Abstract
Two studies tested the hypothesis that men who are sexually objectified during an interview will experience a negative emotion, rate the experience as harassing, and perform badly on tasks compared to un-objectified controls. However, observers who watch videos of objectified experiencers and predictors who read about the interaction will demonstrate stronger effects, with women showing the strongest. In Study 1, 90 undergraduates (60 men) were interviewees or watched a video of a mock job interview in a 2 (objectification: objectifying interview vs. non-objectifying interview) × 3 (perspective: experiencer who was a man vs. observers, some men and some women) mixed model design with repeated measures on the second factor. In Study 2, 71 undergraduates read about a job interview in a 2 (objectification: objectifying vs. non-objectifying interview) × 2 (gender: man vs. woman) between-subjects design. Results showed that while objectified experiencers (men) showed no objectification effects, observers and predictors anticipated a reasonable person would experience more harassment than the experiencers reported, with observers’ enjoyment of sexualization moderating these forecasts. Additionally, the predictors’ forecasted negative emotions mediated the effects of objectification on judgments and task performance. These studies argue for informing Title VII’s 2-prong subjective-objective test with social fact testimony in same-sex harassment cases.