Reply to Comments on “Sarah Palin, a Nation Object(ifie)s”

Abstract

In our original article, Sarah Palin, A Nation Object(ifie)s: The Role of Appearance Focus in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, we suggested that a focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance may have harmed the Republican ticket in the 2008 presidential election by leading others to objectify her(creating perception of her as less competent, warm, trustworthy, and generally less human) and potentially undermining her performance by inducing her own self-objectification. In this paper, we address several issues raised by Budesheim (2011) and Heldman and Wade (2011) in response to our article. Specifically, we fine-tune our definition of objectification, provide better evidence that Palin’s appearance was highly focused on, and address some alternative accounts (e.g., overcorrection) raised to account for our experimental findings. We conclude by reiterating the relevance of our research to this real-world situation, but heed the warning to keep our claims grounded with solid empirical and theoretical roots.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Banwart, M. C., Bystrom, D. G., & Robertson, T. (2003). From the primary to the general election: A comparative analysis of candidate media coverage in mixed-gender 2000 races for governor and U.S. senate. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 658–676. doi:10.1177/0002764202238491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Budesheim, T. L. (2011). Going out on a limb in an underdeveloped branch of objectification research. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9999-z. this issue.

  3. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dion, K., Berscheod, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2010). Sarah Palin, a nation object(ifie)s: The role of appearance focus in the 2008 U. S. Presidential election. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9901-4. this issue.

  10. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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, 202–215. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90035-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2011). Sexualizing Sarah Palin: The social and political context of the sexual objectification of female candidates. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9984-6. this issue.

  13. Heldman, C., Oliver, S., & Conroy, M. (2009, September). From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in media coverage of vice presidential candidates. Annual Meeting American Political Science Association, September 2009.

  14. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitnet, 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 

  15. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 817–831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.817.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nussabaum, M. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37–43. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 565–578. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vaes, J., Paladino, M., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  21. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naïve theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36–51. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan A. Heflick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heflick, N.A., Goldenberg, J.L. Reply to Comments on “Sarah Palin, a Nation Object(ifie)s”. Sex Roles 65, 173–176 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0018-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Objectification
  • Sarah Palin
  • Dehumanization
  • Appearance focus