Sex Roles
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01115-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An Initial Test of the Cosmetics Dehumanization Hypothesis: Heavy
Makeup Diminishes Attributions of Humanness-Related Traits
to Women
Philippe Bernard 1 & Joanne Content 1 & Lara Servais 1 & Robin Wollast 1 & Sarah Gervais 2
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Objectification theory suggests that sexualization has significant dehumanizing consequences for how perceivers see women. To
date, research has mostly documented how sexualized bodies in the mass media are objectified and dehumanized. The purpose of
the present work was to test the novel cosmetics dehumanization hypothesis (CDH), that is, that subtler manifestations of
sexualization, such as heavy makeup, might influence the way people attribute humanness-related traits to women. Across four
experiments, 1000 participants (mostly from the United Kingdom and United States) were asked to evaluate women’s faces with
or without heavy makeup. Consistent with the CDH, results showed that faces with makeup were rated as less human while using
complementary indicators of dehumanization: They were perceived as possessing less humanness, less agency, less experience
(Experiment 1), less competence, less warmth, and less morality (Experiments 2–4) than faces without makeup. This pattern of
results was observed for faces of both models (Experiments 1–2) and ordinary women (Experiments 3–4). In Experiment 4, we
manipulated the part of the face that wore makeup (eye makeup vs. lipstick) and found that faces with eye makeup were attributed
the least amount of warmth and competence. A meta-analysis based on Experiments 2–4 confirmed the robustness of the
findings, which were not moderated by either participant gender or sexual orientation. Whereas prior studies suggested that a
focus on faces may serve as an antidote for objectification and related dehumanization, the present set of experiments indicates
that this strategy might not always be effective.
Keywords Objectification . Dehumanization . Makeup . Sexualization . Agency . Mind . Social perception . Warmth .
Competence . Morality
The face plays a crucial role in person perception. People
spend more time looking at faces than other body areas
(Hewig et al. 2008) because faces provide a wealth of information about other human beings including identity, emotions, behavioral intentions, health, and social categories
(Ekman 1993; see also Hall et al. 2005). At the same time,
focusing on people’s bodies is associated with seeing them as
less human, including denying them competence, agency, and
moral status (Gray et al. 2011; Loughnan et al. 2010). The
present paper examines, for the first time, whether dehumanization can emerge when people focus on women’s faces
wearing heavy makeup.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01115-y) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
Objectification, Cosmetics Use, and Social
Perception
* Philippe Bernard
pbernard@ulb.ac.be
Objectification theory suggests that women are reduced to
their appearance, body, and sexualized body parts in Western
cultures (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). One of the primary
contributors of this objectification of women is the pervasive
sexualization of their bodies in the media. Indeed, 45.5% of
young female actors on primetime television are sexualized
(Smith et al. 2012) and 22% of television commercials contain
1
Center for Social and Cultural Psychology, Université libre de
Bruxelles, CP 122, Avenue F. Roosevelt, 50, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
2
Subtle Prejudice Lab, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
Sex Roles
sexualized women (Messineo 2008). Likewise, 49% of the
time, women who are shown on video game covers are sexualized (Burgess et al. 2007; for a review, see Ward 2016).
Consistent with the tenets of objectification theory, body
sexualization fundamentally changes social perception.
Sexualized women presented in underwear or lingerie and
with sexually suggestive postures are visually processed in
ways that resemble object perception (Bernard et al. 2018a;
Bernard et al. 2018d, Bernard et al. 2019b), and they are
attributed less agency (Cikara et al. 2011), less uniquely human traits (Vaes et al. 2011), less mind and moral status
(Loughnan et al. 2010), and less warmth, competence, and
morality (Bernard and Wollast 2019) by both male and female
participants.
These lines of research have been informative regarding
how people objectify and dehumanize people with sexualized
bodies (for reviews, see Bernard et al. 2018c; Heflick and
Goldenberg 2014; Ward 2016), but they have not illuminated
how potentially subtler manifestations of sexualization, such
as the use of heavy makeup, might affect humanness attributions. Further, these studies have primarily focused on women
who appear in mass media (e.g., models), so we know considerably less about the attribution of humanness to “ordinary”
women. To fill these gaps in the literature, the present paper
tests the cosmetics dehumanization hypothesis (CDH), that is,
that women’s faces with heavy makeup may be perceived as
possessing less humanness than faces without makeup.
The CDH may seem at odds with the large literature inspired by objectification theory, suggesting that a focus on
faces may serve as an antidote for objectification and related
dehumanization (for reviews, see Bernard et al. 2018c; Ward
2016). Eye-tracking studies found that both men and women
look at people’s faces for more time when they evaluate people’s personality than when they evaluate people’s physical
appearance (Bernard et al. 2018b; Gervais et al. 2013).
Relatedly, Loughnan et al. (2010) asked participants to view
images of women having high facial prominence (faces only)
versus low facial prominence (faces and sexualized bodies)
versus zero facial prominence (headless sexualized bodies)
and found that the attribution of mind decreased as facefocus decreased among male and female participants (see
also Gray et al. 2011). Yet, makeup remained constant across
conditions in these important studies, leaving open the possibility that women’s faces with heavy makeup may be attributed less humanness than women’s faces without makeup.
Research on sexualization, especially studies inspired by
objectification theory, often focus on bodily sex appeal and
sexual body parts. A closer look at media studies reveals that
sexualization is communicated through bodily cues (Burgess
et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2012), but also communicated through
facial cues (e.g., puckering lips or batting eyelashes: Messineo
2008). Sexualization is promoted through heteronormative
messages pressuring girls and women to sexualize themselves
in myriad ways, including emphasizing their sexiness through
their behaviors, bodies, and faces (Smolak et al. 2014; see also
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the
Sexualization of Girls 2007).
Relatedly, attractiveness and sexualization are often linked,
but not interchangeable constructs. Whereas an “attractive”
appearance meets social norms regarding feminine appearance, sexualization refers specifically to a “sexy” appearance
that represents a focus on sexiness and sexual appeal (Smolak
et al. 2014). To illustrate, college women reported presenting
themselves as attractive (e.g., through well-fitting clothing,
and light makeup), but not sexy during the week when attending class, whereas they reported presenting themselves as sexy
(e.g., through tight-fitting clothing, low-cut dresses, and heavy
makeup) for weekend parties (Smolak et al. 2014). Thus, selfsexualization appears to be context-dependent and manifests
not only in bodily sexualization such as wearing low-cut
dresses, but also in face sexualization including wearing
heavy makeup (Smolak et al. 2014). No known research, however, has examined whether these subtler means of
sexualization, including heavy cosmetic use, affect the way
perceivers attribute mind and humanness to women.
