Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Objectification and (De)Humanization pp 1–23Cite as

Toward a Unified Theory of Objectification and Dehumanization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation ((NSM,volume 60))

Abstract

Objectification and dehumanization represent motivational conundrums because they are phenomena in which people are seen in ways that are fundamentally inaccurate; seeing people as objects, as animals, or not as people. The purpose of the 60th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation was to examine the motivational underpinnings of objectification and dehumanization of the self and others. To provide an overall context for this volume, we first provide classic conceptualizations of objectification and dehumanization and speculate about relations between the two. We then introduce a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization within the global versus local processing model (GLOMO) and provide initial supporting evidence. Finally, we introduce the chapters in this volume, which provide additional significant and novel motivational perspectives on objectification and dehumanization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, J., & Gervais, S. J. (2012). The drive to be sexy: Prejudice and core motivations in women’s self-sexualization. In D. W. Russell & C. A. Russell (Eds.), Psychology of prejudice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on contemporary issues. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J., Gervais, S., Bernard, P., & Klein, O. (2013). Overpowering objectifying contexts: Powerful bodies moderate the effect of objectification on eating tendencies. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzi, A. (1998). From competitive interests, perceived injustice, and identity needs to collective action: Psychological mechanisms in ethnic nationalism. In C. Dandeker (Ed.), Nationalism and violence (pp. 73–138). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, A. (2001). On the relationship between technique and dehumanization. In R. C. Locsin (Ed.), Advancing technology caring, and nursing (pp. 96–105). Westport, CT: Auburn House.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P., Gervais, S., 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P., Gervais, S., Allen, J., Campomizzi, S., & Klein, O. (2013a). Recognition of sexualized bodies and self-objectification: Cognitive evidence for a vicious circle of objectification. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2013b). Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don’t explain everything: A response to Tarr. Psychological Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. W. (1962). Motivational effects of cognitive dissonance. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1962 (pp. 51–81). Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual-process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition: (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calogero, R. M. (2013). On objects and actions: Situating self-objectification in a system justification context. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and dehumanization (pp. 97–126). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calogero, R., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, K. (2011). Operationalizing self-objectification: Assessment and related methodological issues. In R. Calogero, S. Tantleff-Dunn, & J. K. Thompson (Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 23–49). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Code, L. (1995). Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex (Trans: Parshley H.M.). New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state and hemispheric influences. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 745–761. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00117-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: Perigee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earp, J. (Producer), & Jhally, S. (Director). (2010). Killing us softly 4: Advertising’s image of women [Documentary film]. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Schroeder, J., & Waytz, A. (2013). Motivated mind perception: Treating pets as people and people as animals. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and Dehumanization (pp. 127–152). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanon, F. (1967). Black skins, white masks. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). Motivations leading to social behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1954 (pp. 191–219). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and dehumanization (pp. 53–72). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J. (2010). How love and sex can influence recognition of faces and words: A processing model account. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 524–535. doi:10.1002/ejsp.656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J. (2012). The how and why of global and local processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 15–19. doi:10.1177/0963721411429454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 175–197. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.487849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., & Higgins, E. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Kuschel, S. (2008). The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 579–599. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., Özelsel, A., & Epstude, K. (2010). How love and lust change people’s perception of partners and relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 237–246. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1989). The birth of the clinic. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., 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, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13, 34–40. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, S. J., Holland, A., & Dodd, M. D. (2013). My eyes are up here: The effects of appearance-focus and body shape on the objectifying gaze. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011a). A test of the fungibility hypothesis from sexual objectification theory. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02016.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011b). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 743–553. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J. L. (2013). Immortal objects: The objectification of women as terror management. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and Dehumanization (pp. 73–96). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., & DePaulo, B. M. (1982). Accuracy of person perception: A component analysis according to Cronbach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 247–256. doi:10.1177/0146167282082011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Holland, E. (2013). The psychology of humanness. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and Dehumanization (pp. 25–52). New York: Springer.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Heider, F. (1960). The gestalt theory of motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1960 (pp. 145–172). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jahoda, G. (1989). Our forgotten ancestors. In R. A. Dienstbier & J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1–40). Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska symposium on motivation, (pp. 192–238). Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 28–45. doi:10.1177/1088868306294588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, R. (2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LeMoncheck, L. (1985). Dehumanizing women: Treating persons as sex objects. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyens, J Ph, Cortes, B. P., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R., et al. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 704–717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyens, J Ph, Rodriguez, A. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Gaunt, R., Paladino, P. M., Vaes, J., et al. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395–411. doi:10.1002/ejsp.50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Psychological distance and global versus local perception: Evidence for bidirectional links. Cognitive Science, 33, 1330–1341. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01061.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205. doi:10.1126/science.1161958.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.) (pp. 353–381). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liss, M., Erchull, M., & Ramsey, L. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68. doi:10.1177/0146167210386119.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 

  • MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourse on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. (2006). Are women human?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1964). Early writings (Trans: Bottomore, T.B.). New York: McGraw-Hill (Original work published 1844).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates’ body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113–123. doi:10.1023/A:1018834001203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, N. M. (2006). Longitudinal gender differences in objectified body consciousness and weight-related attitudes and behaviors: Cultural and developmental contexts in the transition from college. Sex Roles, 54, 159–173. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9335-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical environment holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17, 113–119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01673.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg, K., Mathews, A., Bird, C., & Macgregor-Morris, R. (1990). Effects of stress and anxiety on the processing of threat stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1230–1237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moradi, B. (2013). Discrimination, objectification, and dehumanization: Toward a pantheoretical framework. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and Dehumanization (pp. 153–182). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and futures directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, T. M. (1953). Motivation in social behavior. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1953 (pp. 139–161). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 11163–11170. doi:10.1073/pnas.1934527100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. In M. C. Nussbaum (Ed.), Objectification (pp. 213–239). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24, 249–291. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, G. V. (2003). Indigestible food, conquering hordes, and waste materials: Metaphors of immigrants and the early immigration restriction debate in the United States. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 33–47. doi:10.1207/S15327868MS1801_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1957). Motivational dynamics of language behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1957 (pp. 348–424). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, T. M. (1984). The sovereignty of social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), The handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, P. M., Leyens, J Ph, Rodriguez, R. T., Rodriguez, A. P., Gaunt, R., & Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions to the ingroup and the outgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. L., Stone, V., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The body inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14, 302–308. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Grubb, J. D., & McGoldrick, J. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 73–87. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1984). Women and weight: A normative discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender (pp. 267–307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0146167212436401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seitz, K. (2002). Parts and wholes in person recognition: Developmental trends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 367–381. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00106-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457–477. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245. doi:10.1080/14640749308401045.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, M. (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Psychological Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., Fiske, S., Etcoff, N., & Ruderman, A. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J. Ph. & Giovanazzi, A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infra-humanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016–1034. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1016.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141–145. doi:10.1037/h0027474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8, 161–185. doi:10.1521/soco.1990.8.2.161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68508, USA

    Sarah J. Gervais & Jill Allen

  2. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Philippe Bernard & Olivier Klein

Authors
  1. Sarah J. Gervais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Bernard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jill Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah J. Gervais .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dept of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 338 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, 68588, Nebraska, USA

    Sarah J. Gervais

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gervais, S.J., Bernard, P., Klein, O., Allen, J. (2013). Toward a Unified Theory of Objectification and Dehumanization. In: Gervais, S. (eds) Objectification and (De)Humanization. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol 60. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation