ) —they show heightened submission with the existing hierarchy ( by showing more submissive behavior ) when it is in place. This possibility is reproducible with Kasumovic and Kuznekoff ( 2015 ) findings that, within men-dominated video gambling environments, lower-skilled men players showed hostile and aggressive behavior toward women teammates who outperformed them but behaved deferentially toward men teammates who outperformed them ( for male slavish behavior in the presence of more dominant males among non-human primates, see de Waal, 2007 ).
Additional Analysis: Aggregating Studies 2a and 3
To provide a more high-powered test of Hypothesis 2 ( see Lakens & Etz, 2017 ; Schimmack, 2012 ) and gain more precise estimates of the effect on objectification of threat to men ’ mho authority over women, we conducted an extra analysis in which we combined Studies 2a and 3 into a single survey with a three-cell design. In one condition ( comprised of the experimental, threat-to-dominance-over-women conditions in Studies 2a and 3 ), we assigned men participants to work under a woman boss ; in a second stipulate ( comprised of the control circumstance in Study 2a ), we assigned men participants to work jointly with a womanhood partner ; and in a third circumstance ( comprised of the control circumstance in Study 3 ), we assigned men participants to work under a man boss. We conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis ( N = 247 ) with battle in objectification ( M = .15, SD = 0.06 ) as the consequence variable star. The predictors in the first engine block were SDO ( standardized ; M = 3.34, SD = 1.06 ) and the experimental condition ( dummy coded into two contrasts, such that the threat-to-dominance-over-women was the reference class ). We entered the contrasts ’ bipartisan interactions with SDO in the second blocking. The results of this analysis were reproducible with the results of Studies 2a and 3. The effects of the two contrasts were non-significant, βs < |.19|, p s > .231. The effect of SDO was significant, β = .29, t ( 241 ) = 3.14, p = .002, such that higher SDO predicted higher intimate objectification. Both two-way interactions were significant, Δ R 2 = .06. consistent with the results of Study 2a, the Threat-to-Dominance-Over-Women versus Teammate-With-Women × SDO interaction was significant, β = |.26|, t ( 241 ) = |3.18|, p = .002, such that high-SDO participants spent a importantly higher share of their meter looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ mho bodies in the woman-boss compared to the woman-teammate discipline, simple slope = |0.66| ( 0.23 ), t = |2.92|, p = .004. Low-SDO participants showed like levels of intimate objectification in both conditions, simple slope = |0.28| ( 0.21 ), t = |1.36|, p = .174. Consistent with the results of Study 3, the Threat-to-Dominance-Over-Women versus Threat-to-Dominance-Over-Men × SDO interaction was significant, β = |.25|, t ( 241 ) = |3.24|, p = .001, such that high-SDO participants spent a significantly higher percentage of their time looking at and ranking the photograph of women ’ randomness bodies in the woman-boss compared to man-boss discipline, simple slope = |0.46| ( 0.21 ), t = |2.22|, p = .028. Low-SDO participants showed significantly less objectification in the woman-boss compared to the man-boss condition, simple slope = |0.56| ( 0.23 ), t = |2.49|, p = .013. The results of this analysis should be interpreted conservatively because data for Study 2a and Study 3 were collected in unlike times ( see Campbell, 1957, for history threat to home robustness ) ; however, they provide far support for our theorize . contract of Conflicting Interests
The author ( s ) declared no potential conflicts of pastime with deference to the research, writing, and/or publication of this article . Funding
The writer ( randomness ) received no fiscal support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article . ORCID idaho
Orly Bareket hypertext transfer protocol : //orcid.org/0000-0003-3464-0893
In both Study 1 and Study 2, we analyzed each sample ( women and men ) individually because the measures of dependent variables were different for women and men. For exemplar, in Study 2, men participants rated photograph of women ’ randomness bodies in swimsuits, whereas women participants rated photograph of men ’ mho bodies in swimsuits. Combining these samples would make it difficult to interpret the results. For exercise, a main effect such that men showed higher levels of objectification than women could be attributed to the particular stimuli used ( which were different for men and women participants ) rather than to a real gender remainder in objectification . 2.
We computed partial correlations controlling for age. The expected association between men ’ s tendency to sexually objectify women and their SDO persisted, partial r = .37, p = .002, whereas the match association among women remained non-significant, partial r = .08, p = .529 . 3.
For exploratory purposes, participants besides completed the Schwartz Value Survey ( Schwartz, 1992 ), which measures the proportional prioritization of 10 basic values including the proportional importance ascribed to the skill of laterality over people and resources ( power values in Schwartz ’ sulfur, 1992, terminology ). We besides measured participants ’ want for exponent and influence using the nPower and nInfluence scales ( Bennett, 1988 ), which are related so far conceptually distinct constructs : nPower correlates positively with anti-social orientations ( for example, egoism, arrogance ) and negatively with pro-social orientations ( for example, empathy ), whereas nInfluence negatively correlates ( or does not correlate at all ) with anti-social orientations and positively with pro-social orientations. We presented the measures in this study to participants in a randomize ordain. Men ’ mho leaning to sexually objectify women significantly correlated with their prioritization of exponent values ( r = .44, p > .001 ) and need for might ( r = .30, p = .011 ), but not with their need for determine ( r = .17, p = .155 ). Women ’ second inclination to sexually objectify men did not significantly correlate with any of these measures ( r < |.10|, p > .459 ) . 4.
When all 117 participants were included in the analysis, the Condition × SDO interaction on date in objectification became marginally significant, β = .20, t ( 113 ) = 1.75, p = .083, and the interaction on denotative objectification became non-significant, β = .15, t ( 113 ) = 1.34, p = .185. however, excluding these participants was apologize given the indigence to avoid disproportionate influence of one observations on our psychoanalysis ( McClelland, 2002 ) . 5.
In Studies 2a, 2b, and 3, we used a newer interpretation of the SDO scale ( SDO7 ; Ho et al., 2015 ) than the one we used in Study 1 ( see entire protocols in osf.io/agx3f ). The SDO7 is a new translation of the SDO scale that conceptualizes the construct as having two sub-dimensions : SDO-Dominance ( SDO-D ), the preference for group-based dominance hierarchies in which dominant groups actively oppress subordinate groups, and SDO-Egalitarianism ( SDO-E ), the preference for group-based inequality that is supported by insidious hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and social policies . 6.
We calculated engagement in objectification as the share of time participants devoted to the swimsuits-task out of the sum clock time they devoted to the photograph-ranking task, quite than merely looking at the overall time participants spent on the swimsuit-task, because the latter is influenced by participants ’ general travel rapidly of performance—which was irrelevant for our purposes. notably, the bipartisan Condition × SDO interactions reported in Studies 2a and 3 remained significant ( p sulfur < .022 ) when examining the overall time ( alternatively of the percentage of time ) participants spent on the swimsuit-task. 7.
When all 129 participants were included in the analysis, the Condition × SDO interaction on battle in objectification remained non-significant, β = −.11, t ( 125 ) = −0.89, p = .375 . 8.
When all 138 participants were included in the analysis, the Condition × SDO interaction on battle in objectification became non-significant, β = .16, t ( 134 ) = 1.27, p = .206 .