Reduced shared emotional representations toward women revealing more skin

ABSTRACT

Extensive experimental research has been conducted to investigate how individuals empathise with others depending on contextual and motivational factors. However, the effect of sexual objectification (i.e. focus on the individual’s physical appearance over his/her mental state) on empathy is scarce at best thus far. The aim of this work is to shed light on whether objectification modulates empathic responses toward humans and human-like objects. In Experiment 1, participants either underwent visuo-tactile stimulation or witnessed another person (a mannequin, a sexualized or a non-sexualized female confederate) being stimulated with pleasant or unpleasant objects. Participants were then asked to report either their own or the other’s emotional experience. Results showed that shared representations (i.e. similarity between self-other emotional ratings) are significantly lower for the mannequin, intermediate for the sexualized woman, and reach the highest values for the non-sexualized woman. In Experiment 2, shared representations were assessed during a ball-tossing game in which the participants or one of the two confederates (sexualized or non-sexualized woman) were excluded from the game. Again, results showed reduced similarity between self-other emotional ratings toward sexualized as compared to non-sexualized women. The findings suggest that interacting with sexually objectified women reduces empathic responses typically observed within human relations.

KEYWORDS:

• Empathy
• shared representations
• sexual objectification
• women
• self-other distinction

Acknowledgments

We thank Elena Aguggeri and Elisa Cargnelutti for their assistance in data collection. This work is supported by PRIN (2012)-20123X2PXT grant to A.C and G.S and FWF P-33153 grant to G.S.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current studies are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Throughout the manuscript, the term sexualized will be used to refer to the visual presentation of the individual (outfit and posture), while the term sexually objectified indicates the process by which a sexualized person is visually explored and observed (e.g. attentional biases toward sexualized body parts). The term dehumanization finally refers to the consequences/outcomes of sexual objectification. Importantly, a sexualized representation does not necessarily lead to sexual objectification and/or dehumanization.

2 Due to the nature of the task used in the second experiment, a control condition consisting of an object was not possible to implement. See Methods section for further details.

3 Sensitivity analysis for the main effect of Group (α err. prob. = .05, Power [1–β err. prob] = .80, N = 170) indicated a Minimal Detectable Effect (MDE) size f = .21. Hence, the smallest effect size that we can detect (at 80% power) with this sample size falls within the small to intermediate effect size area (Cohen, 2013). Sensitivity analysis for the Group × Time interaction (α err. prob. = .05, Power [1−β err. prob] = .80, N = 170) indicated a Minimal Detectable Effect (MDE) size f = .11. Hence, the smallest effect size that we can detect (at 80% power), with this sample size falls within the small to intermediate effect size area (Cohen, 2013).

4 Long cognitive tasks can leads to mental fatigue and changes in motivation which can affect performance (Möckel et al., 2015).

5 Sample size was determined a priori based on recommendation for power analysis on fMRI studies (Mumford, 2012). The sensitivity analysis for which the planned analyses tested for the within-subject factors Target × Time interaction (α err. prob. = .05, Power [1−β err. prob] = .80, N = 39) indicated a Minimal Detectable Effect (MDE) size f = .19 Hence, the smallest effect size that we would be able to detect (at 80% power) with this sample size falls within the small to intermediate effect size area (Cohen, 2013).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by PRIN grant to A.C and G.S [grant number: PRIN (2012)-20123X2PXT_003], and FWF P-33153 grant to G.S.