Sex Roles

, Volume 69, Issue 11–12, pp 557–570 | Cite as

My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women

  • Sarah J. GervaisEmail author
  • Arianne M. Holland
  • Michael D. Dodd
Original Article


Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers. The main purpose of this work was to examine the objectifying gaze toward women via eye tracking technology. A secondary purpose was to examine the impact of body shape on this objectifying gaze. To elicit the gaze, we asked participants (29 women, 36 men from a large Midwestern University in the U.S.), to focus on the appearance (vs. personality) of women and presented women with body shapes that fit cultural ideals of feminine attractiveness to varying degrees, including high ideal (i.e., hourglass-shaped women with large breasts and small waist-to-hip ratios), average ideal (with average breasts and average waist-to-hip ratios), and low ideal (i.e., with small breasts and large waist-to-hip ratios). Consistent with our main hypothesis, we found that participants focused on women’s chests and waists more and faces less when they were appearance-focused (vs. personality-focused). Moreover, we found that this effect was particularly pronounced for women with high (vs. average and low) ideal body shapes in line with hypotheses. Finally, compared to female participants, male participants showed an increased tendency to initially exhibit the objectifying gaze and they regarded women with high (vs. average and low) ideal body shapes more positively, regardless of whether they were appearance-focused or personality-focused. Implications for objectification and person perception theories are discussed.


Sexual objectification Male gaze Objectifying gaze Dehumanization Person perception Impression formation Attractiveness Eye tracking 



This research was supported in part by a Layman Award to Sarah J. Gervais from the Office of Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This research was also supported in part by the McNair Scholars Program Summer Research Internship (U.S. Department of Education), the Research Experience for Undergraduates Award (National Science Foundation), and the Undergraduate Creative Activities and Research Experiences Program (Pepsi Endowment) from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to Arianne M. Holland. We would like to thank Angie Dunn for assistance with data collection, Devon Kathol and Justin Escamilla for assistance with stimulus creation, and Mark Mills for assistance with data analysis.


  1. Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D. D., & Barrios, M. (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725–735. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: What happened to actual behavior? Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471. doi: 10.1177/0956797611434748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. R. Wyer & R. R. Wyer (Eds.), Stereotype activation and inhibition (pp. 1–52). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. R. Wyer (Eds.), A dual process model of impression formation (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Calogero, R. M. (2004). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, M. M., Gervais, S. J., Canivez, G. L., & Cole, B. P. (2013). A psychometric examination of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale among college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 239–250. doi: 10.1037/a0032075.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Watching the hourglass: Eye tracking reveals men’s appreciation of the female form. Human Nature, 21, 355–370. doi: 10.1007/s12110-010-9100-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011). Eye tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 43–50. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384–392. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeln-Maddox, R., Miller, S. A., & Doyle, D. M. (2011). Tests of objectification theory in gay and lesbian samples: Mixed evidence for proposed pathways. Sex Roles, 65, 518–532. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9958-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., Klein, O., & Allen, J. (2013a). Toward a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (De)Humanization (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Gervais, S. J., DiLillo, D., & McChargue, D. (2013b). Understanding the link between men’s alcohol use and sexual violence: The mediating role of sexual objectification. Psychology of Violence. doi:  10.1037/a0033840.
  21. 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. doi: 10.1177/0361684310386121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2012a). A test of the fungibility hypothesis from sexual objectification theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 499–513. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02016.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., Förster, J., Maass, A., & Suitner, C. (2012b). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743–753. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gueguen, N. (2007). Women’s bust size and men’s courtship solicitation. Body Image, 4, 386–390. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.06.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9901-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henderson, J. M., Williams, C. C., Castelhano, M. S., & Falk, R. J. (2003). Eye movements and picture processing during recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 725–734. doi: 10.3758/BF03194809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. R. (2008). Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 67–78. doi: 10.1007/s10919-007-0043-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2013). Worth the weight: The objectification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0361684312474800.
  35. Johnson, V., & Gurung, R. R. (2011). Defusing the objectification of women by other women: The role of competence. Sex Roles, 65, 177–188. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0006-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, K. L., Lurye, L. E., & Tassinary, L. G. (2010). Sex categorization among preschool children: Increasing utilization of sexually dimorphic cues. Child Development, 81, 1346–1355. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890–897. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A new psychology of women’s experience. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kilbourne, J., & Pipher, M. (1999). Deadly persuasion: Why women and girls must fight the addictive power of advertising. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindner, D., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Jentsch, F. (2012). Social comparison and the ‘circle of objectification’. Sex Roles, 67, 222–235. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0175-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lippa, R. (1983). Sex typing and the perception of body outlines. Journal of Personality, 51, 667–682. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Loughnan, S., Fernandez, S., Vaes, J., Anjum, G., Aziz, M., Harada, C., … Tsuchiya, K. (2013). Sexual objectification is common in Western, but not non-Western nations: A seven nation study of sexual objectification. Manuscript submitted for publication. Google Scholar
  45. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morton, J., & Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological Review, 98, 164–181. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pope, H., Katz, D., & Hudson, J. (1993). Anorexia nervosa and “reverse anorexia” among 108 male bodybuilders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34, 406–409. doi: 10.1016/0010-440X(93)90066-D.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Puvia, E., & Vaes, J. (2012). Being a body: Women’s appearance related self-views and their dehumanization of sexually objectified female targets. Sex Roles, 68, 484–495. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0255-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. doi: 10.1177/0956797609357751.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707–712. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vaes, J., & Latrofa, M. (under review). From ogling to dehumanization: The objectifying gaze.Google Scholar
  55. Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Young, I. M. (2003). Breasted experience: The look and the feeling. In R. Weitz (Ed.), The politics of women’s bodies (pp. 152–163). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Yu, D. W., & Shepard, G. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321–322. doi: 10.1038/24512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zelazniewicz, A. M., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (restricted vs. unrestricted). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1129–1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zurbriggen, E. L., Ramsey, L. R., & Jaworski, B. K. (2011). Self- and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64, 449–462. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah J. Gervais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arianne M. Holland
    • 1
  • Michael D. Dodd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations