An Initial Test of the Cosmetics Dehumanization Hypothesis: Heavy Makeup Diminishes Attributions of Humanness-Related Traits to Women

Sex Roles volume 83, pages315–327(2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectification theory suggests that sexualization has significant dehumanizing consequences for how perceivers see women. To date, research has mostly documented how sexualized bodies in the mass media are objectified and dehumanized. The purpose of the present work was to test the novel cosmetics dehumanization hypothesis (CDH), that is, that subtler manifestations of sexualization, such as heavy makeup, might influence the way people attribute humanness-related traits to women. Across four experiments, 1000 participants (mostly from the United Kingdom and United States) were asked to evaluate women’s faces with or without heavy makeup. Consistent with the CDH, results showed that faces with makeup were rated as less human while using complementary indicators of dehumanization: They were perceived as possessing less humanness, less agency, less experience (Experiment 1), less competence, less warmth, and less morality (Experiments 2–4) than faces without makeup. This pattern of results was observed for faces of both models (Experiments 1–2) and ordinary women (Experiments 3–4). In Experiment 4, we manipulated the part of the face that wore makeup (eye makeup vs. lipstick) and found that faces with eye makeup were attributed the least amount of warmth and competence. A meta-analysis based on Experiments 2–4 confirmed the robustness of the findings, which were not moderated by either participant gender or sexual orientation. Whereas prior studies suggested that a focus on faces may serve as an antidote for objectification and related dehumanization, the present set of experiments indicates that this strategy might not always be effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved on February 23, 2019 from https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2019.

  2. Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., & Volpato, C. (2017). (Still) modern times: Objectification at work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021963001006643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Batres, C., Russell, R., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., Hansen, A. M., & Cronk, L. (2018). Evidence that makeup is a false signal of sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernard, P., & Wollast, R. (2019). Why is sexualization dehumanizing? The effects of posture suggestiveness and revealing clothing on dehumanization. SAGE Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019828230

  8. Bernard, P., Content, J., Deltenre, P., & Colin, C. (2018a). When the body becomes no more than the sum of its parts: The neural correlates of scrambled vs. intact sexualized bodies. NeuroReport, 29, 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Holland, A. M., & Dodd, M. D. (2018b). When do people “check out” male bodies? Appearance-focus increases the objectifying gaze toward men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., & Klein, O. (2018c). Objectifying objectification: When and why people are cognitively reduced to their parts akin to objects. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 82–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1471949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernard, P., Rizzo, T., Hoonhorst, I., Deliens, G., Gervais, S., Eberlen, J., … Klein, O. (2018d). The neural correlates of cognitive objectification: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714582.

  12. Bernard, P., Geelhand, P., & Servais, L. (2019a). The face of sexualization: Faces wearing makeup are processed less configurally than faces without makeup. International Review of Social Psychology, 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernard, P., Hanoteau, F., Gervais, S., Servais, L., Bertolone, I., Deltenre, P., & Colin, C. (2019b). Revealing clothing does not make the object: ERP evidences that cognitive objectification is driven by posture suggestiveness, not by revealing clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218775690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burgess, M., Stermer, S. P., & Burgess, S. R. (2007). Sex, lies, and video games: The portrayal of male and female characters on video game covers. Sex Roles, 57, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9250-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Etcoff, N. L., Stock, S., Haley, L. E., Vickery, S. A., & House, D. M. (2011). Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PloS One, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656

  21. Fiske, S. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 53–72). New-York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gervais, S. J., Holland, A., & Dodd, M. (2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., & Riemer, A. R. (2015). Who treats people as sex objects? Cultural orientation, social comparison and sexual objectification perpetration. International Review of Social Psychology, 28, 153–181. Retrieved from https://www.cairn-int.info/abstract-E_RIPSO_281_0153%2D%2Dwho-treats-people-as-sex-objects.htm.

  26. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612457576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Graham, J. A., & Jouhar, A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person perception. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1981.tb00283.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social neuroscience evidence for dehumanised perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 192–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280902954988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of rolling stone. Sexuality and Culture, 15, 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. H. (2008). Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-007-0043-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hugenberg, K., Young, S., Rydell, R. J., Almaraz, S., Stanko, K. A., See, P. E., & Wilson, J. P. (2016). The face of humanity: Configural face processing influences ascriptions of humanness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615609734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Huguet, P., Croizet, J.-C., & Richetin, J. (2004). Is “what has been cared for” necessarily good? Further evidence for the negative impact of cosmetics use on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1752–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02796.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Li, M., Leidner, B., & Castano, E. (2014). Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of dehumanization: Integrating two senses of humanness, mind perception theory, and stereotype content model. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313485718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Loughnan, S., Fernandez-Campos, S., Vaes, J., 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, 28, 125–152. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2015-1-page-125.htm.

  47. Ma, N., Wang, S., Yang, Q., Feng, T., & Van Overwalle, F. (2016). The neural representation of competence traits: An fMRI study. Scientific Reports, 6, 39609. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40972.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Mar, R. A. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 103–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Messineo, M. J. (2008). Does advertising on black entertainment television portray more positive gender representations compared to broadcast networks? Sex Roles, 59, 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9470-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mileva, V. R., Jones, A. L., Russell, R., & Little, A. C. (2016). Sex differences in the perceived dominance and prestige of women with and without cosmetics. Perception, 45, 1166–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006616652053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Richetin, J., Huguet, P., & Croizet, J. C. (2007). Le rôle des cosmétiques dans les premières impressions: le cas particulier du maquillage [The role of cosmetics in first impressions : the particular case of makeup]. L'Année Psychologique, 107, 65-86. Retrived from https://www.persee.fr/doc/psy_0003-5033_2007_num_107_1_30937

  52. Riemer, A. R., Gervais, S. J., Skorinko, J. L., Douglas, S. M., Spencer, H., Nugai, K., ... Miles-Novelo, A. (2018). She looks like she’d be an animal in bed: Dehumanization of drinking women in social contexts. Sex Roles, 80, 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0958-9

  53. Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., Prescott, A., & Pieper, K. (2012). Gender roles and occupations: A look at character attributes and job-related aspirations in film and television. Geena Davis Institute on gender in media. Retrieved from http://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/fullstudy-gender-roles-and-occupations-v2.pdf

  55. Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Myers, T. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self: What college women and men think about and do to be “sexy”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314524168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vaes, J., Cristoforetti, G., Ruzzante, D., Cogoni, C., & Mazza, V. (2019). Assessing neural responses towards objectified human targets and objects to identify processes of sexual objectification that go beyond the metaphor. Scientific Reports, 9, 6699. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42928-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Overwalle, F., Ma, N., & Baetens, K. (2016). Nice or nerdy? The neural representation of social and competence traits. Social Neuroscience, 11, 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1120239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ward, L. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. Annual Review of Sex Research, 53, 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wilson, J. P., Young, S. G., Rule, N. O., & Hugenberg, K. (2018). Configural processing and social judgments: Face inversion particularly disrupts inferences of human-relevant traits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wollast, R., Puvia, E., Bernard, P., Tevichapong, P., & Klein, O. (2018). How sexual objectification generates dehumanization in Western and eastern cultures: A comparison between Belgium and Thailand. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (1991). The role of cosmetics in impression formation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9101000109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS, Belgium).

Funding

This research was funded by the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (grant number: 22340437).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Center for Social and Cultural Psychology, Université libre de Bruxelles, CP 122, Avenue F. Roosevelt, 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Philippe Bernard, Joanne Content, Lara Servais & Robin Wollast

  2. Subtle Prejudice Lab, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA

    Sarah Gervais

Authors
  1. Philippe Bernard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanne Content
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lara Servais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robin Wollast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah Gervais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Bernard.

Ethics declarations

The experiments presented in this paper involved participants recruited on Prolific pending monetary compensation. At the start of each study, a brief description of the impression formation was given. And participants were allowed to stop completing the study anytime.

Conflicts of interest

We declare having no potential conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 583 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernard, P., Content, J., Servais, L. et al. An Initial Test of the Cosmetics Dehumanization Hypothesis: Heavy Makeup Diminishes Attributions of Humanness-Related Traits to Women. Sex Roles 83, 315–327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01115-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Objectification
  • Dehumanization
  • Makeup
  • Sexualization
  • Agency
  • Mind
  • Social perception
  • Warmth
  • Competence
  • Morality