- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Description:

'That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained ... Women in the swimsuit condition performed significantly worse on the math test ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:353
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: pitt99
Learn more at: https://sites.pitt.edu
Category:
Tags: swimsuit

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title:


1
That Swimsuit Becomes You Sex Differences in
Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math
Performance
  • Melissa Eells

2
  • Objectification Theory
  • women, more so than men, are portrayed as
    though their bodies were capable of representing
    them.
  • Duncan, 1990 Fromme Beam, 1974 Gardner, 1980
    Goffman, 1979 Soley Kurzbard, 1986
    Frederickson Roberts, 1997 Van Zoonen, 1994
    Bartkey, 1990 Henley, 1977
  • posits that these objectifying views are
    internalized, and, in anticipation of external
    judgement, women learn to judge themselves. This
    is called
  • SELF-OBJECTIFICATION

3
  • Self-Objectification can be either
  • TRAIT
  • Personality trait, e.g. how chronically focused
    on appearance are you?
  • STATE
  • When a specific context causes you to be
    self-conscious, in an evaluative way

4
The Problem! Consequences of Self-Objectification
  • this vigilant self-monitoring drains mental
    energy and consumes attentional resources from
    important activities
  • manifested in diminished mental performance
  • Increased shame and anxiety
  • Disordered eating

5
Experiment 1 HypothesisSelf-Objectification
produces BODY SHAME, which in turn predicts
RESTRAINED EATING
N 72 (all women)
  1. Trait self-objectification measured to determine
    individual baseline
  2. State self-objectification manipulated by
    randomly assigning participants to experimental
    condition (either swimsuit or sweater)
  3. BODY SHAME measured in disguised questionnaire
  4. RESTRAINED EATING measured in consumer report
    taste test

6
BODY SHAME
  • Variables
  • Explanatory
  • Categorical trait self-objectification and
    experimental condition
  • Response
  • Quantitative body shame

7
RESTRAINED EATING
  • Given 2 cookies and asked to evaluate.
  • Experimenters wanted to measure how much
    participants ate to determine relationship
    between self-objectification, shame and eating.
  • Results - three response categories
  • True restraint (ate less than ½ of 1 cookie)
  • Symbolic restraint (more than ½, but still less
    than 1)
  • No restraint (more than 1)

8
Before we can look at the relationship between
s-o, body shame, and eating
  • Potential Confounding Variable?
  • People who liked the cookie more would eat more?
  • To avoid this, researchers needed to show that
    there is no relationship between amount eaten and
    how much they cookie was liked

9
  • Mean liking of cookie (µ) 7
  • I 3 (restraint, symbolic restraint, no
    restraint)
  • N 72
  • Null Hypothesis
  • µr µs µn
  • Alternative Hypothesis
  • Not all the µ are equal
  • P(2, 69) 2.5, p .0895

10
P(2, 69) 2.5, p .0895
  • Can we reject the Null Hypothesis?
  • No!
  • So we accept µr µs µn
  • Since there is no relationship between µ, we can
    rule out mean liking as a confounding variable
  • Conclude that amount consumed is due to other
    factors (body shame)

11
Results
  • Highest body shame level most often predicted
    (57) symbolic restraint group

12
Experiment 2 Hypothesis Self-Objectification
diminishes math performance
  • Direct Response to Experiment 1
  • Replicate findings
  • Extend tests into domain of attention and mental
    performance
  • Address bias (of not representing whole
    population) by testing men

13
Experiment 2 Hypothesis Self-Objectification
diminishes math performance
N 82 (40 men, 42 women)
  • Trait self-objectification measured to determine
    individual baseline
  • State self-objectification manipulated by
    randomly assigning participants to experimental
    condition (either swimsuit or sweater)
  • Body Shame measured in disguised questionnaire
  • NEW test of math performance (GMAT)

14
Results
  • State Self-Objectification
  • Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) used to determine
    validity of relationship between experimental
    condition and self-objectification.
  • F(1, 73) 8.15, p lt .01
  • Is there a relationship?
  • YES!

15
Results
  • Body Shame
  • ANCOVA again (BMI covariate)
  • Categorical explanatory variables
  • Experimental condition
  • Trait self-objectification
  • sex
  • Significant relationships established between
    each three variables and body shame

16
Significant relationships established between the
explanatory variables and body shame
  • Self-objectification as explanatory variable
  • F(1, 73) 4.50 and p lt .05
  • Experimental Condition as explanatory variable
  • F(1, 73) 6.58 and p lt .05
  • Gender split
  • For Men, trait self-objectification was
    explanatory
  • F(1, 35) 7.19 and p lt .05
  • For Women, most significant relationship found
    between experimental condition and body shame
  • F(1, 37) 5.83 and p lt .05

17
(No Transcript)
18
Math Performance
  • To test the hypothesis that self-objectification
    would lead to performance decreases, they
    analyzed math scores using ANCOVA

19
Results
  • No significant relationship between experimental
    condition and math score emerged for men.
  • For relationship between experimental condition
    and math score for women
  • F(1, 32) 3.94, p .056
  • I 2 What are the 2 groups?
  • Sweater or swimsuit
  • Do we reject Null Hyp. and conclude that there is
    a relationship?
  • YES!
  • Women in the swimsuit condition performed
    significantly worse on the math test than women
    in the sweater.

20
(No Transcript)
21
  • The men in Experiment 2 served as a comparison
    group to help establish that consequences of
    self-objectification are not part of human nature
    more generally but rather are specific to women

22
Consequences of Type I Error
  • For relationship between experimental condition
    and math score for women
  • F(1, 32) 3.94, p .056
  • We rejected the Null Hypothesis and concluded
    that there is a relationship
  • BUT if there is no relationship
  • Incorrect research conclusion, misleading

23
Consequences of Type II Error
  • Cookie liking test
  • P(2, 69) 2.5, p .0895
  • Did not reject Null Hypothesis
  • Concluded there was no relationship between
    amount of cookie eaten and how much they liked
    the cookie
  • If Type II Error had occurred, and the
    researchers failed to reject the Null Hypothesis
    even thought it was false, then
  • Cookie liking would have been a confounding
    variable
  • Possible incorrect conclusions to entire study!
  • Amount eaten would not have been due to body
    shame, but to how much they liked the cookie!

24
BIAS?
  • Participants were undergraduates at the
    University of Michigan and Duke University
  • Non-representative of the larger population?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com