“that swimsuit becomes you: sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification,
Restrained Eating, and Math Performance”
Melissa Eells
![Page 2: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• 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
![Page 3: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Experiment 1: HypothesisSelf-Objectification produces BODY SHAME, which in turn predicts RESTRAINED EATING
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”
N = 72 (all women)
![Page 6: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
BODY SHAME
Variables•Explanatory
•Categorical: trait self-objectification and experimental condition•Response
•Quantitative: body shame
![Page 7: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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)
![Page 8: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• 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
![Page 10: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results
• Highest body shame level most often predicted (57%) symbolic restraint group
![Page 12: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Experiment 2: Hypothesis Self-Objectification diminishes math
performance
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. NEW: test of math performance (GMAT)
N = 82 (40 men, 42 women)
![Page 14: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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 < .01– Is there a relationship?• YES!
![Page 15: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Significant relationships established between the explanatory variables and body shame
• Self-objectification as explanatory variable– F(1, 73) = 4.50 and p < .05
• Experimental Condition as explanatory variable– F(1, 73) = 6.58 and p < .05
• Gender split– For Men, trait self-objectification was explanatory
• F(1, 35) = 7.19 and p < .05– For Women, most significant relationship found between
experimental condition and body shame• F(1, 37) = 5.83 and p < .05
![Page 17: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Math Performance
• To test the hypothesis that self-objectification would lead to performance decreases, they analyzed math scores using ANCOVA
![Page 19: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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 = .056I = 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.
![Page 20: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• “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”
![Page 22: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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!
![Page 24: “That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Performance” Melissa Eells](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649ceb5503460f949b7763/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
BIAS?
• Participants were undergraduates at the University of Michigan and Duke University– Non-representative of the larger population?