The CDH suggests that people will attribute less humanness to women wearing heavy makeup (vs. no makeup)
because heavy makeup causes perceivers to focus more
on their sexiness and sexual appeal rather than their internal characteristics. Consistent with this possibility, research has found that women’s faces with heavy makeup
prompt perceptions of promiscuity and sexual availability
among perceivers (Batres et al. 2018; Mileva et al. 2016) as
well as lower attribution of morality and increased perceptions of frivolity and superficiality (Huguet et al. 2004;
Workman and Johnson 1991; for a review, see Richetin
et al. 2007). Although these findings are suggestive, they
do not speak directly to the possibility that heavy cosmetic
use undermines humanness attribution.
Overview of the Present Work
In the present work, we provide an initial test of the cosmetics
dehumanization hypothesis (CDH). The CDH suggests that if
faces contain heavy makeup (vs. no makeup), then they will
be dehumanized. We conducted four experiments in which we
manipulated the presence of heavy makeup and measured
dehumanization. We initially tested the CDH in Experiments
1–2 with the use of models, as in previous objectification
research (Bernard et al. 2018d; Loughnan et al. 2010), and
then we examined its applicability to ordinary women in
Experiments 3–4.
Seeing someone as less human is theorized as a multidimensional construct (Haslam 2006; Gray et al. 2007), so we
used a multiple-pronged approach to measure dehumanization
Sex Roles
in our experiments. First, mind perception theory (MPT; Gray
et al. 2007) posits that people attribute minds to others as a
function of two fundamental dimensions: agency (i.e., the
capacity to act; e.g., self-control abilities) and experience
(i.e., the capacity to feel; e.g., feeling emotional states such
as hunger and fear). Both dimensions are core elements of
humanness (for a review, see Waytz et al. 2010). To illustrate,
people attribute more agency and experience to men and
women than to robots and objects (Gray et al. 2007).
Second, a vast body of research in social psychology
documents that warmth (i.e., friendly intentions) and competence (i.e., capability) drive the way people form impressions of others (Cuddy et al. 2008; Fiske et al. 2002).
Although the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske et al.
2002) was not originally proposed as a model of dehumanization, it subsequently was conceptualized in dehumanization terms (Fiske 2013). The SCM competence dimension overlaps with the evaluations of capability and cognitive capacities that are at the core of the MPT agency dimension, and the SCM warmth dimension, in which the
judgments of emotionality are essential, parallels the
MPT experience dimension. Just like MPT experience
and agency dimensions, warmth and competence can be
used as complementary indicators of dehumanization
(Harris and Fiske 2009; Li et al. 2014). To illustrate, research has found that sexualized women are dehumanized:
People attribute less agency, and experience (Gray et al.
2011), but also less warmth and competence to them
(Bernard and Wollast 2019). Relatedly, people attribute
fewer mental states to people who are perceived as low in
the warmth and competence dimensions (Semin and
Fiedler 1988). These people also trigger lower activation
of the medial prefrontal cortex areas that typically activate
when people engage in social cognition more generally
(for reviews, see Harris and Fiske 2009; Mar 2011) and
when people attribute warmth and competence more specifically (Harris and Fiske 2006, see also Ma et al. 2016;
Van Overwalle et al. 2016).
We also measured perceived morality as another, complementary indicator of dehumanization in Experiments 2–
4. Although many social perception researchers focus on
competence and warmth, others have suggested that morality (i.e., trustworthiness) is a related, but distinct construct (Anderson and Sedikides 1991; Leach et al. 2007).
Honest people are not necessarily friendly, and the opposite is also true. Whereas warmth refers to sociability traits,
such as friendliness, that are associated with cooperative
relations, morality refers to fairness traits, such as trustworthiness, that are critical to establishing just relations in
which social values and ethics are respected. Importantly,
morality has a primary role in forming impressions about
individuals and groups (Brambilla and Leach 2014; Leach
et al. 2007). In line with body sexualization and
appearance-focus objectification research (Bernard and
Wollast 2019; Gray et al. 2011; Heflick and Goldenberg
2009; Loughnan et al. 2010), we utilized these measures to
examine whether heavy makeup causes more dehumanization of women’s faces. Using similar measures as in previous studies allows more direct comparisons between past
research on body sexualization and the present research on
face sexualization.
In sum, we hypothesized that faces with heavy makeup (vs.
no makeup) will be dehumanized through diminished attributions of humanness, agency, and experience (Experiment 1)
and diminished attributions of competence, warmth, and morality (Experiments 2–4). Recent calls for meta-analysis highlight the benefit of aggregating information across studies to
provide a more robust and precise estimate of findings
(Cumming 2014; Goh et al. 2016). In order to obtain a more
accurate estimated effect size associated with the effects of
makeup on our dehumanization measures, we also performed
a meta-analysis on data from Experiments 2–4, all of which
assessed attributions of competence, warmth, and morality as
indicators of dehumanization. Finally, because neither participant gender nor participant age differences typically emerge
in sexualization and dehumanization research (for a review,
see Ward 2016), we did not expect that participant gender
(and/or participant age and/or sexual orientation) would moderate the dehumanizing effects of heavy makeup. These variables were, thus, omitted from analyses in individual experiments (but were nonetheless integrated into our metaanalysis).
Experiment 1: Makeup and Attribution
of Humanness, Agency, and Experience
In an initial investigation of the CDH, we manipulated facial
makeup and measured humanness perceptions (Andrighetto
et al. 2017), agency, and experience (Gray et al. 2007;
Loughnan et al. 2010). We hypothesized that women’s faces
with heavy makeup would be evaluated as possessing less
humanness (Hypothesis 1a), less agency (Hypothesis 1b),
and less experience (Hypothesis 1c) than faces without
makeup.
Method
Based on effect sizes found in studies investigating the effects
of body sexualization (Loughnan et al. 2013) and appearancefocus (Heflick et al. 2011) on dehumanization, our sample size
was calculated to detect a moderate size effect of makeup on
the dehumanization measures (d = .5) with a power of .90,
which translated into a required sample size of 140. Initially
138 UK participants completed an online survey via a link
posted on Prolific and received monetary compensation of
Sex Roles
.20£ (USD $.30; hourly wage = 6£; USD $9). No participant
failed the two attention check questions included within the
questionnaires (participants were asked to select a specific
number on a 7-Likert point scale). However, two participants
who indicated 7 on all items for the dependent variables, suggesting a lack of attention to the item content, were removed
from the sample. We used this same approach in all of our
experiments. The final sample was, thus, composed of 136
participants (Mage = 24.08, SD = 3.36, range = 18–29, 71
women; 89% of the sample reported being heterosexual).
Participants were assigned to one of the two conditions (makeup, no makeup) and were asked to complete a questionnaire
assessing their perceptions of three women. We utilized images of three women’s faces with neutral facial expressions
that were freely available on the internet. Virtual makeover
technology (ModiFace®) was used to create three faces with
heavy makeup (see the online supplement). As a function of
the condition, participants saw either three pictures of faces
with heavy makeup or the same three pictures without makeup
for 10 seconds.
Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the
woman appearing in the picture brought to mind words
associated with humanness (“Please rate the extent to
which this woman called to your mind each of the following words”), with words including human being, person,
individual, and subject on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very much) (Andrighetto et al.
2017). Although the humanness scale displayed acceptable
reliability (α = .74), deleting the item “subject” substantially improved the reliability (α = .91). Consequently, this
one item was removed from the scale.
For mind attribution, we used a modified version of the
Mind Perception Scale (Gray et al. 2007), which includes
two subscales (i.e., agency and experience). For the agency
subscale, we selected items that loaded highest on the
agency factor and that loaded lowest on the experience
factor (self-control, acting morally, and memory; α = .92)
in the original research (Gray et al. 2007). We used the
same criterion for the experience subscale (hunger, fear,
and pain; α = .96). For both subscales, the instructions
were “Please rate the extent to which you think this woman
is capable of experiencing the following mental activities”
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to
7 (Very much).
At the end of the questionnaire, participants completed
two manipulation check questions. Specifically, they
viewed the pictures for a second time and were asked to
rate the extent to which each woman was wearing a lot of
makeup (“This person is wearing a lot of makeup”) and
was sexualized (“This person is depicted in a sexualized
way”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at
all) to 7 (Very much). The questionnaire ended after a series of demographic questions.
Results
Each of the two manipulation check measures was submitted to a separate one-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) including makeup (makeup, no makeup) as a
between-participant factor. The manipulation checks confirmed that faces with makeup (M = 5.81, SD = .92) were
rated as wearing a lot of makeup to a greater extent than
faces without makeup (M = 2.60, SD = 1.10), F(1, 134) =
334.24, p < .001, ηp2 = .71. Faces with makeup (M = 3.45,
SD = 1.48) were also rated as more sexualized than faces
without makeup (M = 1.83, SD = 1.00), F(1, 134) = 57.25,
p < .001, ηp2 = .30. Relatedly, makeup and sexualization
were positively correlated, r(134) = .55, p < .001.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a
main effect of the makeup condition on the humanness measures (humanness, agency, and experience), F(3, 132) = 4.58,
p = .004, ηp2 = .09. Each dehumanization measure was then
submitted to a separate one-way ANOVA including makeup
(heavy makeup, no makeup) as a between-participant factor.
Consistent with Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c, univariate
ANOVAs revealed main effects of makeup on humanness,
agency, and experience (see Table 1): Faces with heavy makeup, compared to those without makeup, were seen as
possessing less humanness, F(1, 134) = 12.71, p = .001,
ηp2 = .09, less agency, F(1, 134) = 8.54, p = .004, ηp2 = .06,
and less experience, F(1, 134) = 4.03, p = .047, ηp2 = .03.
Discussion
Experiment 1 provided initial evidence for the CDH:
Women with heavy makeup were attributed lower attributions of humanness, agency, and experience. One potential limitation of Experiment 1 is that our measures
of dehumanization were quite obvious. Although our
design was based on prior research, participants may
have presumed that we expected women with heavy
makeup to be seen as less human. Thus, we utilized a less
apparent, but still conceptually related measure of dehumanization in Experiment 2.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for humanness, agency and experience as
a function of makeup conditions, Experiment 1
Humanness
Agency
Experience
No makeup
M (SD)
Makeup
M (SD)
5.75 (1.08)a
5.36 (1.07)a
4.79 (1.62)a
5.02 (1.29)b
4.82 (1.07)b
4.26 (1.45)b
Means across each row with different subscripts are significantly different, ps < .05
Sex Roles
Experiment 2: Heavy Makeup
and the Fundamental Dimensions of Social
Perception
In Experiment 2, we aimed to conceptually replicate
Experiment 1 by examining attribution of competence,
warmth, and morality as fundamental dimensions of social
perception (Fiske et al. 2002; Leach et al. 2007) and as additional indicators of dehumanization (Bernard and Wollast
2019; Heflick et al. 2011). Based on the CDH, we hypothesized that women’s faces with heavy makeup would be seen as
possessing less competence (Hypothesis 2a), less warmth
(Hypothesis 2b), and less morality (Hypothesis 2c) than faces
without makeup.
Method
Initially 242 UK participants completed Experiment 2.
Attention checks were inadvertently omitted. However, a visual inspection of the data revealed that one participant indicated 7 for all items on all scales, suggesting a lack of attention
to the item content. Using the same approach as Experiment 1,
this participant was removed from further analysis. The final
sample included 241 participants (Mage = 23.80, SD = 4.19,
range = 18–61; 138 women; 82% of the sample reported being
heterosexual). The sample size was calculated based on the
mean effect size associated with the main effects of makeup
on dehumanization measures observed in Experiment 1
(d = .43) to achieve a power greater than .90. The procedure
was the same as Experiment 1. The survey link was posted on
Prolific and was not available to participants who completed
Experiment 1. Following Heflick et al. (2011), we used two
items to assess competence (intelligent, capable; α = .90),
warmth (kind, friendly; α = .91), and morality (sincere, trustworthy; α = .86). For all pictures, participants were given the
following instructions: “Please rate the extent to which you
think the following traits are representative of her” on a 7point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very
much). The questionnaire ended with the same manipulation
check questions as Experiment 1 and a series of demographic
questions.
makeup was positively correlated with sexualization,
r(239) = .61, p < .001.
A MANOVA revealed a main effect of the makeup condition on the humanness-related measures (competence,
warmth, and morality), F(3, 237) = 2.93, p = .034,
ηp2 = .036. Consistent with Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c, univariate ANOVAs revealed effects of makeup on attribution of
competence, warmth, and morality (see Table 2). Faces with
heavy makeup were perceived as possessing less competence,
F(1, 239) = 4.65, p = .032, ηp2 = .02, less warmth, F(1, 239) =
7.02, p = .009, ηp2 = .03, and less morality, F(1, 239) = 8.35,
p = .004, ηp2 = .03, than faces without makeup.
Discussion
Together, Experiments 1 and 2 provide evidence for the CDH.
As in Experiment 1, women’s faces with heavy makeup were
seen as less human—less warm, less competent, and less
moral—relative to women’s faces without makeup. One limitation of Experiments 1 and 2 is that we used models, similar
to most research in the area of objectification. However, this
similarity raises the possibility that the CDH may be limited to
models and not generalized to less selectively attractive, ordinary women. We addressed this issue in Experiment 3.
Experiment 3: Heavy Makeup and Ordinary
Women’s Faces
Although Experiments 1 and 2 provided strong evidence for
the CDH, these two studies suffered from poor ecological
validity with respect to ordinary women given that we relied
on images of models’ faces. Although our work represents an
important contribution given the degree to which people are
exposed to attractive models in media (e.g., advertising), we
wanted to further test the applicability of the CDH to less
attractive, ordinary women. In Experiment 3, we relied on
pictures of real women’s faces, which were indeed rated as
less attractive than models’ faces. (Information about the pilot
testing of these stimuli can be found in the online supplement).
