Study: Male Ogling Hurts Women's Math Scores
Getting the once-over from a man causes women to score lower on a math test, a new study finds.
Despite this drop in performance, women were more motivated to interact with men who ogled them, perhaps because they were trying to boost their sense of belonging, psychologists report in the February issue of the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly.
"It creates this vicious cycle for women in which they're underperforming in math or work domains, but they're continuing to want to interact with the person who is making them underperform in the first place," study researcher Sarah Gervais, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, told LiveScience.
The Objectifying Gaze
According to researchers, objectification happens when a person is judged on body parts or sexual function without regard to other aspects of their personality. Previous studies have found that women experience objectification frequently: One to two times a week, according to a 2001 study of U.S. college students that was published in the Journal of Social Issues. [Read: Negative Stereotypes Have a Lasting Effect]
But although people have come to regard blatant sexual harassment as a problem, the consequences of subtle objectification are less well understood, Gervais said. She and her colleagues decided to investigate whether "sneaking a peek" at an opposite-sex workmate might affect that person's job performance.
To do so, Gervais and her colleagues trained research assistants to do a quick up-and-down look at a person's body and to train their gaze at the other person's chest for a consistent period of a few seconds during conversations. It was harder than it sounds, Gervais said.
"For people that are doing this -- even the men who are presumably doing this pretty frequently -- actually having to slow down and do it is pretty hard," Gervais said. It was also somewhat awkward, she added.
After the assistants had undergone close to 30 hours of gaze-training apiece, the researchers asked 67 women and 83 men, all college students, to come to the lab. The volunteers were told the study was about teamwork. After this briefing, each volunteer was assigned to an opposite-sex partner -- actually a trained research assistant posing as another volunteer.
The research assistants then gave the real volunteers a five-question interview, ostensibly as part of the teamwork exercise. In some cases, the assistant started the interview by gazing from the volunteer's head to waist and back again, and then stared at the volunteer's chest for a few seconds between some questions. (Although the chest is a more sensitive area for women, men are becoming increasingly self-conscious about chest muscularity, the researchers explained.) In other cases, the assistant simply made eye contact. The volunteers then had 10 minutes to complete 12 math problems.
My Eyes Are Up Here
The results revealed that men's scores were not affected whether or not they got an objectifying glance from a woman before the math test. But women whose male partners objectified them scored lower than those whose partners didn't gaze at their bodies. The non-objectified women scored an average of 6 out of 12 questions correct, while objectified women scored an average of just under 5.
Studies have shown that when you remind people of a stereotype about their group -- "Girls are bad at math" -- their performance at that task actually does drop because of their anxiety over the stereotype. This phenomenon, called stereotype threat, likely played a role in the lowered math scores, Gervais said. The women who got the objectifying look were aware of it on some level, as they reported that their partner was more preoccupied with their looks than the women who weren't ogled.
Bad math scores notwithstanding, the ogled women were more likely than the non-ogled women to say they wanted to interact with their partners more. There are a few possible explanations for this seemingly self-defeating desire, Gervais said. Women could be wishing for a chance to show the men they're not a sex object. They might have seen the flirtatious look as a sign he was attracted and returned that attraction. They may have felt flattered at being checked out. Or they may be trying to fit in, Gervais said.
"People that are being stereotyped [become] very, very concerned about their social connections and whether they belong," Gervais said. Further interaction may reduce that anxiety, she said.
The researchers are now investigating whether woman-on-woman or man-on-man gazing has any effect on performance. They're also interested in whether licentious glances could become as taboo as butt-slaps under sexual harassment law.
"When it comes to something subtle like this, it's very difficult to combat," Gervais said. "It's sort of expected that men are going to do this to women and that really it's just not that harmful."
But if research shows that sexualized gazes consistently interfere with work performance, it's time to take rubbernecking more seriously, Gervais said.
"Even though it is just a look," she added, "it has meaningful consequences for women."
More Tech and Science Stories from LiveScience.comPopular in SciTech
- Russian tycoon seeks human immortality by 2045
- NASA picks 8 new astronauts, 4 of them women
- Tech companies release new details on FISA requests
- Valentina Tereshkova: First woman in space 13 Photos
- Apple unveils overhaul of iOS 7, new iTunes Radio
- "Tweet" added to Oxford English Dictionary
- Facebook may unveil Instagram video on June 20
- Was there a rape joke at Microsoft's Xbox One event?
Feminist bullsh*t. It's now evolved from "Don't open doors for me or you'll objectify me and marginalize my right to be independent." to "Don't even look at me! Can't you see your messing with my math? Look at the floor instead!"
That men don't score lower under the same circumstances might indicate women are more self conscious than men but ladies, that's not our fault.
Think it's time women realize men look at women. It's the way we're wired. Take it or leave it, like it or not.
But no, this particular branch of gender feminism believes that whenever women are falling behind it's social. When men are falling behind it's because men have a problem.
Years ago, the American Association of University Women did a survey. They asked young people what they wanted to be when they grew up.
Boys said things like Jean Claude van Damme, rock star or sports star. And girls said things like lawyer and doctor.
So, faced with the more pragmatic wishes of girls, what did they do? They declared a glamor gap and said that there's a glamor gap, that girls don't dream their dreams. Well, most children don't have the talent to be rock stars. The sensible ones know this. You could interpret it as "girls mature earlier", but some prefer to cast women as victim whatever the circumstances.
Don't think I've seen anything more well put on this entire site.
You can't prove people (women or men) do worse at math unless you have them compete only with "themselves." There should have been 2 math tests, not one. The first test would be given while the test-taker is alone in a room. Then, say a week later, you put this person into the control group where some are ogled and some are not to take the 2nd test (a test that asks the same "level" of questions asked on the first test). Then, if the 1st test result is better than the 2nd test result (for the same person), you'd have a fair basis upon which to reach a conclusion.
Even then, however, you'd only have a fair "basis." Just as every person has a unique level of math skills, every person has a unique level of "tolerance" toward ogling. Some might not care about ogling at all. Others might be real stuck-up sticky-beaks about it -- feeling that, somehow, they're under assault.
In short, this study could have been made better ... but ultimately, would still remain a subjective measurement.
Never fear, with an attitude like that I doubt much ogling would be going on in the first place. Men tend to ignore foul tempered harpies who think they're being victimized when a man so much as looks at them. :-)
In other words: there is more than one way to "spin" a sociological "test" result.
Not only that, she had to TRAIN people to make these particularly intimidating stares, which indicates they were entirely different from the ordinary check out.