Running head: AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 1

Transcription

1 Running head: AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 1 The Effect of Demographics, Body Shame, Ambivalent Sexism, and Enjoyment of Sexualization on Anticipated Emotion in Response to Sexual Objectification Deanna M. Piña University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 2 Abstract It is predicted that a direct effect of political affiliation, religiosity, objectification condition, body shame, enjoyment of sexualization, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism will be found on self impact sale responses in addition to an indirect effect of race via ambivalent (benevolent and hostile) sexism. It is predicted that, in line with affective forecasting, these effects will be importantly different for those who experience a situation of sexual objectification in the workplace (Experiencers) and those who watch the interaction where objectification took place (Observers). No significant main effects were observed for the Experiencer model, however significant indirect effects were found in the Observer model. These results and their implications are discussed.

3 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 3 THE EFFECT OF DEMOGRAPHICS, SELF ESTEEM, AND AMBIVALENT SEXISM ON ANTICIPATED EMOTION IN RESPONSE TO SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION It is predicted that, in line with affective forecasting or anticipated emotion, a direct effect of political affiliation, religiosity, objectification condition, body shame, enjoyment of sexualization, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism will be found on self impact in addition to an indirect effect of race via ambivalent (benevolent and hostile) sexism. It is predicted that these effects will be importantly different for those who experience a situation of sexual objectification in the workplace (Experiencers) and those who watch the interaction where objectification took place (Observers). It is hypothesized that anticipated emotion is typically an incorrect prediction, an effect called affective forecasting bias. (Wilson et al., 2000). Therefore, in order to measure the presence of affective forecasting bias, responses of the observers will be compared to the responses of the experiencers. Similar emotional responses between the two categories would imply a lack of bias, as the predicted emotional reaction would be similar to the actual experienced emotion. The first level of the path analysis concerned the effects of race, political affiliation, religious affiliation, and objectification condition race on body shame scale responses (OBC), Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale (ESS), and Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) responses. Miller et al. (1998) found that race had an interesting effect on a series of body consciousness and self esteem measures where African American women were found to have higher self esteem, and greatest body satisfaction when compared to Latina and European American women. Because of this finding, it was predicted that racial group identity would have a significant effect on OBC responses, where non-white women would have lower levels of shame associated with their physical bodies. For this same reason, it was predicted that race would have a significant

4 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 4 effect on Self Impact Scale (SIS) responses. Additionally, it is predicted that culture, an aspect of society s definition of race, can play an important role in perceptions of sexual harassment. Those from patriarchal cultures, such as Hispanic American or Turkish, might consider sexual aggression from men to be normal, and thus less worthy of reporting. (Cortina & Wasti, 2005). It is hypothesized that race would have a main effect on ESS, as those who are from cultures that have more lax attitudes towards sexual harassment, and on Self Impact, as those same cultures might not perceive a situation of objectification as harassment. For the same reasons, it is hypothesized that Ambivalent Sexism Inventory responses would be significantly affected by race, as certain cultures might consider objectification to be harmless or benevolent. Political affiliation and race were also predicted to have a main effect on OBC, ESS, ASI and Self Impact, for many of the same reasons. Alliances like political affiliation can influences individuals to form ideologies similar to the view of their political party, which like any other belief system, such as religious belief system, can influence decision making (Levy, West, & Rosenthal, 2012). Additionally, Christopher & Mull (2008) along with Burn & Busso (2005) found that Right Wing Authoritarianism, a factor highly correlated with conservative ideology, and religiosity adherence to scriptural literalism were all positively correlated with benevolent but not hostile sexism. Therefore, it is hypothesized that political party affiliation (Republican) and religiosity (Christian) would have a main effect on hostile and benevolent sexism, as well as Self Impact Scale responses. Objectification Condition (High Pervasiveness or Low Pervasiveness) is expected to have a moderating effect where results found in low pervasiveness would be stronger in the high pervasiveness condition. Additionally, it is possible that results might only be present in the high

