New research out this week confirms what many consider obvious: mens’ minds go a little fuzzy when they’re watching attractive, suggestively dressed women on TV.
Tom Jacobs reported at Miller-McCune this week on a study, conducted by researchers at Indiana University, that compared viewers’ abilities to remember the content of a newscast presented by a female anchor. In the study, two versions of an original newscast were created, with the same woman presenting. In one version, she was dressed in a sexually suggestive fashion; in the other, she was not. After watching one of the two versions, participants (both male and female) were asked a series of questions based on the content of the newscast and the competence of the anchor.
Here’s what the researchers found:
- Men found the woman in the sexy version “less suited for war and political reporting.”
- Men remembered less of the actual information presented in the “sexy” version.
- By contrast, female viewers did not find one version of the anchor more or less competent than the other.
- And female viewers actually remembered more of the information presented in the sexualized version—though the effect was not as drastic as it was for men.
There’s been a lot of buzz about the fact that overly sexualized news anchors can derail a man’s ability to retain information. It comes shortly after Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s revealing GQ photo spread.
Presumably, this sexy anchor conceit is a cheap tactic major networks play to boost ratings. But this study brings new light to the consequences of selling sex. It is a particularly public demonstration of how easily the conveyance of important information can be disrupted by sexually suggestive images.
Jacobs and others were quick to tune-in to the implications of this result. “The study provides evidence for a basic theory of evolutionary psychology: When it comes to processing information, visual tends to trump verbal,” Jacobs wrote.
But there is a second (possibly more important) component to the results, which seems to have been left by the wayside: the sexy news anchor was deemed less suitable for her job because of her appearance.
Although we should be concerned about how we remember information, we should also consider what the study tells us about the expectations our culture has for female professionals. This has some very serious implications when it comes to measuring the successes of women in professional environments—and in the public eye.
How was the sexualized news anchor perceived as a communications professional? The men in the study not only forgot what she said more easily, they didn’t consider her well-suited to cover the serious subjects of war and politics—traditionally male-dominated realms. In other words, a prejudice was exposed. This may also be obvious to some—it is easier to objectify a woman who is dressed to trigger all the usual sexual cues.
It would be easy to brush this aside and simply insist what men have been insisting for years: that if women want to be taken seriously, they should wear looser clothes and less makeup. But women shouldn’t have to desexualize themselves in order to be successful. After all, according to the study, women do not hold the same prejudices against other women.
It would also be unfair to insist that female TV journalists are simply sexy pawns in the game of big network ratings-grabbing. They are professionals who take their work seriously—some of them happen to be hot. Yes, appearance matters big-time on TV, but there is still a significant amount of individual choice involved. We just shouldn’t expect them to hide themselves in bulky pantsuits if they feel uncomfortable doing so. If women are really equals in the professional world, they should be allowed to keep making these choices as equals—beginning in the dressing room.
After all, Megyn Kelly (like her or not) holds a JD and is a journalist by trade—she is a pinup model by chance. Men should judge her by her professional achievements, not her neckline.
—Photo James Trosh/Flickr
I don’t take university “studies” seriously.
@ Joe Using the words asshole and retard to insult someone else only shows how clearly uneducated you are. Those words are offensive and rude. It is also extremely difficult to take one seriously when they use such juvenile and unoriginal language. Why do you continue to frequent this website if it “continues to amaze [you] with it’s idiotic content and readers”? Isn’t the old saying, “Insanity is performing the same action again and again expecting different results”? @ Matt When I was at Gordon, I wrote a paper about the way women dress and how they are perceived. This… Read more »
@Joe: Instead of retard I think you meant BC. Also, I did not know that non-hetero people aren’t biased. I’m glad to see that you continue to read the articles on this website even though you clearly have issues with it. Try and use more positive adjectives when describing people. Maybe I will take you more seriously. Just saying. I think that women should wear fitting clothes no matter what they do. I just have an issue when they are trying to sell me their goods while doing what they do. Women can look beautiful in clothes that fit without… Read more »
@Joe: did you actually read the article? You quoted the text that says “women do not hod the same prejudices against other WOMEN” (emphasis mine). But all you talk about is women looking at men or men judging men. Not terribly relevant.
You also quote the text that says “according to the study”, which basically means Matt Coburn didn’t make it up, someone else did. So why is he an _____?
Oh, but you did have good point. It is definitely unfair to us guys to expect us to treat others fairly…
here’s the thing retard, men judge women, women judge men. Since most people are hetero you expect people to demonstrate bias when judging those they might be attracted to. That means when men judge women they are likely to be biased. When women judge men they are likely to be biased. Do you understand? I can’t believe there’s anyone on this planet who is so stupid they need to have this explained to them. I’m embarrassed that I had to explain it to you you. You should be ashamed of your idiocy. This site continues to amaze me with it’s… Read more »
ridiculous article. ” But women shouldn’t have to desexualize themselves in order to be successful. After all, according to the study, women do not hold the same prejudices against other women.” That is super idiotic. Why? For obvious reasons. Put a tall dark and handsome man up against a chubby smurf and do a similar survey. How do women feel about a guy who’s 5′ 4″ and weighs about 220 vs a guy who’s 6′ 4″ and looks like he played sports in college? What? Men don’t judge other men the same way women judge men? Oh, you don’t know… Read more »
For the record, I don’t take any political reporters seriously.
Also, if you are trying to make me feel bad for looking at those Megyn Kelly pictures, it’s not working. Wow. (I’m a dude).
I’m sorry, she may be the hottest babe on t v, but if you listen to her you realize she is as intelligent as she is beautiful. So we shouldn’t punish her for the way she looks.