Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 07 June 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651071
Edited by:
Sai-Fu Fung,
City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
Reviewed by:
Andrea Svicher,
University of Florence, Italy
Emilio Edmundo Moyano-Díaz,
University of Talca, Chile
*Correspondence:
Lola Crone
lola.crone@univ-montp3.fr
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Quantitative Psychology
and Measurement,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 08 January 2021
Accepted: 04 May 2021
Published: 07 June 2021
Citation:
Crone L, Brunel L and Auzoult L
(2021) Validation of a Perception
of Objectification in the Workplace
Short Scale (POWS).
Front. Psychol. 12:651071.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651071
Validation of a Perception of
Objectification in the Workplace
Short Scale (POWS)
Lola Crone1*, Lionel Brunel1and Laurent Auzoult2
1Laboratory Epsylon EA 4556, Department of Psychology, University Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 2Laboratory
Psy-DREPI EA 7458, Department of Psychology, University Bourgogne, Dijon, France
An increasing number of studies focus on the phenomenon of objectification in the
workplace. This phenomenon reflects a process of subjection of the employee, where
he is considered as an object, a mean (utilitarian) or reduced to one of his attributes.
Previous studies have shown that objectification can have consequences on the
workplace health or performance. Field studies are based on objectification measures
based on tools whose psychometric qualities are unclear. Based on a previous
workplace objectification measurement scale, we conducted a study with the aim of
devising a new parsimonious scale. We present three studies which aim to validate this
new scale. In the first study, an EFA and a CFA were performed in order to construct a
scale and verify its structure validity. We obtained a 10-item scale reporting two factors
labeled “Instrumental value” and “Powerfulness.” The psychometric qualities of this scale
were satisfactory, i.e., showed good internal reliability and good structural validity. In a
second study, we tested the convergent and divergent validity of the scale. We observe
that POWS is adequately correlated with dehumanization indicators. Finally, in a third
study, we found that only powerfulness was associated with negative consequences for
occupational health. This suggests that objectification is a process of social perception
that contributes either to the devaluation of social agents in the workplace or to normal
functioning at work.
Keywords: objectification in the workplace, questionnaire, action, social perception, dehumanization
INTRODUCTION
Objectification is a form of dehumanization (Haslam, 2006;Volpato and Andrighetto, 2015) which
is expressed through a relationship of subjugation or a reductive perception of a person based on
one of their attributes (Nussbaum, 1995). It occurs when the person is viewed as an object. In
this context, over and above the denial of their humanity, i.e., passivity, denial of subjectivity and
denial of autonomy, the person is viewed through their use, i.e., instrumentalization, possession or
interchangeability, or their form, i.e., reduction to appearance, body or silence (Langton, 2011). In
the workplace, objectification consists in behaving with an employee as if the latter had no thoughts
or emotions, as if they had to be controlled in order to act, deprived of initiative, exploitable and
malleable at will. Regarding reduction to form, persons are viewed solely through their appearance
or their body, and are not listened to, as they are judged incapable of expressing their feelings about
their work or themselves.
We find similar patterns of behavior evoking sexual objectification. At the same time, all
these behaviors have in common to rely on elementary perceptual processes (Bernard et al., 2018).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 2
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
We present a series of studies which aim to clarify the
measurement of objectification in workplace. We started from
a scale measuring the usual behaviors of objectification in
workplace (Auzoult and Personnaz, 2016a) and we developed a
new scale based on the perception of employees in workplace.
Origins of Objectification
Several explanatory hypotheses have been put forward to
account for objectification. Objectification is thought to be a
means of reducing complexity, of coping with uncertainty, and
consequently of facilitating interaction by enabling others to be
perceived via simple attributes. Landau et al. (2012) highlight
the fact that managers, who anticipate difficulties in carrying
out their duties and in considering the subjectivity of their
employees, focus on their professional attributes (skills for
example). A similar explanation can be found in the medical field
where objectification is described as a defense mechanism which
is established when faced with the difficulty of delivering care
effectively, for example when care involves hurting the patient
(Timmermans and Almeling, 2009;Haque and Waytz, 2012).
Other authors consider that objectification is associated with
the exercise of power. Gruenfeld et al. (2008) observed through
several experiments that the exercise of power leads to the
objectification of others, that’s to say perceiving them through
the sole dimension of their use in achieving goals which are
set by the person who holds the power. Other field studies
(Auzoult and Personnaz, 2016a) have highlighted the fact that
working in an organization based on strict respect for authority,
rationality of procedures, division of work and written formal
communication is associated with self-objectification. Moreover,
the link between power and objectification is conditioned by the
interpersonal attitude of leaders (Sanders et al., 2015) and more
generally by the quality of interpersonal relationships (Renger
et al., 2016). Beyond power, we can emphasize that scientific
discourse on management is underpinned by a vision of the
employee as a resource for the organization and not as an end in
themselves (Cheney and Carroll, 1997;Shields and Grant, 2010;
Rochford et al., 2016).
Following on from the analyses of the thinker Marx (1944),
the sociologist Durkheim (1893) and the psychoanalyst Fromm
(1956), objectification can be considered as a corollary of the
organization of work activity. Haque and Waytz (2012) situate
the origin of medical dehumanization at the level of care
activity. This highlights the fact that medical care promotes
deindividuation (anonymity of the uniform, no name), the
perception of the patient as diminished (illness), dissimilarity
(caring/neat status, sick/healthy) or labeling (denomination by
the disease). Other authors emphasize the impact of labor
robotization (Moore and Robinson, 2016) or the characteristics
of employees, such as their age (Wiener et al., 2014). Several
experimental studies (Andrighetto et al., 2017, 2018;Baldissarri
et al., 2017b) have highlighted the fact that objectification takes
place when observing someone working in an activity which is
continually reproduced (repetitiveness), which is divided into
several basic units carried out separately (fragmentation) and
whose pace of execution and planning depends on another
person or a technical system rather than on the employee
themselves (external control). This process occurs if the activity
takes place in an industrial context (machine based) rather
than a craft-based context (the manufacture of a specific object)
and does not exclusively concern the perception of others. So
Baldissarri et al. (2017a) highlighted the fact that being placed in a
situation of performing an activity which is repetitive, fragmented
or under the control of someone else leads to a perception
of oneself as self-objectified/dementalized, like an instrument
(a tool, a thing, or a machine), and as having little personal
freedom, another attribute specifically associated with human
beings. The latter element is important as this study by Baldissarri
and al. also underlines the fact that seeing oneself as generally
having little personal freedom reinforces the phenomenon of self-
objectification. There is therefore a downward spiral in which the
feeling of loss of freedom may lead to perceiving oneself as an
object, this state in turn reducing the feeling of freedom, etc.
Consequences of Objectification
When considering the consequences of objectification in the field
of work, it can be seen that this type of relationship is associated
with “cognitive deconstructive” states (Christoff, 2014), with a
loss of perceived humanity (Loughnan et al., 2017), occupational
burnout (Baldissarri et al., 2014;Szymanski and Mikorski,
2016;Caesens et al., 2017), decrease of job satisfaction and
depression (Szymanski and Feltman, 2015), sexual harassment
(Wiener et al., 2013;Gervais et al., 2016), and self-objectification
(Auzoult and Personnaz, 2016a). Self-objectification constitutes
dementalization, i.e., a feeling of having lost the capacity to act, to
plan, to exercise control over oneself or one’s environment, or to
feel emotions (Gray et al., 2011).
Some studies have also considered the positive consequences,
such as personal empowerment (Inesi et al., 2014) or
employability (Rollero and Tartaglia, 2013;Nistor and Stanciu,
2017). In the medical field, objectification is also conceived as
a means of facilitating medical care (Haque and Waytz, 2012).
In these cases, objectification is considered to be a provider of
psychosocial resources or to facilitate activity at work.
Objective of the First Study
There is therefore still much research to be done to understand
both the antecedents and outcomes of objectification. This
work requires the use of valid and simple tools to study the
phenomenon of objectification at work.
