Sex Roles

, Volume 72, Issue 11–12, pp 499–508 | Cite as

The Exonerating Effect of Sexual Objectification: Sexual Objectification Decreases Rapist Blame in a Stranger Rape Context

  • Philippe Bernard
  • Steve Loughnan
  • Cynthie Marchal
  • Audrey Godart
  • Olivier Klein
Original Article

Abstract

A blossoming body of research documents the effect of sexual objectification on social perception, but little is known about the consequences of sexual objectification. This paper examines how sexual objectification influences men and women’s rape perceptions in case of a stranger rape. We hypothesized that victims’ sexual objectification might diminish rapist blame and increase victim blame in cases of stranger rape. Fifty-eight male and 57 female Belgian undergraduate students were assigned to either a sexual objectifying (i.e., body focus) or to a personalized portrayal (i.e., face focus) of a rape victim. After reading a newspaper report depicting a stranger rape, participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which they blamed the rapist and the victim. As predicted, participants blamed the rapist less in the sexual objectification condition, regardless of participant gender. In contrast, sexual objectification did not increase victim blame. These results have implications for the well-being of rape victims, as well as for the functioning of justice if it leads authorities to show leniency towards the length of penalty a rapist may receive. The implications of these findings for future research on sexual objectification and gender differences in rape perception are also discussed.

Keywords

Sexual objectification Gender Rape perception Rapist blame Victim blame 

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D. D., & Barrios, M. (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex difference in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725–735. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Feminity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge.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. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O. (2015a). Body parts reduction and self-objectification in the objectification of sexualized bodies. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., Delmée, A., & Klein, O. (2015b). From sex objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0361684315580125.
  7. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2013). Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don’t explain everything: A response to Tarr. Psychological Science, 24, 1071–1073. doi:10.1177/0956797612474672.
  8. Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418. doi:10.1177/0956797611420445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1513–1535. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00493.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., Maass, A., Förster, J., & Suitner, C. (2012). 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
  13. Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2013a). Toward a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation: Objectification and (de)humanization (pp. 1–23). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_1.
  14. Gervais, S. J., Holland, A. M., & Dodd, M. D. (2013b). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557–570. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.
  16. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perception of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505–520. doi:10.1037/a0013748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. (2011). To escape blame, don’t be a hero - be a victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 516–519. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207–1220. doi:10.1037/a0025883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 395–405. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63–81. doi:10.1080/13552600802641649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gurung, R., & Chrouser, C. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles, 57, 91–99. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harbridge, J., & Furnham, A. (1991). Lay theories of rape. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 4, 3–25. doi:10.1080/09515079108254425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haynes, G. A., & Olson, J. M. (2006). Coping on threats to just-world beliefs: Derogate, blame or help? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 664–682. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00023.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. (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
  25. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 225–229. doi:10.1177/0963721414531599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Human Development Reports. (2015). International human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table4-gender-inequality-index.
  28. Kahn, A. S., Rodgers, K. A., Martin, C., Malick, K., Claytor, J., Gandolfo, M., & Webne, E. (2011). Gender versus gender role in attributions of blame for a sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 239–251. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00711.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Krahé, B. (1985). Verantwortungszuschreibungen in der sozialen Eindrucksbildung uber Vergewaltigungsopfer und 7-ter. Zur Replikation einiger amerikanischer Ergebnisse an einer deutschen Stichprobe. [Attribution of responsibility in impression formation about rape victims. Replication of US results in a German sample]. Gruppendynamik, 16, 169–178.Google Scholar
  31. Krahé, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50–58. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00004.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 19, 202–220. doi:10.1177/1094428105284919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461. doi:10.1177/0361684313485718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loughnan, S., Fernandez, S., Vaes, S., Anjum, G., Aziz, M., Harada, C., Tsuchiya, K. (2015). Exploring the role of culture in sexual objectification: A seven nations study. International Review of Social Psychology / Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28. Google Scholar
  37. Marwick, A. (1998). The sixties. Cultural revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. McIntyre, M. (2011a). Rape victim ‘inviting’, so no jail. Judge rules woman’s clothes, conduct ease blame on attacker. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html.
  39. McIntyre, M. (2011b). ‘No woman asks to be raped’: Victim slams judge’s decision. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/25/no-woman-asks-to-be-raped-victim-slams-judges-decision/#more-49309.
  40. Rosenblum, N. (1997). Democratic sex: Reynolds v. US, sexual relations, and community. In D. Estlund & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Sex, preference, and family (pp. 63–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stevens, L., & Hooghe, M. (2003). The swing of the pendulum: The detraditionalisation of the regulation of sexuality and intimacy in Belgium (1973–2003). International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 31, 131–151. doi:10.1016/j.ijsl.2003.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations. (2015). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved from www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Sexual_violence_sv_against_children_and_rape.xls.
  43. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van der Bruggen, M., & Grubb, A. (2014). A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 523–531. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vandewege, R., Bruynooghe, R., & Opdebeek, S. (1988). Les femmes confrontées à la violence physique et sexuelle—Prédominance et conséquences. [Women suffering from physical and sexual violence—Predominance and consequences]. Rapport destiné à la Secrétaire d’Etat à l’Environnement et à l’Emancipation sociale, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  46. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 295–303. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000029140.72880.69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waites, M. (2001). Regulation of sexuality: Age of consent, section 28 and sex education. Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 495–508. doi:10.1093/parlij/54.3.495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whatley, M. A. (1996). Victim characteristics influencing attributions of responsibility to rape victims: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 81–95. doi:10.1016/1359-1789(95)00011-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–277. doi:10.1023/a:1018858313267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yamawaki, N. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 406–423. doi:10.1177/0886260506297210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yamawaki, N., Darby, R., & Queiroz, A. (2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 41–56. doi:10.3200/socp.147.1.41-56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Bernard
    • 1
  • Steve Loughnan
    • 2
  • Cynthie Marchal
    • 1
  • Audrey Godart
    • 1
  • Olivier Klein
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Social and Cultural PsychologyUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations