When a man looks at a woman in that way, her math skills suffer, according to a study that will be published in the March issue of the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly.
Researchers at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Pennsylvania State University at University Park asked 150 undergraduates at a large university in the Midwest — 67 women and 83 men — to participate in what they were told was a study of how people work together in teams. Instead, says Sarah J. Gervais, the lead author, the study examined how being visually “checked out” by a member of the opposite sex affected each student’s performance on math problems.
“We found that the objectifying gaze caused decreased math performance for women, but somewhat ironically we also found that the same women that were objectified also wanted more interaction with the person that had objectified them,” Ms. Gervais says in a videotaped interview with the editor of the journal. “This is ironic because those people that are causing them to underperform, they’re also wanting to interact with them more in the future.”
Asked to describe the “objectifying gaze,” Ms. Gervais laughs. “In the laboratory, as you might imagine, it’s relatively difficult to get people to gaze at other people,” she says. “So what we did in this study is we trained confederates — those are people that are sort of in on this study — we trained them to visually scan women’s bodies and then to stare at their chests when they were interviewing them, and … we did this also to men.”
The men appeared to be unfazed when their female interviewers stared at the men’s chests before and after asking the first, third, and fifth interview questions, Ms. Gervais says.
“This is a subtle gaze,” she explains. “It’s not that they’re looking there for 10 seconds. They’re briefly gazing before and after asking those questions.”
The paper — “When What You See Is What You Get: The Consequences of the Objectifying Gaze for Women and Men” — quotes from Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” in its introduction. It has been recognized as the journal’s best paper of 2011.
—Don Troop
Follow Tweed through your favorite RSS reader: 
36 Responses to ‘Objectifying Gaze’ Subtracts From Women’s Math Abilities
physicsprof - February 4, 2011 at 4:02 pm
And what can be said about HIS math skills “when a man looks at a woman in that way?” Do they improve?
perkata - February 4, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Perhaps if a female researcher had stared at the men’s crotches, the men would have demonstrated a similar trait.
ratthing - February 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I would like to read this study, but if the control condition was women staring at men’s chests, then that is just plain stupid. A better scenario would have been to have the women exhibit subtle flirting behavior (good eye contact, brushing aside the hair, occasional touches). I think this might be a female behavior that is more equivalent to the I-think-you’re-hot objectifying gaze of a male.
dereklambert - February 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Perkata,
I think the men would have then said, “What math problems?”.
myfacehurts - February 4, 2011 at 4:22 pm
How do we know that the women’s math scores suffered? If they are comparing two groups – the woman who like being stared at may just perform lower in math. This sounds like bad research and poor reporting.
marge - February 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Of course a man is going to be unfazed when his chest is the focus. I cannot believe a woman heading the study did not catch this. Stare at his genitals and do the study with another male staring at his crotch.
tjacobs - February 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Based on the Chronicle’s report, if this is the best the Psychology of Women Quarterly can do, perhaps someone has been staring at the editors in an objectifying way? Somehow reducing their ability to select a well-done study?
11182967 - February 4, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Looking at another person in such a way as to make the looked upon one aware that the looking one sees them as sexually attracting does not have to be objectifying. Indeed, it is more likely to be “subjectifying,” ie, the implication of desirability is directed by one individual toward another, and it’s not surprising that this personal connection creates a desire for more interaction. Quite possibly the perceived attention affects self-confidence not by diminishing it but by enhancing it to the point of distraction. Who wants to calculate with the team when he or she has becomes aware of a calculating individual?
rmusser1 - February 4, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Obviously using objectifying has a bad connotation, versus I am glancing at you because you are attractive to me. And in the study the woman supposedly becomes more attracted to the confederate and less interested in Math. How do they control for people that “got it, flaunt it”. So is the conclusion men are bad for glancing at attractive women as “objectifying” and thus dumbing down America? Either way, like the Sienfield epsisode don’t stare at the sun…
jegraves - February 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
I miss lab work!
seraphpendragon - February 4, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Did we really need a study for this? Sounds like natural reactions. The man is more interested in the woman than he is figuring out arbitrary math problems; the woman is more interested in the man that’s interested in her than figuring out arbitrary math problems.
landrumkelly - February 4, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Sexual attention can be distracting. So what else is new?
zevgoldman - February 4, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Geez, I hope a grant of any sort didn’t pay for this the pseudo-academic crap. By the by is there a Psychology of Men Quarterly?
Feminism has done as much to damage women as has the War on Poverty done to black Americans.
dj_braski - February 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm
@ ratthing
No, having each confederate act the same way is not stupid. I agree the objectifying gaze was aimed more at what womens’ experience. But to do things differently for different groups would have added another variable to control for and much more complexity to the study.
@ myfacehurts
“How do we know that the women’s (sic) math scores suffered?” Because they submitted wrong answers more often than the control group.
“If they are comparing two groups – the woman who like being stared at may just perform lower in math.”
Possible, but unlikely. Participants were assigned randomly to the objectifying group or the control group, so it is an unlikely that the data would be explained by the scenario that the “women who are bad at math and like to be stared at” were disproportionately assigned to the objectifying group.
@ marge
Again, this would add another variable to control for. It is not a failure of the study that it did not measure a variable it was not designed to measure. I agree it would be interesting to do things differently for males, hopefully this question will be answered by another study.
@ tjacobs
What exactly is your criticism of this study?
@ rmusser1
“How do they control for people that “got it, flaunt it”.” Presumably they did not. But why is this a criticism? Scientific studies need not be universal to be useful and interesting.
“So is the conclusion men are bad for glancing at attractive women as “objectifying” and thus dumbing down America?” Why don’t you read the study and find out exactly what they are claiming?
gharbisonne - February 4, 2011 at 5:39 pm
The purpose of the study is evidently to try to make the case that women’s underrepresentation in the hard scieces, math and engineering is because pervs in those disciplines are ogling them, ruining their math abilities. Unfortunately, If I actually believed this nonsense, I’d be more likely to conclude that women are flighty creatures, easily distracted by a bit of male attention, and that if I have important, mathematically exactling tasks to be done, I’d better employ a man.
Needless to say, I don’t believe it. And I think studies like this one, which in effect infantilize women, are more damaging to the cause of gender equality than overt male sexism.
dj_braski - February 4, 2011 at 5:45 pm
@ seraphpendragon
I think you misunderstood how the study worked.
@ zevgoldman
“By the by is there a Psychology of Men Quarterly?”
Yes. http://www.apa.org/ads/print/journals/men.aspx
“Feminism has done as much to damage women as has the War on Poverty done to black Americans.” Thanks, what a super helpful comment that furthers the discussion of this study.
rsmulcahy - February 4, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“This is ironic because those people that are causing them to underperform, they’re also wanting to interact with them more in the future.”
It is ironic that women are attracted to men who show interest in them despite the impact it has on their test scores??? Money was spent to come up with that conclusion. What a waste. I think no irony is involved because the women were not linking the gazing with the lower scores they simply responded to the gazing. You want to talk about irony, why not focus on women who stay with men who verbally and physically abuse them for years on end. So the conclusion I am drawing is that the study shows women like to be objectified. I would draw that conclusion but this is such a poorly defined and executed study it makes me laugh (and cry).
rpm13 - February 4, 2011 at 10:20 pm
@just about everybody
If you are going to get so excited, please read the study. There’s always more than meets the eye in CHE summaries.If you understand research design, statistics, and random assignment, you will find much of the commentary irrelevant. The data are clean, although open to several – testable – interpretations, some of which were touched on in commentaries. You will find, for example, that the authors mount a defense of “objectifying gaze” as the operative conceptual independent variable based on empirical evidence. I don’t find it totally convincing, but that’s a challenge to produce evidence to the contrary rather than a reason to denegrate the study.
rmusser1 - February 4, 2011 at 10:29 pm
@dj_braski
Why are you attacking everyone today? You would think that you wrote it or something, lighten up.
boiler - February 4, 2011 at 10:44 pm
The article notes that this has been selected as the journal’s best paper of 2011. Which raises two questions:
1. How do they select the best paper of 2011 in February 2011?
2. Can you imagine what the worst one was like?
rpm13 - February 4, 2011 at 11:00 pm
By the way, what’s happened to civil academic discourse? There’s hardly a hint of reasoned empirically-based critique in all this commentary. Instead we have bald assertions and name-calling (“just plain stupid”, “bad research”, and “pseudo-academic crap”) unsupported by any argument or scientific fact. Similarly unburdened by data are those who firmly believe in the results of the study (“So what else is new?” and “Did we really need a study for this? Sounds like natural reactions.”) and their polar opposites who don’t believe in them at all (“If I actually believed this nonsense…” and “such a poorly defined and executed study it makes me laugh…”). Instead, if you find an experiment from a respectable journal out of your field interesting or puzzling, why not just ask how the data fit (or not) with other known facts and share your knowledge with us?
labronx - February 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Apparently, they chose a large random sample Is it possible that those men who excel in math are so enamored by the subject that they would NOT even bother to stare at a women’s chest, a tree, or a moose. Rather, they would simply stare at their math. A more accurate study would be to compare women who excel at math and men who excel at math; and then have THEM stare at each others chest, or penis or vagina. But now suddenly I am laughing and I realize how absurd this study is.
jxs53 - February 5, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Despite selecting the extraordinarily loaded term “objectifying gaze”, this study is really about having your chest surreptitiously stared at which, it makes sense, is more upsetting/distracting/demeaning for women than for men.
It is patently not a study designed to determine if men, too, respond in what has been determined to be a negative way to furtive sexual glances.
And, while it is not a part of the study, the authors appear to wish they could comment on the comparison between men and women in their responses to sexual gazing and lay at least a part of the blame for the disparity on their respective levels of representation in mathematical surroundings to experience of sexual gazing and their response. Their data do not allow for that. They may comment on the negative impact of chest-gazing on women and I suppose on men too, but that seems kind of silly.
At the same time the authors rather defensively point out that chest-gazing was their only intended measure.
This leaves them unable to effectively address the issues they raise in the commentary about the study, although it does make for a study that is defensible on its own terms, even it does lack the ability to allow generalization about the sexes’ various experiences in the lab.
I wish I could say I missed lab, too, but I don’t recall anybody staring at anything of mine, except maybe my paper work which I’ll admit was REALLY HOT.
drandy - February 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm
If I had been a subject of this study I would be suing them for sexual harassment.
rpm13 - February 5, 2011 at 8:07 pm
@labronx
Reading is so difficult. The experiment did not sample a population, much less randomly. The number of subjects was determined by calculating statistical power and was not large. The men in the study who gazed at women did not excel in math. They were stooges. However, you are right on one point. The study you describe is absurd.
labronx - February 5, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Yes, I know the men in the study did not excel at math. And that is why I made my point. The men they chose likely had a greater percentage of people who did not adore the subject. The real study would be to put together men and women who, supposedly, DO want to study and excel.
labronx - February 5, 2011 at 8:37 pm
And yes, rpm13, it DOES pay to read.
kathrine9 - February 5, 2011 at 10:35 pm
In my opinion, this study needs to be taken in the context of other studies done on similar issues. Of which I’m no expert, but for the sake of positive feedback to the writer on this interesting topic, I do remember some studies done with students at single-sex schools vs those at co-ed schools, which indicated better academic performance at the single sex schools. Perhaps not rocket science, however I think it’s okay to be aware of this kind of socially interacting environment and it’s impact.
The other direction where this study could go, is with the recent studies that have indicated that women have a different psychological ‘hierarchy’ – and one in which relationships rate highly. Perhaps deep in the psyche of a woman, who is being admired – she is analyzing whether this person is a possible marriage candidate? and therefore a more important analysis is taking place than the current (superficial) maths problem…
rpm13 - February 6, 2011 at 1:02 am
@ labronx
Sorry for the misreading. Nonetheless, the study was not about the men/women who did the staring, it was about the effect of staring on the performance of the recipient of the stare. So whether some percentage of men “would NOT even bother to stare at a women’s chest, a tree, or a moose” is totally irrelevant. The starers were stooges – trained confederates – who simply acted according to a script. If you are somehow talking about the mathematical competence/interest of the stare recipients, you are not on solid ground. Extensive research on what’s called stereotype threat shows that awareness of being stereotyped disrupts performance mainly on tasks on which one normally excells. One study in particular tested the performance of women who were highly accomplished in math.
jamesm - February 6, 2011 at 10:45 am
The men weren’t affected because they were so busy looking at the interviewer’s chest that they didn’t notice the interviewer was looking at their chest!
oldassocprof - February 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Fvck. I’ve always wanted to operationalize “gaze.” This is cool. But what if you’re a butt and leg man?
22223206 - February 7, 2011 at 11:16 am
dj_braski :
Well stated – on all counts – especially the “refreshers” on experimental methods, which some readers need reminded of!
tappat - February 7, 2011 at 11:42 am
The objectifying gaze works perniciously on the gazer more than on she (or he) who is gazed upon, as the study that is the subject of this Chronicle post seems amply to demonstrate, with no sense of irony whatsoever. Only an objectifying mind could fail to know that it is not ironic at all that a healthy woman who is inclined toward men sexually would be distracted by a presumably handsome man being taken by her physical qualities, even if she may also want to cultivate her skills in literal calculation. A humane, participative gaze understands how this all works, perhaps with some sense of humor, that is, with some sense of the folly of humanity and humanity’s condition, but without labeling it “ironic.”
blesstayo - February 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Now, we need more colleges and universities to prepare role-model women mathematicians to guide women to success STEM fields, right??? http://www.brynmawr.edu It would be nice to minimize fantasy obstacles that hinder women from concentrating and learning maths, physics, engineering, etc., right???