Toward a Unified Theory of Objectification and Dehumanization

  • Sarah J. Gervais
  • Philippe Bernard
  • Olivier Klein
  • Jill Allen
Part of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation book series (NSM, volume 60)


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.


Objectification Self-objectification Dehumanization Anthropomorphism Infra-humanization Global versus local processing model GLOMO Motivation Gender Women Discrimination Body recognition Sexual body parts 


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Code, L. (1995). Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex (Trans: Parshley H.M.). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: Perigee.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skins, white masks. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Förster, J. (2012). The how and why of global and local processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 15–19. doi: 10.1177/0963721411429454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foucault, M. (1989). The birth of the clinic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex and nonverbal communication. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  53. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska symposium on motivation, (pp. 192–238). Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  56. Keltner, D. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Langton, R. (2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. LeMoncheck, L. (1985). Dehumanizing women: Treating persons as sex objects. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205. doi: 10.1126/science.1161958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourse on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. MacKinnon, C. (2006). Are women human?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marx, K. (1964). Early writings (Trans: Bottomore, T.B.). New York: McGraw-Hill (Original work published 1844).Google Scholar
  72. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). Motivation in social behavior. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1953 (pp. 139–161). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. In M. C. Nussbaum (Ed.), Objectification (pp. 213–239). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Nussbaum, M. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24, 249–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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
  93. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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
  95. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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
  97. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Tarr, M. (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Psychological Science. Google Scholar
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.
  103. 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
  104. Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141–145. doi: 10.1037/h0027474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zarate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8, 161–185. doi: 10.1521/soco.1990.8.2.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah J. Gervais
    • 1
  • Philippe Bernard
    • 2
  • Olivier Klein
    • 2
  • Jill Allen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations