Sex Roles

, Volume 65, Issue 3–4, pp 149–155

Sarah Palin, A Nation Object(ifie)s: The Role of Appearance Focus in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

Feminist Forum

Abstract

In 2008, Republican John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, lost the U.S. presidential election to Barack Obama and his vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden. During the campaign, Palin’s physical appearance, including her reported $150,000 makeover, received extensive media coverage. But, could the focus on her appearance have impacted the outcome of the election? Several lines of laboratory research suggest that this focus may have been detrimental to the Republican ticket because 1) it likely undermined perceptions of Palin’s competence, warmth and morality, and 2) it may have increased Palin’s focus on her own appearance, which, consistent with research on self-objectification, likely impaired the competency of her actual performance. Voting research supports the importance of candidates’ perceived competence and character. Thus, while acknowledging the diverse influences on an election’s outcome, a strong empirical case can be made that people objected to Sarah Palin (and therefore, John McCain), in part, because she was objectified. In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that men suffer these same consequences when others, or they themselves, focus on their appearance. Therefore, it is not likely that the Democratic Obama-Biden ticket was hurt by these same factors.

Keywords

Sarah Palin Objectification Dehumanization Election results 

References

  1. Ballew, C. C., & Todorov, A. (2007). Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17948–17593. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705435104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, A. (2009, October). Poll: Obama earns nation’s trust. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21213.html
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 396–403. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, J. (1962). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Bishin, B. G., Stevens, D., & Wilson, C. (2006). Character counts? Honesty and fairness in election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 232–248. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budesheim, T. L., & DePaola, S. J. (1994). Beauty or the beast? The effects of appearance, personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 339–348. doi:10.1177/0146167294204001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calogaro, R. M. (2005). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2006). The role of self-interest and competence in attitudes toward politicians. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 37, 203–212.Google Scholar
  10. Cnn.com. (2008a). Election center 2008 results. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president
  11. Cnn.com. (2008b). Raw exit poll data. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
  12. Copeland, G. A. (1989). Face-ism and prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 33, 209–214.Google Scholar
  13. Couric, K. (2008, August). Sarah Palin CBS interview (Katie Couric). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ
  14. Cox, C. L., & Glick, W. H. (1986). Resume evaluations and cosmetics sue: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51–58. doi:10.1007/BF00287847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowd, M. (2008, August 31). Vice in go-go boots? Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31dowd.html.
  16. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredrickson, B., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Interacting minds—a biological basis. Science, 286, 1692–1695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gay, R. K., & Castano, E. (2010). My body or my mind: The impact of state and trait objectification on women’s cognitive resources. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 695–703. doi:10.1002/ejsp.731.Google Scholar
  22. Gervais, S. & Vescio, T. (2009a). Why and how women are sexually objectified. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  23. Gervais, S., & Vescio, T. (2009b). When what you see is what you get. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  24. Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low and high status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389–395. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, L. T., Todorov, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Attributions on the brain: Neuro-imaging dispositional inferences, beyond theory of mind. NeuroImage, 28, 763–769. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2010). From women to objects: Target gender, appearance focus and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  32. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 202–212. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90035-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huffingtonpost.com. (2008, December). Obama shirtless in Hawaii (Photos). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/obama-shirtless-in-hawaii_n_152873.html
  34. Isikoff, M., & Smalley, S. (2008, October 25). Not the change they wanted. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/165666.
  35. Kiefer, A., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Barczyk, A. (2006). When appearance concerns make women look bad: Solo status and body image concerns diminish women's academic performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kyle, D. J., & Mahler, H. I. M. (1996). The effects of hair color and cosmetic use on perceptions of a female’s ability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 447–455. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (versus competence and sociality) in the positive evaluations of ingroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709–717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755.Google Scholar
  39. Marquardt, A. (2008, August 31). Biden: Palin is good-looking. Retrieved from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/biden-palins-good-looking
  40. McCurley, C., & Mondak, J. J. (1995). Inspected by #1184063113: The influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in US house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 864–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16, 6–18.Google Scholar
  43. Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. People Magazine. (October, 2008). Tina Fey and Sarah Palin cross paths. Google Scholar
  46. Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 59–64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00262.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts, T.-A., & Gettman, J. Y. (2002). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effect of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 17-27. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000032306.20462.22.
  48. Rocatto, M., & Zogmaister, C. (2010). Predicting the vote through implicit and explicit attitudes: A field research. Political Psychology, 249-274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00751.
  49. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sex objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tancer, B. (2008, September 2). Searching for Sarah Palin's hot photos. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1838041,00.html
  51. Tiggemann, M. (2001). Person x situation interactions in body dissatisfaction. The International Journal of eating disorders, 29, 65–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaes, J., Puvia, E., & Paladino, M. P. (2009). Are sexualized female targets human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Padova.Google Scholar
  54. Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 537–547. doi:10.1086/510228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R., Schmeichel, B., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited resource account of decision making, self-regulation and action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 319–324.Google Scholar
  58. Youtube.com. (2008). Sarah Palin swimsuit competition!!! Miss Alaska beauty pageant 1984http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdFIDygFwM

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations