1. Printing: This poster is 48” wide by 36” high. It’s designed to be printed on a large-format printer. Customizing the Content: The placeholders in this poster are formatted for you. Type in the placeholders to add text, or click an icon to add a table, chart, SmartArt graphic, picture or multimedia file. To add or remove bullet points from text, just click the Bullets button on the Home tab. If you need more placeholders for titles, content or body text, just make a copy of what you need and drag it into place. PowerPoint’s Smart Guides will help you align it with everything else. Want to use your own pictures instead of ours? No problem! Just right-click a picture and choose Change Picture. Maintain the proportion of pictures as you resize by dragging a corner. OBJECTIFICATION AS A MEDIATOR OF TRADITIONAL MASCULINE NORMS AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE BACKGROUND Two hundred and three male participants were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website. They completed both questionnaires and implicit measures. Measures administered were: The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1997): a clinical measure which covers physical assault, psychological aggression and sexual coercion by intimate partners; The Conformity to Masculine Norms 46 (CMNI-46; Parent & Moradi, 2009): a short form of the original CMNI covering 9 factors of masculinity norms; The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1995), which measures both hostile and benevolent sexism; Depersonalization items (based on items from Gray & Wegner, 2009): this set of questions asks participants about their perception of women’s capacity for agency and experience, and functions as an explicit measure of objectification; A Go No-go Association Task (GNAT): An implicit measure of participant’s associations between women and animals, and women and objects. METHODS This study provides preliminary evidence of depersonalization as a partial mediator between specific masculine norms (for example, Power over Women) and forms of violence against women, in particular both physical and sexual violence. Although Hostile Sexism has a stronger relationship to masculinity compared to objectification, it does not mediate the relationship between masculinity and IPV. Objectification, therefore, may be a unique mediator in the relationship between traditional masculine values and IPV. Implicit objectification did not mediate the relationship, and did not correlate with explicit objectification (depersonalization items). Surprisingly, explicit and not implicit measures of objectification were associated with IPV, contrasting with previous research findings (Rudman & Mescher, 2012). Both the correlations and SEM suggest that some masculine norms are more problematic than others. In particular, Power over Women, Playboy Attitudes, and Winning are most strongly associated with both IPV and explicit objectification. Future planned studies will manipulate masculinity and objectification while measuring attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of violence against women, to experimentally reinforce the findings of the current research. RESULTS Correlations: Selected subscales of the CMNI correlated with Hostile Sexism and depersonalization (see Table 1). Results show small to moderate correlations between selected masculinity norms and forms of IPV (see Table 2). Both Hostile Sexism and depersonalization moderately correlated with physical and sexual violence (Table 2). Only Hostile Sexism correlated with psychological aggression. However, implicit measures of objectification did not significantly correlate depersonalization or sexism. Neither did implicit objectification correlate with measures of IPV. Structural Equation Model: The model demonstrates significant pathways between both masculinity and hostile sexism, and masculinity and depersonalization. However, only the pathway between depersonalization and IPV is marginally significant; the pathway between hostile sexism and IPV is non-significant. RESULTS Masculine normsPsychological AggressionPhysical AssaultSexual Coercion Winning.21**.19**.16* Violence.15*.03-.06 Power over Women.31**.37**.39** Playboy.23**.17*.27** Self-reliance.23**.09.13 Hostile Sexism.30**.29** Depersonalization.08.28**.24** This project investigates the relationship between men’s conformity to masculinity norms, objectifying perceptions of women, and perpetration of verbal, physical and sexual violence against female partners. Despite public campaigns and shifting norms around domestic violence, it remains a serious public health concern. The World Health Organization (2013) estimates that between 24-38% of women worldwide will experience violence from a partner over her lifetime. In Australia, intimate partner violence (IPV) is the leading cause of death and disability in women aged 15-44 years, and accounts for 40% of interpersonal violence. One of the most researched predictors of IPV is gender norms, and in particular, masculinity norms. Traditional masculine ideology is associated with violence against women, particularly in romantic relationships (e.g. Murnen, Wright & Kaluzny, 2002). Current research suggests there are numerous social norms relating to masculinity. Some of these norms may be more relevant to IPV than others. Masculinity norms such as violence and dominance are related to men’s aggression, but do not explain why violence is often directed at women. Recent research has explored mediators and moderators of the association between masculinity and IPV. Objectification is a possible mediating mechanism which could explain why men high in traditional masculinity are often violent toward their female partners. Reducing a person to an object may lessen their perceived personhood, moral status, and capacity for suffering. Men who objectify women are more likely to endorse rape myths and have greater rape proclivity (Rudman & Mescher, 2012). Objectified targets are blamed more for being victimized, and are seen as suffering less from an assault (Loughnan et al., 2013). The current research investigated relationships between masculinity, objectification, and IPV, and tested whether objectification mediates the relationship between masculinity and IPV against women. CONCLUSIONS ** significant at the <.01 level * significant at the <.05 level Michelle Stratemeyer & Nick Haslam Melbourne School of Psychological Science, University of Melbourne, Australia CMNI IPV Psychological aggression Physical assaultSexual coercion Depersonalization Sexism.56*.37*.40*.13^.58*.83*.74* Masculine normsHostile SexismDepersonalization Winning.36**.19** Violence.27**.02 Power over Women.64**.34** Playboy.24**.15* Self-reliance.24**.11 χ ² = 163.11 p<.05 CFI =.91 RMSEA =.06 Figure 1. Simplified SEM demonstrating objectification as a mediator of masculinity and IPV Table 1: Correlations between masculinity, objectification and sexism Table 2: Correlations between masculinity, objectification, sexism and violence measures Winning Power over Women Self-relianceViolencePlayboy.62*.24*.88*.37*.24*