5 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 5 pervasiveness condition, because the objectification experienced would be more intense and repeated, making the harassment more salient. Method Participants Participants included 39 college students from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 32 (82.1%) European American, 7 (17.9%) Other. For political orientation, 14 (35.9)% identified as Democrats, 25 (64.1)% identified as Republicans. This sample includes only female participants. For high pervasiveness, 20 (51.3%) of participants were randomly chosen, and for low pervasiveness 19 (48.7%) of participants were chosen. In regards to faith, 20 (51.3%) of participants were Christian and 19 (48.7%) were all other faiths. Materials Materials used were the Self Impact Scale, Objectified Body Consciousness Scale, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale. The Self Impact Scale measured how the participant felt a given question would impact the participant himself or herself on a rating of 1 to 9, ranging from unlike me to like me. In this analysis, the Self Impact Scale measured reactions to how one would react to each condition of objectification (high or low pervasiveness). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale developed by McKinley & Hyde (1996) measures body surveillance (view of the body from an outsider perspective), body shame (feeling shame when the body does not conform), and appearance control beliefs. This analysis looks only at body shame self-report responses. Items on this scale were rated from 1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree.

6 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 6 The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) measures attitudes towards different kinds of sexism, in this case hostile sexism (ex. Women are too easily offended ) and benevolent sexism (ex. Women should be cherished and protected by men ). Participants responded on a scale of 0-5 from disagree strongly to agree strongly. For this analysis, each scale was binary coded; 1 for all levels of disagreement and 2 for all levels of agreement. The Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale (Liss, Erchull, & Ramsey, 2011) is an eight item scale intended to measure how one feels towards being sexualized. Participants responded in agreement or disagreement to items measuring importance of physical attractiveness and sexuality, for example one item says I want men to look at me. Procedure Participants recruited through SONA Systems were randomly assigned to either watch or read about a woman being interviewed by three men individually. Participants were also randomly assigned one of three interview conditions in which either all three male interviewers objectified the woman (high pervasiveness), only one of the male interviewers objectified the woman (low pervasiveness), or none of the male interviewers objectified the woman (control). Participants responded to a series of measures intended to discern emotional response to a situation wherein sexual objectification was experienced or observed by the participant. Data was collected at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by Drs. Richard L. Wiener and Sarah Gervais. Results A series of regression analyses were run to examine the direct and indirect relationships between self-impact scale responses and political affiliation, religiosity, race, objectification condition, body shame scale, enjoyment of sexualization scale, benevolent sexism, and hostile

7 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 7 sexism for the Experiencer condition of perspective taking. Figure 1 shows the full model with the regression weights and correlations in Table 1. The full model accounted for 14.7% of the variance in self impact, with no variables having significant direct effects and none having the major contribution. The hypothesized model includes a direct effect of political affiliation, religiosity, objectification condition, body shame, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism on self impact in addition to an indirect effect of race via ambivalent (benevolent and hostile) sexism. The hypothesized model accounted for 11.4% of the variance in self impact (see Figure 2). Regression weights and correlations can be found in Table 2. Contrary to the hypothesis, no variables had significant direct effects on self impact. Also contrary to the hypothesis, there was no significant indirect effect of race via ambivalent sexism. However, this model performed as well as the full model, Q=0.573, W=5.573, p= We also tested the model fit of a trimmed model, which includes only the significant paths from the full model, of which there were none. The trimmed model accounted for none of the variance in self impact, see Figure 3. The trimmed model performed as well as the full model. Secondly, a series of regression analyses were run to examine the direct and indirect relationships between self-impact scale responses and political affiliation, religiosity, race, objectification condition, body shame scale, enjoyment of sexualization scale, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism for the Observer condition of perspective taking. Figure 1 shows the full model with the regression weights and residual error in Table 3. The full model accounted for 36.8% of the variance in self impact, with no variables having significant direct effects and none having the major contribution. A significant indirect effect of political affiliation, race,

8 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 8 body shame scale, and enjoyment of sexualization scale was found via hostile sexism. The hypothesized model includes a direct effect of political affiliation, religiosity, objectification condition, body shame, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism on self impact in addition to an indirect effect of race via ambivalent (benevolent and hostile) sexism. The hypothesized model accounted for 31.1% of the variance in self impact, see Figure 2. Regression weights and correlations can be found in Table 4. Contrary to the hypothesis, no variables had significant direct effects on self impact. Also contrary to the hypothesis, there was no significant indirect effect of race via ambivalent sexism. However, this model performed as well as the full model, Q=0.163, W=10.902, p= We also tested the model fit of a trimmed model, which includes only the significant paths from the full model. Beta weights and correlations can be found in Table 5. The trimmed model accounted for 68.7% of the variance in self impact, see Figure 4. Significant pathways of from the full model, political affiliation, race, and body shame scale remained significant after removing non-significant pathways and the trimmed model performed as well as the full model, Q=0.082, W=14.974, p= Discussion The primary hypothesis was partially supported. Political orientation, race, body shame scale responses, and enjoyment of sexualization responses had a significant indirect effect through hostile sexism. Consistent with the literature, religious affiliation was found to have no effect with hostile sexism. However, contrary to the literature, religious affiliation was found to not be associated with benevolent sexism. Objectification Condition was found to have no significant effect on Self Impact, but this might be because the conditions were being compared against each other, and not against a control in this analysis.

9 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 9 It is important to note that these effects were only found in the Observer model, and not in the Experiencer model. This implies a presence of affective forecasting bias, where those who actually experienced the objectification did not react as negatively as those who only viewed the interaction predicted. This could indicate that viewing a situation in which a woman in your own workplace experiences sexual harassment could be more impactful than actually experiencing the harassment. There are many options for further directions in this research. First, it would be important to develop a larger sample in order to test the effects of race for individual races, instead of white and nonwhite, as race was found to be positively associated with body image in African American women, but this effect might not be the same for Latina or Asian women, who come from more collectivistic cultures. Xanthopoulos et al. (2011) found that body dissatisfaction was greatest in Asian and female children, and this effect could be found in an older sample if larger amounts of Asian participants were included in the study. Additionally, more research as to the impact of religion on female body image could contribute to having a main effect in a later run of this model. Boyatzis (2008) found that many aspects of religiosity are related to a positive body image in women. This effect might be stronger when compared to more religious ideologies than Christianity, as this sample analyzed only a Christian vs. Other sample.

10 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 10 References Boyatzis, C. J. & Quinlan, K.B. (2008). Women s body image, disordered eating, and religion: A critical review of the literature. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 19, Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2008). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to sexual harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1), doi: / Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), Levy, S. R., West, T., & Rosenthal, L. (2012). The contributing pole of prevalent belief systems to intergroup attitudes and behaviors. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 5(1). Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the enjoyment of sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin McKinley, N. M. & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20,

11 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 11 Miller, K. J., Gleaves, D. H., Hirsh, T. G., Green, B. A., Snow, A. C., & Corbett, C. C. (1998). Comparisons of body image dimensions by race/ethnicity and gender in a university population. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 27(3), Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), Xanthopoulos, M. S., Borradaile, K. E., Hayes, S. H., Sherman, S., Vander Veur, S., Grundy, K. M., G., & Foster, G. D. (2011). The impact of weight, sex, and race/ethnicity on body dissatisfaction among urban children. Body Image, 8,

12 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 12 Table 1: Experiencers Full Model Criterion Predictors β (r) Body Shame Scale Political Affiliation^.221 (.297) Religion^^ -.323(-.292) Race^^^ (-.310) Objectification Condition^^^^.162(.211) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale Political Affiliation^.286(.393) Religion^^.233(.209) Race^^^ -.224(-.297) Objectification Condition^^^^.020(.279) Benevolent Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^.481(.351) Religion^^.348(.395) Race^^^.451(.316) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.100(.000) Body Shame Scale.181(.054) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.024(.072) Hostile Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^.334(.444) Religion^^ -.037(.125) Race^^^.530(.100) Objectification Condition^^^^.162(.224) Body Shame Scale.302(.159) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.428(.353) Self Impact Scale Political Affiliation^.115(.183) Religion^^.062(.103) Race^^^ -.272(-.112) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.173(-.050) Body Shame Scale -.050(.010) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.018(.050) Benevolent Sexism Scale.353(.230) Hostile Sexism Scale -.177(-.003) ^1=Democrat, 2=Republican ^^1=Christian, 2=Other ^^^1=White, 2=Other ^^^^1=High Pervasiveness, 2=Low Pervasiveness

13 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 13 Table 2: Experiencers Hypothesized Model Criterion Predictors β (r) Body Shame Scale Political Affiliation^.221(.297) Religion^^ -.323(-.292) Race^^^ -.087(-.310) Objectification Condition^^^^.162(.211) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale Objectification Condition^^^^.224(.224) Benevolent Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^.612(.149) Race^^^.706(.389) Objectification Condition^^^^.279(.447) Body Shame Scale.342(-.028) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.036(.230) Hostile Sexism Scale Race^^^.107(.174) Objectification Condition^^^^.414(.429) Body Shame Scale.035(-.022) Self Impact Scale Political Affiliation^.194(-.120) Religion^^.024(.367) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.095(-.300) Body Shame Scale.027(-169) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.074(-.332) Benevolent Sexism Scale.290(.116) Hostile Sexism Scale -.262(-.120) ^1=Democrat, 2=Republican ^^1=Christian, 2=Other ^^^1=White, 2=Other ^^^^1=High Pervasiveness, 2=Low Pervasiveness

14 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 14 Table 3: Observers Full Model Criterion Predictors β (r) Body Shame Scale Political Affiliation^ -.630(-.371) Religion^^.093(.054) Race^^^ -.534(-.143) Objectification Condition^^^^.151(-.101) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale Political Affiliation^.188(.202) Religion^^.414(-.167) Race^^^ -.232(-.074) Objectification Condition^^^^.758(.224) Benevolent Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^.568(.149) Religion^^ -.389(-.244) Race^^^.892(.389) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.046(.447) Body Shame Scale.326(-.028) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.001(.230) Hostile Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^ 1.127**(.429) Religion^^ -.795(-.447) Race^^^ 1.207**(.174) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.355(.429) Body Shame Scale.754**(-.022) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.460*(.022) Self Impact Scale Political Affiliation^.977(-.120) Religion^^ -.468(.367) Race^^^ 1.128(.240) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.527(-.169) Body Shame Scale.563(-.169) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.643(-.332) Benevolent Sexism Scale.157(.116) Hostile Sexism Scale -.762(-.120) ^1=Democrat, 2=Republican ^^1=Christian, 2=Other ^^^1=White, 2=Other ^^^^1=High Pervasiveness, 2=Low Pervasiveness

15 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 15 Table 4: Observers Hypothesized Model Criterion Predictors β (r) Body Shame Scale Political Affiliation^ -.630(-.371) Religion^^.093(.054) Race^^^ -.534(-.143) Objectification Condition^^^^.151(-.101) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale Objectification Condition^^^^.224(.224) Benevolent Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^.612(.149) Race^^^.706(.389) Objectification Condition^^^^.279(.447) Body Shame Scale.342(-.028) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.036(.230) Hostile Sexism Scale Race^^^.107(.174) Objectification Condition^^^^.414(.429) Body Shame Scale.035(-.022) Self Impact Scale Political Affiliation^.194(-.120) Religion^^.024(.367) Objectification Condition^^^^ -.095(-.300) Body Shame Scale.027(-169) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.074(-.332) Benevolent Sexism Scale.290(.116) Hostile Sexism Scale -.262(-.120) ^1=Democrat, 2=Republican ^^1=Christian, 2=Other ^^^1=White, 2=Other ^^^^1=High Pervasiveness, 2=Low Pervasiveness

16 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 16 Table 5: Observers Trimmed Model Criterion Predictors β (r) Hostile Sexism Scale Political Affiliation^ 1.291**(.429) Race^^^.923**(.174) Body Shame Scale.769*(-.022) Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale -.467(.022) ^1=Democrat, 2=Republican ^^1=Christian, 2=Other ^^^1=White, 2=Other ^^^^1=High Pervasiveness, 2=Low Pervasiveness

17 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 17 Figure 1 Political Affiliation Religion Body Shame Scale Race Objectification condition Enjoyment of Sexualization Benevolent Sexism Hostile Sexism Self Impact Scale

18 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 18 Figure 2 Political Affiliation Religion Body Shame Scale Race Objectification condition Enjoyment of Sexualization Benevolent Sexism Hostile Sexism Self Impact Scale

19 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 19 Figure 3 Political Affiliation Religion Body Shame Scale Benevolent Sexism Self Impact Scale Race Enjoyment of Sexualization Hostile Sexism Objectification condition

20 AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND OBJECTIFICATION 20 Figure 4 Political Affiliation 1.291** Religion Body Shame Scale 0.769* Benevolent Sexism Race 0.923** Enjoyment of Sexualization Hostile Sexism Self Impact Scale Objectification condition