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.
Sarah Palin Objectification Dehumanization Election results
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to thank Doug Cooper, Kenneth Michniewicz, Kasey Lynn Morris, Brendan Rork and two anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback during the preparation and completion of this manuscript.
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
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
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
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//0022-3518.104.22.1688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Gervais, S. & Vescio, T. (2009a). Why and how women are sexually objectified. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Gervais, S., & Vescio, T. (2009b). When what you see is what you get. Manuscript submitted for publication. University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16, 6–18.Google Scholar
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
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
People Magazine. (October, 2008). Tina Fey and Sarah Palin cross paths.Google Scholar
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.
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.
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
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
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
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:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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:10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 319–324.Google Scholar