Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Mind
-
How to Enjoy Your Decision
5/22/13 -
Inside the Mind of a Psychopath
5/14/13
We typically think of women as the targets of body objectification. In fact, research by psychologist Helen Fisher found that men viewed bikini-clad women much as they would a set of tools.
But a new study finds there’s more subtlety in how we view scantily dressed people. And that it’s not just women who are objectified.
In six separate experiments, subjects looked at photos of fully clothed men and women versus men and women exposing varying amounts of flesh. And the participants rated the mental capacities of both genders in the same ways.
Gender aside, subjects rated clothed people as having more self-control, better communication and better morals than half naked people. But subjects rated scantily-clad women and men as having a higher capacity for experiencing pleasure, as well as fear and pain. This latter group was also, curiously enough, thought of as more sensitive and needing more protection from fear or pain.
For example, subjects were asked if they’d administer harmless but painful electric shocks to another person. They chose to shock those fully clothed significantly more often than those exposed above the waist. So if you’re looking for sympathy, maybe show a little skin.
—Christie Nicholson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentInteresting study. One of the experiments used Amazon's Mechanical Turk to recruit 500 participants online to view images - seems a good way to get what those in the physical sciences would think of as almost adequate sample sizes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs reported, a very uninteresting story. I'm sure the study was better organized than the grammar. It reminded me of using a shotgun to open a can of peaches. How you get from "Fisher found that men viewed bikini-clad women much as they would a set of tools" to "And the participants rated the mental capacities of both genders in the same ways" is beyond me. Finally, on a side note, sentences should not begin with "And."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"harmless but painful...". Is a contradiction in terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConjunctions have been accepted as a proper way to begin a sentence for some time now. And I'm not surprised that you view half-naked women differently than tools (pun intended). And regarding the article, I find it interesting that there are no reported differences between the sexes. And now it is cocktail time!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd...Cheers!
In reference to the Texas Judge recently caught whipping his daughter, I agree. But regarding the boil on my knee, it's not always a contradiction. And by the way, shooting that Judge in the knee would be harmless for me and painful for him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers
A mild electric shot hurts when administered (pain) but quits hurting when the current ends and causes no long lasting consequences (harm). This is not difficult to understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, more skin = more sympathy.....that puzzles me.
"Conjunctions have been accepted as a proper way to begin a sentence for some time now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSays who?
I'm 50 years old and British. I speak English, not "American". To start a sentence with "And" is wrong, however much you suggest that it is acceptable.
In my opinion an even worse abuse of English is starting a sentence with "So".
Many English speaking interviewers, especially Americans, are now incapable of starting sentences with any word other than "So".
And so what you so and so. :O)
My dearest smiler. It's almost as annoying as "like"! Do British kids say like the word "like" in like every sentence like three or four times?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers, mate.
Do semi-naked people argue about grammer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLanguages evolve, and usage is a (if not the) major factor in that evolution. I have a whole wall of books on language in my office and most of them acknowledge that it is a living, changing entity. Aren't we more concerned about scientific findings here, though, than what we were taught was "proper" linguistic usage in school?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I found most interesting was the article itself, who wrote it, and where it was published:
"More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification." Gray, Kurt; Knobe, Joshua; Sheskin, Mark; Bloom, Paul; Barrett, Lisa Feldman. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nov 7, 2011. APA PsycNET.)
The abstract of the paper is not especially well written, and the summary above compares favorably to it. I would suggest that those of us who find the subject matter interesting go directly to JPSP and read the original article there, rather than arguing about a summary of it.
Beauty may be only skin deep but ugly goes clean clear thru to the,,,DNA,,,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe "objectify" one another for one reason; no one wants to invest time and energy attempting reproduction with a non-viable mate. Even reptiles know that(and so does our reptilian hind brain),,,
On the other hand, beauty today can be purchased so we have no idea if beauty equates with reproductive health. What attracts me the most is a healthy neurological system(ie, brains) and that's a lot harder to define than mere physical attractiveness.
And.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo.
I was really glad to see this article. Now I know when to go out fully-clothed or scantily-clothed, depending on how I want to impress others at the time.
Pictures to follow.
This article was slightly interesting but didn't really tell me anything that i didn't already now. It seems to be more common knowledge that people that show more skin are looking for something, attention, sympothy, etc. People that are fully clothed are looked more highly upon and respected a lot more. I feel as through this article doesn't describe as much research as it should, and there should be more hard based examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth the article and the comments are rather amusing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe article leaves out the specific milieus in which the semi-or fully-clad humans were photographed; was it in a sports club, a doctor's surgery, or a nightclub?? Dress codes do apply, after all, depending where we are.
(Students attending a formal University dinner had been asked to wear a tie; which they did, obligingly; and that was all they wore.)
Many commentators, funnily enough, seem to indulge in a game of 'shooting-the-messenger', critizising the style of the message rather than the contents of it; Siegmund Freud might even have classified this as sexual repression...
Apropos seeing nudity like a 'tool': remember Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times, nut-fastening wrench in hand, chasing a hapless young woman with protruding skirt buttons?
Interesting, too, that the article was bound to be gender-biassed; judging from the names, it was written by a pack of (presumably) young males, and only one lonely female!
I hope tax dollars weren't wasted on that study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a huge waste of money no matter who paid for it!