As in Experiment 2, we hypothesized that faces with heavy
makeup would be evaluated as possessing less competence
Results
The manipulation checks confirmed that faces with
heavy makeup (M = 5.45, SD = 1.13) were rated as wearing a lot of makeup to a greater extent than faces without makeup (M = 2.34, SD = 1.21), F(1, 239) = 419.42,
p < .001, η p 2 = .64. Faces with heavy makeup (M =
3.25, SD = 1.62) were also rated as more sexualized than
faces without makeup (M = 1.76, SD = 1.13), F(1, 239) =
70.11, p < .001, ηp2 = .23, indicating that cosmetics use was
associated with higher sexualization. Relatedly, the amount of
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for competence, warmth, and morality as
a function of makeup conditions, Experiment 2
Competence
Warmth
Morality
No makeup
M (SD)
Makeup
M (SD)
4.90 (.82)a
4.53 (.81)a
4.53 (.78)a
4.67 (.81)b
4.26 (.79)b
4.24 (.77)b
Means across each row with different subscripts are significantly different, ps < .05
Sex Roles
(Hypothesis 2a), less warmth (Hypothesis 2b), and less morality (Hypothesis 2c) than faces without makeup.
Method
Initially 245 participants completed Experiment 3. Using the
same approach as Experiments 1 and 2, seven participants
who failed two attention check items and one participant
who indicated 1 on all items assessing the dependent variables
were excluded from further analysis. The final sample thus
included 237 participants (Mage = 24.90, SD = 3.01, range =
18–29; 178 women, 86% of the sample included UK participants; 81% of the sample reported being heterosexual). We
included a similar sample size as Experiment 2, assuming
similar effect sizes. The procedure was the same as in
Experiment 2, except that we used pictures of ordinary
women’s faces. We took these pictures ourselves, and these
women agreed that these pictures could be used for research
purposes. We again used ModiFace™ to create the stimuli for
the sexualized face condition (see the online supplement). The
survey link was again posted on Prolific. Finally, we used the
same measures of competence (α = .87), warmth (α = .92),
and morality (α = .80), as well as the same manipulation
check and demographic questions in Experiment 2.
Results
The manipulation checks confirmed that faces with heavy
makeup (M = 4.93, SD = 1.09) were rated as wearing a greater
amount of makeup than with faces without makeup (M = 2.14,
SD = .88), F(1, 235) = 474.12, p < .001, ηp2 = .67. Faces with
heavy makeup (M = 2.68, SD = 1.40) were also rated as more
sexualized than faces without makeup (M = 1.47, SD = .68),
F(1, 235) = 73.20, p < .001, ηp2 = .24. As in Experiments 1
and 2, the amount of makeup was positively correlated with
sexualization, r(235) = .57, p < .001.
A MANOVA revealed a main effect of the makeup condition on the humanness-related measures (competence,
warmth, and morality), F(3, 233) = 8.84, p < .001, ηp2 = .10.
A series of univariate ANOVAs revealed effects of makeup on
attributions of competence and warmth (see Table 3).
Consistent with Hypotheses 2a and 2b, faces with makeup
were perceived as possessing less competence, F(1, 235) =
8.68, p = .004, ηp2 = .04, and less warmth, F(1, 235) = 12.50,
p < .001, ηp2 = .05, than faces without makeup. However, inconsistent with Hypothesis 3c, faces with makeup were seen
as possessing similar morality as faces without makeup, F(1,
235) = 1.26, p = .26, ηp2 = .005.
Discussion
In Experiment 3, we conceptually replicated, for the most part,
the results of Experiments 1 and 2. We also extended our
consideration of the CDH from female models who were very
attractive to real, ordinary women. Consistent with the CDH,
we found that women with makeup were perceived as less
competent and less warm than women with faces without
makeup. Together, Experiments 1–3 speak to the robustness
of the support for the CDH. The hypothesis has been replicated across several measures of dehumanization as well as for
models and ordinary women. Given that the null effect on
morality in Experiment 3 was unexpected, we included this
measure again in Experiment 4. Additionally, if a focus on
sexual appeal is, at least in part, responsible for dehumanization of women who are subtly sexualized through makeup,
then it would be valuable to identify which facial parts may
be driving the dehumanization effects. Experiment 4 aimed to
manipulate the face part that contained makeup to disentangle
whether the dehumanization occurring as a result of makeup
use is mostly driven by eye makeup versus lipstick.
Experiment 4: Eye Makeup, Lipstick,
and Focus on Face Parts
Although Experiments 1–3 provided support for the CDH
with multiple conceptual replications, in Experiment 4 we
aimed to examine the role of the face part (eye vs. mouth)
containing makeup on dehumanization, specifically whether
dehumanization is driven more by eye makeup (Hypothesis
3a) versus lipstick (Hypothesis 3b). A secondary purpose of
Experiment 4 was to examine whether eye makeup and lipstick increase the focus on face parts (Hypothesis 4), with a
heightened focus on the eyes in the eye makeup condition
(Hypothesis 4a) and with a heightened focus on the mouth
in the lipstick condition (Hypothesis 4b) as compared to the
no makeup condition.
Method
Given that we used approximately 120 participants per condition in Experiments 2 and 3, we did the same in Experiment 4
assuming that 360 participants would be needed given the
presence of three conditions. Initially 375 participants completed Experiment 4. Six participants who failed two attention
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for competence, warmth, and morality as
a function of makeup conditions, Experiment 3
Competence
Warmth
Morality
No makeup
M (SD)
Makeup
M (SD)
4.54 (.63)a
4.24 (.61)a
4.16 (.65)a
4.27 (.77)b
3.93 (.73)b
4.06 (.74)a
Means across each row with different subscripts are significantly different, ps < .05
Sex Roles
checks and two additional participants who completed the
questionnaire carelessly (indicating 1 or 7 on all dehumanization questions) were excluded from further analysis. The final
sample, thus, included 367 participants (Mage = 24.77, SD =
3.18, range = 18–29; 238 women, 70% of the sample included
UK participants and 24% included US participants; 84% of
the sample reported being heterosexual). The procedure was
similar to Experiments 1–3. However, we included an eye
makeup only condition as well as a lipstick only condition
(instead of the combined heavy eye makeup and lipstick condition in Experiments 1–3) in addition to the no makeup condition (see the online supplement). The survey link was again
posted on Prolific and was unavailable to participants from
previous experiments.
The dehumanization measures, which were the same as in
Experiment 3, had very good reliabilities (α = .86 for competence; α = .92 for warmth; α = .89 for morality). Finally, toward the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to
indicate for all pictures whether they focused on face parts. To
assess the focus on face parts, participants were asked to answer the following two questions: “When I first saw this picture, I mostly focused on the eyes” and “When I first saw this
picture, I mostly focused on the mouth.” Rating were done
using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to
7 (Very much). The questionnaire ended with manipulation
check questions and a series of demographic questions.
Results
The manipulation checks indicated a main effect of the makeup conditions on the amount of makeup, F(2, 364) = 42.95,
p < .001, ηp2 = .19, and sexualization ratings, F(2, 364) =
4.72, p = .009, ηp2 = .03. Women in the eye makeup condition
(M = 3.67, SD = 1.18) were evaluated as wearing a greater
amount of makeup than women in the lipstick condition
(M = 3.09, SD = 1.33), p < .001, and women in the lipstick
condition were evaluated as wearing more makeup than women in the no makeup condition (M = 2.29, SD = .98), p < .001.
Moreover, faces in the eye makeup (M = 1.93, SD = 1.01) and
lipstick conditions (M = 1.92, SD = 1.05) were evaluated as
being sexualized to the same extent (p > .99), and they were
both perceived as being more sexualized than faces without
makeup (M = 1.60, SD = .87), ps < .03. As in Experiments 1–
3, the amount of makeup was positively correlated with
sexualization, r(365) = .45, p < .001 (and this pattern emerged
in the three makeup conditions; all ps < .001).
A MANOVA revealed a main effect of the makeup conditions on the humanness-related measures (competence,
warmth, and morality), F(6, 726) = 4.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .03.
Univariate ANOVAs revealed effects of makeup on attributions of competence, F(2, 364) = 3.77, p = .024, ηp2 = .02, and
warmth, F(2, 364) = 8.13, p < .001, ηp2 = .04, whereas the effect of makeup conditions on morality was again not
significant, F(2, 364) = 2.75, p = .065, η p 2 = .02 (see
Table 4). Consistent with Hypothesis 3a (and thus inconsistent
with Hypothesis 3b), post-hoc tests indicated that faces with
eye makeup were attributed the least amount of competence
and warmth. For competence, faces with eye makeup were
evaluated as possessing less competence than faces without
makeup (p = .046) and faces with lipstick (p = .048), whereas
ratings of competence for faces without makeup and faces
with lipstick did not differ (p > .99). Regarding the warmth
dimension, faces with eye makeup were rated as possessing
less warmth than faces without makeup (p < .001). Faces with
eye makeup and faces with lipstick were rated as equally
warm (p = .18). Regarding morality, post-hoc tests did not
reveal significant differences between the makeup conditions
(all ps > .051).
Finally, a MANOVA revealed a main effect of the makeup
conditions on eyes and mouth focus, F(4, 728) = 19.26,
p < .001, ηp2 = .10. ANOVAs revealed effects of makeup on
eyes, F(2, 364) = 15.43, p < .001, ηp2 = .08, and mouth focus,
F(2, 364) = 22.13, p < .001, η p 2 = .11. Consistent with
Hypothesis 3a, participants focused to a greater extent on the
eyes when viewing faces with eye makeup (M = 4.45, SD =
1.17) than when viewing faces without makeup (M = 3.96,
SD = 1.33; p = .006), and they focused on the eyes to a greater
extent when viewing faces without makeup than in the lipstick
condition (M = 3.58, SD = 1.17), p = .036. Finally, consistent
with Hypothesis 4b, participants focused to a greater extent on
the mouth in the lipstick condition (M = 3.27, SD = 1.15) than
in the no makeup (M = 2.50, SD = 1.08), p < .001, and eye
makeup conditions (M = 2.50, SD = .89), p < .001.
In sum, Experiment 4 showed that faces with eye makeup
were attributed the least amount of competence and warmth.
In addition, makeup caused an increased focus on the eyes in
the eye makeup condition and on the mouth in the lipstick
condition.
Meta-Analysis on Competence, Warmth
and Morality (Experiments 2–4)
Because we had some conflicting findings across experiments
(e.g., heavy makeup influenced morality in some experiments,
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for competence, warmth, and morality as
a function of makeup conditions, Experiment 4
Competence
Warmth
Morality
No makeup
M (SD)
Eyes makeup only
M (SD)
Lipstick only
M (SD)
4.49 (.71)a
4.34 (.75)a
4.27 (.80)a
4.28 (.69)b
3.97 (.72)b
4.06 (.70)a
4.49 (.67)a
4.14 (.67)a,b
4.15 (.69)a
Means across each row with different subscripts are significantly different, ps < .05
Sex Roles
but not others), we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the
robustness of the support for the CDH, in line with current
recommendations (Cumming 2014; Giner-Sorolla 2012; Goh
et al. 2016). The meta-analysis only included data from
Experiments 2–4 because we included different dependent
variables in Experiment 1. First, we examined whether faces
with makeup were perceived as wearing more makeup and as
being more sexualized than faces without makeup (i.e., manipulation check questions). Second, and more importantly,
we compared whether women with makeup (heavy makeup
in Experiments 2–3; eye makeup and lipstick conditions in
Experiment 4) were evaluated as possessing less competence,
less warmth, and less morality (Experiments 2–4) than women
without makeup. Importantly, this analysis also aimed to examine whether the effect of cosmetics on ascription of humanness was more or less pronounced as a function of the experiment. We also tested whether participants’ gender moderated
the effect of makeup on dehumanization. In total, the
overall sample size for this meta-analysis included 845
participants (554 women; M age = 24.53, SD = 3.48,
range = 18–61; 82% of the sample reported being
heterosexual).
Manipulation Checks
Regarding the amount of makeup and sexualization (i.e., manipulation check questions), we performed two separate
ANOVAs including makeup (makeup, no makeup) as a
between-participant factor. Consistent with the results found
in the individual experiments, we found a main effect of
makeup conditions on the perceived amount of makeup. Not
surprisingly, faces with makeup were indeed rated as wearing
more makeup than faces without makeup, F(1, 843) = 474.62,
p < .001, 95% CI [1.82, 2.18], Cohen’s d = 1.50. Moreover,
faces with makeup were rated as being more sexualized than
faces without makeup, F(1, 843) = 96.14, p < .001, 95% CI
[.66, .99], Cohen’s d = .67. Also consistent with the correlational patterns found in each individual experiment, the
amount of makeup was positively associated with
sexualization, r(843) = .57, p < .001, r2 = .33. In sum, these
results corroborated the notion that women’s faces with heavy
makeup are perceived as more sexualized than women’s faces
without makeup (Messineo 2008; Smolak et al. 2014).
revealed a main effect of makeup on the dehumanization measures, F(3, 831) = 7.73, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .33, and this
effect was not moderated by either participants’ gender, F(3,
831) = 1.87, p = .13, Cohen’s d = .17, or experiment, F(6,
1664) = 1.81, p = .09, Cohen’s d = .15.
For each dehumanization measure, we then performed separate ANOVAs including makeup (makeup, no makeup), participants’ gender (male, female), and experiment (experiment
2, experiment 3 and experiment 4) as between-participant factors (see Table 5). Faces with makeup were evaluated as
possessing less competence, F(1, 833) = 14.73, p < .001,
95% CI [−.33, −.11], Cohen’s d = .26, less warmth, F(1,
833) = 21.20, p < .001, 95% CI [−.37, −.15], Cohen’s
d = .32, and less morality, F(1, 843) = 12.18, p = .001, 95%
CI [−.31, −.09], Cohen’s d = .24, than faces without makeup.
These effects did not differ across Experiments 2–4 (all
ps > .26 and all Cohen’s d < .12) and were not moderated by participants’ gender (all ps > .16 and all Cohen’s
d < .10). Moreover, adding participants’ age as a covariate in this model did not change the pattern of results
reported previously.
Although the individual experiments did not enable us to
test whether the results were moderated by sexual orientation,
we examined the interaction between sexual orientation and
makeup condition for the dehumanization measures and these
interactions were not significant (all ps > .08 and all Cohen’s
d < .12). Relatedly, we conducted a separate MANOVA to
examine whether the effects of makeup were significant
among participants who reported being bisexual, gay or
lesbian (n = 149; 71 participants in the no makeup conditions and 78 participants in the makeup conditions).
This analysis revealed a main effect of makeup on the
dehumanization measures, F(3, 145) = 5.16, p = .002,
Cohen’s d = .65, and the separate ANOVAs further
showed the expected makeup effects for each dehumanization measure (all ps < .01, all Cohen’s d > .54).
Overall, this analysis suggests that the effects of makeup on dehumanization occurred regardless of participants’ sexual orientation.
Table 5 Descriptive statistics for competence, warmth, and morality as
a function of makeup conditions, meta-analysis, Experiments 2–4
Effects of Makeup on Dehumanization Measures
A MANOVA including makeup (makeup, no makeup), participants’ gender (male, female), and experiment (experiment
2, experiment 3 and experiment 4) as between-participant factors was conducted to examine the main effects of makeup on
the dehumanization measures (competence, warmth, and morality) and to test whether the effects of makeup were moderated by participants’ gender and experiment. This analysis
Competence
Warmth
Morality
No makeup
M (SD)
Makeup
M (SD)
4.65 (.75)a
4.37 (.74)a
4.32 (.76)a
4.43 (.75)b
4.07 (.74)b
4.13 (.72)b
Means across each row with different subscripts are significantly different, ps < .05. The results of eye makeup and lipstick conditions in
Experiment 4 were aggregated in the makeup conditions for the metaanalysis
Sex Roles
Additional Exploratory Analysis
The critical test of the CDH was to examine whether women’s
faces with heavy makeup were perceived as possessing less
humanness-related traits than women’s faces without makeup.
Our data provide ample support in favor of this hypothesis.
Given the robust main effects of heavy makeup on both
sexualization and dehumanization measures, one may wonder
whether the dehumanizing effect of makeup was mediated by
sexualization.
Given that we did not hypothesize such a mediational model a priori, we did not, as a result, either perform or report these
analyses in the individual experiments. Nonetheless, we examined this possibility when analyzing the meta-analytic data,
but correlations between sexualization and dehumanization
measures were not significant (all ps > .30). In sum, makeup
increased sexualization and caused dehumanization but
sexualization was not the mechanism underlying the dehumanization of faces with makeup.
General Discussion
The present set of studies provided an initial test of the cosmetics dehumanization hypothesis (CDH). Based on a novel
integration of objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997) and recent research on cosmetics use and social perception (Batres et al. 2018; Mileva et al. 2016), we posited and
found that women’s faces with heavy makeup were denied
humanness, agency, and experience (Experiment 1) as well
as were seen as less competent, warm, and moral
(Experiments 2–4). These effects emerged for models
(Experiments 1 and 2) as well as ordinary women
(Experiments 3 and 4) and were similar across experiments.
In addition, these results were not moderated by participants’
gender.
Limitations and Future Research
Objectification scholars have posited that sexual objectification occurs when a woman is reduced to her body parts
(Bartky 1990; Fredrickson and Roberts 1997), a phenomenon
that is associated with dehumanization. Supporting this view,
past research has found that body sexualization leads to dehumanization (Bernard and Wollast 2019; Loughnan et al. 2010;
Vaes et al. 2011). Although objectification theory has suggested and found that a focus on the face can serve as an
antidote for the dehumanizing effects of body sexualization
(Loughnan et al. 2010), data supporting the CDH suggest that
focusing on the face may not always attenuate dehumanization. Our work is the first known to find that cosmetics, particularly heavy makeup, can lead to the dehumanization of
women’s faces. We conceptually replicated this effect across
experiments with models’ and ordinary women’s faces as well
as with different dehumanization measures, suggesting that
this phenomenon is quite robust. However, given that we did
not assess how heavy makeup affects the attributions of humanness, agency, and experience to ordinary women, we invite researchers to do so to further test the robustness and
replicability of our findings.
Interestingly, in Experiment 4, women with eye makeup
were dehumanized more than women without makeup and
(for the most part) women with lipstick. One might have posited that makeup accentuating the eyes (vs. lips) would lead to
greater humanization (rather than dehumanization), given adages suggesting that the eyes are the window to the soul. One
possibility is that eye makeup directs attention toward the
global eye region while simultaneously interfering with the
ability for perceivers to focus specifically on the eyes (e.g.,
pupils) to make inferences about humanness-related traits.
Stated differently, people may have focused on the makeup
visible above and below the eyes instead of focusing on the
eyes themselves, which is critical to attributing mind to others
(Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). Further research using eyetracking devices could directly examine this and related possibilities. We would expect people to focus more on the pupils
for faces without eye makeup than faces with makeup (despite
directing greater attention to the overall eye region with a
focus on cosmetics above and below the eyes).
An important avenue for future research will be to identify
the mechanisms that underlie the dehumanization of faces
with heavy makeup. Based on the objectification literature,
one might have expected that this dehumanizing effect was
driven by sexualization. Across all experiments, faces with
heavy makeup were systematically rated as more sexualized
than faces without makeup. Yet, ratings were under the midpoint of the scale, suggesting that heavy makeup had a small
effect on sexualization ratings. These results are nonetheless
consistent with the notion that sexualization can be communicated through facial cues (Messineo 2008; Smolak et al.
2014), which trigger perceptions of promiscuity and sexual
availability (Batres et al. 2018; Mileva et al. 2016).
However, the meta-analysis failed to find significant correlations between sexualization and dehumanization measures. In
sum, although heavy makeup both increased sexualization
and caused dehumanization, the effect of makeup on dehumanization was not mediated by sexualization.
Nonetheless, we believe that further research should explore sexualization as a psychological mechanism underlying
the dehumanization of women’s faces. Indeed, it is worth noting that the formulation of our sexualization item was vague
(“Is this person depicted in a sexualized way?”) so that we do
not know what specific characteristics participants actually
evaluated when answering that question. Sexualization is a
multi-faceted concept (Hatton and Trautner 2011), and our
general item did not assess different facets of sexualization
Sex Roles
such as perceived sexual readiness and sexual availability.
Consistent with research which found that heavy makeup is
connoted as conveying promiscuity and superficiality (Mileva
et al. 2016; Workman and Johnson 1991), the dehumanizing
effect of heavy makeup might be mediated by these specific
sexualization-related variables. Consistent with this possibility, a recent study found a significant correlation between the
amount of makeup and perceived socio-sexuality; that is, the
more makeup women wore, the more people perceived these
women as being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with
different partners (Batres et al. 2018). In addition, recent research showed that sexual availability and dehumanization
were correlated (Riemer et al. 2018).
Experiment 4 showed that eye makeup and lipstick were
associated with a focus on these face regions, which provided
preliminary evidence that makeup might cause people to appraise women’s faces less globally and more locally, focusing
more on women’s facial parts than their entire face. Recent
research found that sexualized bodies, akin to objects, are visually processed less globally (Bernard et al. 2018a, 2018d;
Bernard et al. 2019b) and more locally (Bernard et al. 2018a)
than nonsexualized bodies at a neural level (for a review, see
Bernard et al. 2018c). Importantly, it has been recently found
that faces with heavy makeup are processed less configurally
than faces without makeup (Bernard et al. 2019a). Future investigations might use such paradigms to assess whether diminished configural processing is a cognitive mechanism driving the CDH. This possibility is consistent with research which
has found that less configural face processing predicts lower
attribution of humanness (Hugenberg et al. 2016; Wilson et al.
2018). In addition, recent research showed that sexualized
women are more likely to be categorized as doll-like objects
(Vaes et al. 2019), so it would be interesting to examine whether the dehumanization of women with makeup might be mediated by perceptions of women as being doll-like at an early
stage of person perception.
We compared the attributions of humanness to faces with
heavy versus no makeup. Using such experimental conditions
associated with extreme variations in makeup intensity was
used as a first test of the CDH. One strength of this makeup
manipulation is that we used the same makeup parameters
while using virtual makeover technology, thereby ensuring
that the makeup characteristics were the same for all faces.
However, it might be interesting to rely on more nuanced
makeup manipulations to test the generalizability of our findings and examine whether dehumanization might occur at
lower levels of makeup intensity. Addressing this question
would require gradually manipulating the amount of makeup
(see Etcoff et al. 2011). Future researchers might also
want to examine whether our findings can be replicated
while controlling for knowledge of makeup techniques and
for how realistic and common such makeup manipulations are
evaluated by perceivers.
Additionally, subsequent investigations also might test
whether other factors related to face sexualization, such as
flirty facial expressions (e.g., puckering), trigger dehumanization. The participants who took part in our experiments were
mostly British and American. In line with recent research that
found that the dehumanizing effects of sexualization are more
acute in Western nations than in Eastern countries (Gervais
et al. 2015; Loughnan et al. 2015; but see Wollast et al.
2018), future researchers might want to replicate our findings
within different nations to further assess the robustness of the
CDH. Finally, an interesting research question would be to
identify the contexts in which makeup is more versus less
expected, acceptable, or even normatively required, and how
such situational features may affect social impressions in real
social interactions.
Practice Implications
In addition to the scientific novelty and theoretical implications of our work, the present studies also have practical implications. Whereas most efforts to curb objectification have
highlighted the importance of refocusing attention from the
body to the face, our paper suggests that this strategy may
not be efficacious for women wearing heavy makeup.
For example, advertisements that align the viewer’s gaze
to women’s faces may still result in dehumanization if
these faces contain heavy makeup (e.g., bright red lipstick; smoky eyes).
Because women’s faces are naturally makeup free, we have
considered the absence of makeup as the default, baseline
condition and heavy makeup as the manipulated factor that
prompts dehumanization. However, an alternate interpretation
of our findings is that not wearing heavy makeup increases
humanization. Of course, perceivers are solely responsible for
the dehumanization of women wearing cosmetics (e.g., Batres
et al. 2018), but it may also be useful for women to understand
that they may be still be dehumanized even when they are not
wearing sexy clothing if they are still wearing heavy makeup
(e.g., wearing heavy makeup with a business suit at work).
Wearing lighter makeup might be another relevant strategy
because light makeup can both increase attractiveness perceptions and sometimes trigger positive impression formation
(Etcoff et al. 2011; Graham and Jouhar 1981), in contrast to the dehumanizing effects of heavy makeup evidenced in our paper.
Conclusions
Whereas prior studies suggested that a focus on faces may
serve as an antidote for objectification and related dehumanization (Loughnan et al. 2010), the present set of experiments
indicates that this strategy might not always be effective. Our
Sex Roles
work provides the first known support of the cosmetics dehumanization hypothesis and suggests that heavy makeup affects
the way people attribute humanness-related traits to women’s
faces. We hope that researchers will expand on our findings to
further understand the causes and consequences of this phenomenon and will pinpoint effective interventions to reduce
this subtle form of dehumanization occurring in the minds of
perceivers.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by the National Fund
for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS, Belgium).
Funding Information This research was funded by the Belgian Fund for
Scientific Research (grant number: 22340437).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The experiments presented in this paper involved participants recruited on Prolific pending
monetary compensation. At the start of each study, a brief description of
the impression formation was given. And participants were allowed to
stop completing the study anytime.
Conflicts of interest We declare having no potential conflicts of interest.
References
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls. Retrieved on February 23, 2019 from https://www.apa.org/pi/
women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf . Accessed 23 Feb 2019.
Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people:
Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.60.2.203.
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., & Volpato, C. (2017). (Still) modern
times: Objectification at work. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 47, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2190.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001).
The “Reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study
with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or highfunctioning autism. The Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0021963001006643.
Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge.
Batres, C., Russell, R., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., Hansen, A. M., &
Cronk, L. (2018). Evidence that makeup is a false signal of
sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 148–
154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.023.
Bernard, P., & Wollast, R. (2019). Why is sexualization dehumanizing?
The effects of posture suggestiveness and revealing clothing on
dehumanization. SAGE Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244019828230
Bernard, P., Content, J., Deltenre, P., & Colin, C. (2018a). When the body
becomes no more than the sum of its parts: The neural correlates of
scrambled vs. intact sexualized bodies. NeuroReport, 29, 48–53.
https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000926.
Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., Holland, A. M., & Dodd, M. D. (2018b). When
do people “check out” male bodies? Appearance-focus increases the
objectifying gaze toward men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
19, 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000122.
Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., & Klein, O. (2018c). Objectifying objectification: When and why people are cognitively reduced to their parts
akin to objects. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 82–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1471949.
Bernard, P., Rizzo, T., Hoonhorst, I., Deliens, G., Gervais, S.,
Eberlen, J., … Klein, O. (2018d). The neural correlates of
cognitive objectification: An ERP study on the bodyinversion effect associated with sexualized bodies. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 550–559. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714582.
Bernard, P., Geelhand, P., & Servais, L. (2019a). The face of
sexualization: Faces wearing makeup are processed less
configurally than faces without makeup. International Review of
Social Psychology, 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.211.
Bernard, P., Hanoteau, F., Gervais, S., Servais, L., Bertolone, I., Deltenre,
P., & Colin, C. (2019b). Revealing clothing does not make the object: ERP evidences that cognitive objectification is driven by posture suggestiveness, not by revealing clothing. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167218775690.
Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral:
The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social
Cognition, 32, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.
397.
Burgess, M., Stermer, S. P., & Burgess, S. R. (2007). Sex, lies, and video
games: The portrayal of male and female characters on video game
covers. Sex Roles, 57, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199007-9250-0.
Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to objects:
Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1162/
jocn.2010.21497.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as
universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content
model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)
00002-0.
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological
Science, 25, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American
Psychologist, 48, 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.
4.384.
Etcoff, N. L., Stock, S., Haley, L. E., Vickery, S. A., & House, D. M.
(2011). Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype:
Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PloS One, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656
Fiske, S. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition
and status. In S. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 53–72). NewYork, NY: Springer.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively
follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health
risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
Gervais, S. J., Holland, A., & Dodd, M. (2013). My eyes are up here: The
nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557–
570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x.
Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., & Riemer, A. R. (2015). Who treats people as
sex objects? Cultural orientation, social comparison and sexual
Sex Roles
objectification perpetration. International Review of Social
Psychology, 28, 153–181. Retrieved from https://www.cairn-int.
info/abstract-E_RIPSO_281_0153%2D%2Dwho-treats-people-assex-objects.htm .
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease
the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1745691612457576.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of
your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. https://
doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267.
Graham, J. A., & Jouhar, A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person
perception. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.1981.tb00283.x.
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind
perception. Science, 315, 619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1134475.
Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. (2011). More
than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207–1220.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025883.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and
the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.131.6.898.
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low:
Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological
Science, 17, 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.
01793.x.
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social neuroscience evidence for
dehumanised perception. European Review of Social Psychology,
20, 192–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280902954988.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.
Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification?
The sexualization of men and women on the cover of rolling stone.
Sexuality and Culture, 15, 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12119-011-9093-2.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin:
Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less
competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.
008.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The
literal objectification of women. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23, 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963721414531599.
Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From
women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions
of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.
2010.12.020.
Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. H. (2008).
Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men
and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 67–78. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10919-007-0043-5.
Hugenberg, K., Young, S., Rydell, R. J., Almaraz, S., Stanko, K. A., See,
P. E., & Wilson, J. P. (2016). The face of humanity: Configural face
processing influences ascriptions of humanness. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 167–175. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550615609734.
Huguet, P., Croizet, J.-C., & Richetin, J. (2004). Is “what has been cared
for” necessarily good? Further evidence for the negative impact of
cosmetics use on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34, 1752–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2004.tb02796.x.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The
importance of morality (versus competence and sociality) in the
positive evaluations of ingroups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.
234.
Li, M., Leidner, B., & Castano, E. (2014). Toward a comprehensive
taxonomy of dehumanization: Integrating two senses of humanness,
mind perception theory, and stereotype content model. TPM:
Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21,
285–300. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.4.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner,
C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of
mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 40, 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.755.
Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual
objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived
suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0361684313485718.
Loughnan, S., Fernandez-Campos, S., Vaes, J., Anjum, G., Aziz, M.,
Harada, C., … Tsuchiya, K. (2015). Exploring the role of culture
in sexual objectification: A seven nations study. International
Review of Social Psychology, 28, 125–152. Retrieved from https://
www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-20151-page-125.htm#.
Ma, N., Wang, S., Yang, Q., Feng, T., & Van Overwalle, F. (2016). The
neural representation of competence traits: An fMRI study. Scientific
Reports, 6, 39609. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40972.
Mar, R. A. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 103–134. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406.
Messineo, M. J. (2008). Does advertising on black entertainment television portray more positive gender representations compared to
broadcast networks? Sex Roles, 59, 752–764. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11199-008-9470-y.
Mileva, V. R., Jones, A. L., Russell, R., & Little, A. C. (2016). Sex
differences in the perceived dominance and prestige of women with
and without cosmetics. Perception, 45, 1166–1183. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0301006616652053.
Richetin, J., Huguet, P., & Croizet, J. C. (2007). Le rôle des cosmétiques
dans les premières impressions: le cas particulier du maquillage [The
role of cosmetics in first impressions : the particular case of makeup]. L'Année Psychologique, 107, 65-86. Retrived from https://
www.persee.fr/doc/psy_0003-5033_2007_num_107_1_30937
Riemer, A. R., Gervais, S. J., Skorinko, J. L., Douglas, S. M., Spencer, H.,
Nugai, K., ... Miles-Novelo, A. (2018). She looks like she’d be an
animal in bed: Dehumanization of drinking women in social contexts. Sex Roles, 80, 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0180958-9
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic
categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558.
Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., Prescott, A., & Pieper, K. (2012). Gender roles
and occupations: A look at character attributes and job-related
aspirations in film and television. Geena Davis Institute on gender
in media. Retrieved from http://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/
fullstudy-gender-roles-and-occupations-v2.pdf
Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Myers, T. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self:
What college women and men think about and do to be “sexy”.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 379–397. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0361684314524168.
Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women
complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize
Sex Roles
sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.824.
Vaes, J., Cristoforetti, G., Ruzzante, D., Cogoni, C., & Mazza, V. (2019).
Assessing neural responses towards objectified human targets and
objects to identify processes of sexual objectification that go beyond
the metaphor. Scientific Reports, 9, 6699. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-42928-x.
Van Overwalle, F., Ma, N., & Baetens, K. (2016). Nice or nerdy? The
neural representation of social and competence traits. Social
Neuroscience, 11, 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.
2015.1120239.
Ward, L. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research,
1995–2015. Annual Review of Sex Research, 53, 560–577. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496.
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and
consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14,
383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006.
Wilson, J. P., Young, S. G., Rule, N. O., & Hugenberg, K. (2018).
Configural processing and social judgments: Face inversion particularly disrupts inferences of human-relevant traits. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2017.07.007.
Wollast, R., Puvia, E., Bernard, P., Tevichapong, P., & Klein, O. (2018).
How sexual objectification generates dehumanization in Western
and eastern cultures: A comparison between Belgium and
Thailand. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77, 69–82. https://doi.org/
10.1024/1421-0185/a000209.
Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (1991). The role of cosmetics in
impression formation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10,
63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9101000109.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.