Recent research published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior has shed light on an unsettling effect of sexualization in workplace settings. The study highlights a “sexualization spillover” effect where not only are sexualized women perceived as less warm and competent, but these negative perceptions also impact other female job candidates who are not sexualized.
Previous research has demonstrated that sexualization — where a person’s value is judged based on their sexual appeal — can particularly disadvantage women by affecting how they are perceived in terms of leadership qualities and professional capabilities.
Building upon this foundation, the researchers hypothesized that the sexualization of women in professional settings can negatively impact other women, even those who are not directly sexualized. They proposed that once a woman is sexualized and consequently seen as less competent and warm, these perceptions can influence how subsequent female candidates are viewed, regardless of their actual presentation or attire
To test this theoretical model, the researchers conducted a series of experiments in which participants assessed the profiles of female job candidates. These profiles were manipulated to present the first candidate in either a sexualized or non-sexualized manner.
An initial pilot study served as a preliminary investigation to ensure the effectiveness of the sexualization manipulation and its impact on hiring decisions. The researchers recruited 211 U.S.-based employees through an online panel known as TurkPrime. These participants were then asked to rate how likely they would be to work for a woman named Alex, a fictional product manager at a multinational company. The participants were randomly assigned to view Alex in sexualized or not sexualized attire.
Subsequently, participants were shown pictures of two other job candidates (one female and one male) without any background information and asked to rate their likelihood of hiring these individuals based purely on their first impressions. The researchers controlled for factors such as the participant’s gender, age, and the perceived attractiveness of the sexualized target.
At the study’s conclusion, a manipulation check confirmed that participants perceived the sexualized images as intended, validating the manipulation’s effectiveness. The outcomes showed a clear negative effect of sexualization on the likelihood of hiring female candidates, providing initial evidence to support the researchers’ hypothesis of a sexualization spillover effect.
Building on the pilot study, Study 1 was designed to test the entire theoretical model proposed by the researchers, including examining how sexualization affects perceptions of competence and warmth and subsequent hiring decisions. The study involved 348 U.S.-based employees recruited through the same online panel. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups in a 2×2 experimental design: the attire of the initial female manager (“Linda”) was either sexualized or not, and the focus was either on her appearance or her job performance.
Participants received background information about Linda, who was being considered for a promotion, along with details about her performance and feedback from a recent appraisal. They were then asked to evaluate Linda based on the provided information and her photograph, focusing either on her appearance or her performance. The second part of the survey presented a new, unrelated female job candidate (“Emily Miller”), described in detail with her qualifications and work achievements. Participants rated Emily’s warmth, competence, and their likelihood of hiring her.
When Linda was sexualized, not only were her own ratings of competence and warmth negatively affected, but these diminished perceptions also spilled over to affect how Emily was viewed, despite the absence of any sexualized depiction in her case. Specifically, participants rated Emily as less competent and warm if they had first evaluated Linda in a sexualized condition.
Notably, this effect was independent of the participants’ gender, indicating a general bias that could affect evaluative judgments across the board.
The second study aimed to replicate and extend the findings from Study 1 by using a real-world scenario involving an actual business influencer, Martha Debayle, to enhance the external validity of the results. Participants included 181 individuals from a more diverse background, including high-level executives from various nationalities.
In this setup, participants were told they were evaluating one of the top business influencers based on how the influencer presents herself online. Again, the manipulation involved showing pictures of Debayle in either sexualized or non-sexualized attire. After evaluating Debayle, participants were asked to assess the same fictional job candidate, Emily Miller, as in Study 1, without being shown her picture to focus solely on her qualifications and previous performance.
The results of Study 2 echoed those of the first study, reinforcing the robustness of the spillover effect of sexualization. Participants who viewed Debayle in a sexualized manner rated her lower in terms of competence and warmth, and these perceptions negatively influenced their evaluations of Emily, the subsequent job candidate. The diminished perceptions of Emily’s competence and warmth negatively influenced the likelihood of her being hired.
Together, these studies provide evidence that the effects of sexualization in the workplace affect not only the individuals who are directly sexualized but also other women who are subsequently evaluated in the same or similar professional contexts.
“The workplace implications of this research for women are worrisome,” the researchers wrote. “Past research has found that women in business attire are perceived as less warm and competent when focus is on their physical appearance. Our research shows that, even without that focus, inexplicit sexualization also has this effect and that this can lead to detrimental effects for subsequently evaluated women seeking employment.”
However, like all research, the study has certain limitations. Although the scenarios used were carefully designed to mimic real-life situations, the inherent nature of controlled experiments might not fully capture the complexities and nuances of actual workplace dynamics. By exclusively using Caucasian women in the experimental manipulations, the study does not account for the potential influences of ethnicity and race on the perceptions of sexualization and professional evaluations.
In terms of future research directions, there are several promising avenues. Expanding the research to include a more diverse array of cultural backgrounds could enhance understanding of how cultural norms influence the sexualization spillover effect. Further research could also explore the mechanisms underlying the spillover effect in more depth. For instance, investigating whether certain personality traits or individual differences among evaluators moderate the impact of sexualization could provide insights into personalized training or interventions that could mitigate bias.
The study, “Sexualize one, objectify all? The sexualization spillover effect on female job candidates,” was authored by Laura Guillén, Maria Kakarika, and Nathan Heflick.
