Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

While watching a trailer to a video on advertisement's image of women the following statement is made:

It creates a climate where there is wide spread violence against women. I am not at all saying that an add like this directly causes violence, it's not that simple, but turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step against justifying violence against that person. We see this with racism, we see this with homophobia, we see it with terrorism, it's always the same process. The person is dehumanized and violence then becomes inevitable.

Is there support in psychology that this is actually happening? That people being depicted as objects would cause others to commit violence against them?

An example from the video

share|improve this question
9  
A violent person will justify their violence(unless they are a sociopath). These ads do not exist in the middle east and yet there is some horrible depravity to women accepted there. –  Chad Dec 12 '11 at 17:34
2  
@Chad - I don't think anyone is saying that this would be the only reason why someone would do violence onto another person. What this question is about is if we stopped doing these ads, would violence decrease? Or would the societies you mention were they to introduce these ads see even more violence. She is also saying that these ads caused the someone that would've been nonviolent to become violent by dehumanizing their target, what the person then uses as their subjective rationale is a separate issue. –  Kit Sunde Dec 12 '11 at 18:11
7  
I'm bordering on down-voting and/or closing because there's not even a remote attempt to clearly define "turning women into objects". –  DVK Dec 12 '11 at 20:05
2  
@KitSunde, I've edited the question to make it clear that the issue is with causation and not correlation. –  Sklivvz Dec 13 '11 at 10:52
4  
I'm slightly concerned that this question is taking a, perhaps poorly worded, example of a common claim - that sexual objectification of women is one of the factors that leads to a rape culture - and misreading to mean (a) a literal interpretation of "women are objects, as demonstrated by photomorphing" and (b) only the women so depicted are affected by a rape culture. –  Oddthinking Feb 13 '13 at 4:29

1 Answer 1

I'll comment on this statement: The person is dehumanized and violence then becomes inevitable.

Rhythm 0, 1974

The artist Marina Abramović did an exhibition, Rhythm 0, 1974. The following as described by Wikipedia:

To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.

Abramović had placed upon a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.

Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained impassive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later:

“What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.” ... “I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”

There's an audio explanation of the results of the exhibition here: http://www.moma.org/explore/multimedia/audios/190/1972

Where she describes people cutting her skin, drinking her blood, stabbing the knife between her legs, putting a bullet in the gun posing it to shoot herself and asking her if she would resist.

Stanford Prison Experiment

You also have the Stanford Prison Experiment:

Twelve of the 24 participants were assigned the role of prisoner (9 plus 3 alternates), while the other twelve were assigned the role of guard (also 9 plus 3 alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an undergraduate research assistant the role of the warden. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce disorientation, depersonalization and deindividualization in the participants.

The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners. In the footage of the study, Zimbardo can be seen talking to the guards: "You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."

After a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off their stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours in order to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics to control them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who were not involved in the riot were treated with special rewards, such as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the meal in order to stay uniform with their fellow prisoners. After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", as Zimbardo described: "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him."

Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers in order to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded after only 6 days.

Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married), objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was discontinued.

While the Stanford Prison Experiment was only roleplay, it went into real violence and humiliation in less than a week.

Do note that the Stanford Prison Experiment has also been criticized as being anecdotal, and the experimenter Zimbardo was personally involved in the experiment itself.

However, this is towards proving that dehumanization causes violence. I don't think sexy ads are dehumanizing, which might be the flaw in the line of thinking.

share|improve this answer
6  
The evidence seme quite anecdotal in nature, and thus likely not reliable. –  Sklivvz Feb 24 '13 at 9:43
    
Good point, but outside of historical examples, it's difficult to find actual recorded/controlled situations. Added the Stanford Prison Experiment as well, which has also been criticized as anecdotal. But it is the closest to an actual lab experiment allowing dehumanization and violence, and why I doubt many first world nations would be funding any such research in the future. –  Muz Feb 25 '13 at 0:46
8  
@Muz, te Stanford Experiment isn't dismissed because it is anecdotal, it is dismissed because the conductor of the experiment inserted himself into an authoritarian position over the guards, most of the gaurds didn't behave like reported in the study (the most notorious on nicknamed John Wanye). The Dr. got exactly the result he was looking for, but that's science for you. –  user1873 Mar 4 '13 at 3:07

protected by Community Feb 24 '13 at 9:06

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.