In this study, we aim to construct a scale of objectification
in the workplace. We have taken as a basis the perception of
being objectified scale created by Auzoult and Personnaz (2016a)
which adopts and extends the adaptation of the scale of Gruenfeld
et al. (2008) and Baldissarri et al. (2014). In the original scale, we
only took into account the instrumentalization that is thought to
be the core defining component of objectification. In relation to
the work of Nussbaum (1995) and Langton (2011), Auzoult and
Personnaz have developed a scale that also takes into account
the processes associated to objectification: denial of agentivity,
usefulness or his/her apparent characteristics (Figure 1 and
Table 1). According to this scale, objectification at work means
that the employee acts according to the objectives of a third party
and is considered incapable of taking initiatives or decisions. In
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 3
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
FIGURE 1 | Theoretical dimensions of objectification.
the same way his/her affects, his/her health and his/her ideas are
disregarded and he/she is considered solely from the point of
view of his/her appearance. Finally, he/she would be considered
as interchangeable with others or with a machine, because he/she
belongs to his/her organization. In this way of thinking, the
employee is a resource just like raw material or capital (Shields
and Grant, 2010;Moore and Robinson, 2016).
This scale has been used in several studies (Auzoult and
Personnaz, 2016a,b;Auzoult, 2019). It seems to benefit from
good internal consistency (Cronbach αfrom 0.90 to 0.91).
However, the factor structure that is presented in the original
study reveals the existence of five factors while theoretically 10
dimensions were expected (e.g., instrumentalization, passivity,
etc., see Figure 1 and Table 1). The authors (Auzoult and
Personnaz, 2016a) considered that the correlations observed
between the items justified the existence of a single factor
of objectification at work. This leads us to consider the
scale as relatively complex. Similarly, the scale contains 26
items which can penalize field research aimed at populations
uncomfortable with writing. These different findings led us to
withdraw the 26 items of the original scale and to collect a
sufficient number of answers to carry out a new validation
study of the scale.
STUDY 1: OBJECTIFICATION SHORT
FORM SCALE CONSTRUCTION
The first study consisted in developing an abbreviated version
of the objectification perception scale. First, we evaluated
the psychometric properties of the original perception of
objectification scale. The scale includes 26 items (Table 1) which
measure the 10 theoretical dimensions of objectification:
instrumentalization, reduction in appearance, denial of
autonomy, denial of subjectivity, passivity, interchangeability,
violability, possession, and reduction to body and reduction to
silence. Respondents used seven-point scales ranging from “not
at all” (1) to “quite” (7). Secondly, if the confirmatory analysis
of the previous scale did not fit the data, an exploratory analysis
was conducted to refine this. A new confirmatory analysis on a
replication sample was performed to test the new version.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Statistical Method
EFA and CFA were carried out using the R software by the
following packages: Psych (Revelle, 2015), Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012).
The parallel analysis allowed us to determine the number
of factors to be extracted. We have selected factors with an
eigenvalue greater than 1, according to Kaiser’s criteria. The
items were deleted if their unique variance was <0.60, their
saturation coefficient >0.60 and their double load <0.10 on
a second factor. THE EFA extraction method was maximum
likelihood and oblimin rotation. For confirmatory analysis, our
models were estimated using the following statistical indices: the
chi-square and degree of freedom (CMIN/DF), the comparative
fit index (CFI), the tucker-lewis index (TLI), and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). A good model with a
CMIN/DF <3, has a CFI, GFI and TLI value >0.90 and RMSEA
values below 0.08. To evaluate the reliability of the scale, we used
cronbach’s alpha which must be >0.7
Participants and Procedure
780 participants (385 males and 395 females) participated in
the study. Their average age was 38. Regarding their level of
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 4
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
TABLE 1 | List of Auzoult and Personnar scale items with their associated dimensions: Instumentalization, passivity, possession, violability, interchangeability, reduction
to silence, reduction in appearance, reduction to body, denial of subjectivity, and denial of autonomy.
Property of
the object
Dimensions of
objectification
No. Items
Form Reduction to appearance 1 At work my boss and/or my colleagues only consider me on the basis of my physical appearance
Use Instrumentalization 2 My boss and my colleagues appreciate me even when I’m not useful to him/her (R)
Form Reduction to silence 3 My boss and my colleagues never ask my opinion at work, as though I had nothing to say
Non-human Denial of autonomy 4 My boss and my colleagues never ask if I would like to work in a different way
Use Possession 5 I sometimes have the impression that I am the possession of my employer and that I will easily be
transferred or sold to another company
Use Interchangeability 6* At work, my boss and/or my colleagues give me the impression that my work could be replaced by that
of a machine
Non-human Denial of subjectivity 7 At work, my boss and my colleagues act as if my private life was of no importance and shouldn’t be
taken into account
Form Reduction to silence 8 My boss and my colleagues do not listen to what I have to say about my work
Use Instrumentalization 9* My boss and/or my colleagues think more about what I can do for them than what they can do for me
Non-human Denial of autonomy 10 My boss and my colleagues tell me how to do my work even when I do not ask anything
Form Reduction to body 11* For my boss and/or my colleagues, what I feel or what I think is of little importance. What counts is that
I am physically able to work
Use Interchangeability 12* In my workplace, my boss and/or/my colleagues think that if I was replaced by a machine, the work
would be done just as well, or even better
Use Instrumentalization 13 The relationship with my boss and/or my colleagues is based on the fact that we appreciate one
another from a human point of view rather than on the fact that I am productive (R)
Form Reduction to body 14* My boss and/or my colleagues consider that my physical aptitudes are my only skills
Non-human Denial of autonomy 15 My boss and my colleagues give me no latitude in my work as they think that I would not know how to
do it differently
Non-human Denial of subjectivity 16 My boss and/or my colleagues are often interested in what I feel because they want to get as close to
me as possible (R)
Form Reduction to appearance 17 The only thing that counts in my workplace is that I present myself well physically
Use Violability 18* At work, my boss and/or my colleagues act as if my health was of no importance and should not be
protected
Use Instrumentalization 19* If I was no longer useful to my boss and/or my colleagues, my relationship with them would come to an
end
Non-human Denial of subjectivity 20 At work, people make me do as they wish without asking me if I want to or I like doing it
Use Passivity 21 At work, my boss and/or my colleagues reflect back the image of someone who is subject to events
and incapable of taking the initiative
Use Instrumentalization 22 My boss and/or my colleagues consider the relationship they have with me to be important because it
allow them to achieve their objectives
Use Violability 23* My health and my physical sate are of secondary importance for my boss and/or my colleagues
Use Possession 24* It’s as if my employment contract made me into an object or a product which my employer could
dispose of as they see fit
Use Passivity 25 At work, my boss and/or my colleagues, behave with me as someone to whom one says what must be
done and who always follows suit
Use Instrumentalization 26* My box and/or my colleagues only seek me out when they need something
*Items retained in the short version of the scale.
education, 48.9% of them had a level of education lower than
the bachelor’s degree, 22.6% a bachelor’s degree, and 28.4% a level
higher than the bachelor’s degree. Regarding their status, 72.4% of
them were non-managerial, 19.3% were executive and 8.2% were
senior managers. 84.9% worked in a service activity and 21.5%
in industry. The work objective scale was sent via mailing lists
to employees working in various sectors of activity. Respondents
were contacted via the researchers’ networks and then asked to
extend the study via their own networks (snowball technique).
The questionnaire allowed us to measure the study variable
and participants’ characteristics. The answers were anonymous.
Respondents received a report on the study’s main results
by email. Four participants that had not fully completed the
questionnaire, were withdrawn from the study.
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) of
the Perception Objectification Scale in
the Workplace
The Table 2 summarizes the CFA indices from the scale
of the perception of objectification in the workplace
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 5
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
TABLE 2 | Fit indices for de confirmatory analyses of the Perception of
objectification on the workplace (Auzoult and Personnaz, 2016a) (N= 780).
Model one factor X2(p) df x/df CFI RMSEA
1922.29 299.00 6,43 0.788 0.083
FIGURE 2 | Distribution of eigenvalues relative to factors.
(Auzoult and Personnaz, 2016a) to a one-factor. The
CMIN/DF must be less than 3, but the index indicates
that it is 6.43. The RMSEA is 0.083, it can be considered
satisfactory, as it must be less than or equal to 0.08.
Nevertheless, the CFI is less than 0.09 which is not
satisfactory. The 1-dimensional objectification perception
scale can be considered inadequate with regard to the
indicators presented.
Development and Validation of a
Short-Scale Perception of Objectification
in the Workplace
Sample
To refine the scale and improve the exploratory analysis,
we split the sample in two. The participants were
randomly numbered so that the first sample contains
even numbers and the second contains odd numbers. The
first sample (n= 390) will be used for the exploratory
analysis, the second sample (n= 390) will be used for the
confirmatory analysis.
Exploratory Factor Analyses on POWS (Perception
Objectification in Work Scale)
The factor extraction analysis proposed a two-factor model
(Figure 2). The first factor explains 23% of the variance and has
an eigenvalue of 6.06. The factor 2 has an eigenvalue of 3.53
and explains 14% of the variance. The Table 3 shows the factors
loading of the 10 items selected from the initial scale.
The first factor consisted of 7 items (26, 24, 23, 19, 18,
14, and 9). These represented instrumentalization (26, 19, and
9), possession (24), violability (23 and 18), and reduction
to body (14). The saturation coefficients of this factor were
TABLE 3 | Factor loadings estimates for POWS with oblimin rotation (N= 390).
POWS*/10 items/2factors Instrumental value Powerfullness
Item 23 0.72 0.02
Item 19 0.71 −0.09
Item 26 0.70 −0.05
Item 18 0.70 0.02
Item 14 0.70 −0.06
Item 24 0.70 −0.05
Item9 0.67 −0.02
Item 11 −0.01 0.71
Item 12 −0.10 0.73
Item 6 0.07 0.60
Loading/Eigen Values 6.06 3.53
Cumulative variance 0.23 0.37
*POWS, Perception of Objectification at Work Short scale.
between 0.67 and 0.72. The second factor consisted of 3
items (12, 11, and 6). The items represented interchangeability
(6 and 12), and reduction to body (11). The saturation
coefficients for this factor were between 0.60 and 0.73.
The first factor included items that referred to the utility
and/or importance of the employee for others: we labeled
this factor “Instrumental value1.” The second factor grouped
items that referred to the power of the employee, whether
physically assessed or compared to that of machines: we labeled
this factor “Powerfulness2.” For a 2-factor model, the KMO
index is 0.90, Bartlett’s test is less than 0.05 which can be
considered excellent.
Confirmatory Analysis
The confirmatory analysis was performed on the second sample
to analyze the fit of the 2-factor model in 10 items. The indices
of the 2-factor model were compared to a 1 factor model. The
Table 4 shows that the 2-factor model requires better adjustment
indices. Referring to the threshold of the recommended values,
the analysis showed that the CMIN/DF was satisfactory because it
was less than 3 (χ2= 77.599, DF = 34, CMIN/DF = 2.28). The CFI
was also satisfactory because it was higher than 0.9 (CFI = 0.973)
as was the GFI (GFI = 0.963). RMSEA was of good quality because
it was less than 0.08 (RMSEA = 0.041). Finally, the RMR was
less than 1 (RMR = 0.041). Compared to 1-factor model, the 2-
factor model indicates a better adequacy of the indices. Then, the
1Item 26 “My boss and/or my colleagues only seek me out when they need
something”; item 24 “It’s as if my employment contract made me into an object
or a product which my employer could dispose of as they see fit”; item 19 “If I
was no longer useful to my boss and/or my colleagues, my relationship with them
would come to an end”; item 14” For my boss and/or my colleagues, what I feel
or what I think is of little importance, what counts is that I am physically able to
work.”; item 9 “ My boss and/or my colleagues think more about what I can do for
them than what they can do for me”; item 23 “ My health and my physical state are
of secondary importance to my boss and/or my colleagues. “; item 18 “ At work,
my boss and/or my colleagues act as if my health was of no importance and should
not be protected.”
2Item 11 “ My boss and/or my colleagues consider that my physical aptitudes are
my only skills”; item 12 “ In my workplace, my boss and/or my colleagues think
that if I was replaced by a machine, the work would be done just as well, or even
better”; item 6 “ At work, my boss and/or my colleagues, give me the impression
that my work could be replaced by that of a machine.”
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 6
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
FIGURE 3 | Structural model of the objectification scale after confirmatory analysis.
TABLE 4 | Fit indices for the confirmatory factor models of the POWS questionnaire (N = 390).
Models tested X2(P) df x/df CFI GFI TLI AIC RMSEA
2–factor 132.30 34 3,8 0.967 0.968 0.956 26325.601 0.061
1–factor 498.17 35 14,23 0.844 0.882 0.800 26689.475 0.130
internal reliability of our model (Figure 3) showed us that the
correlations of the intra-factor items were all greater than 0.60
with their latent factor. The inter-factor correlation was equal to
0.50. Finally, the internal consistency index of the various factors,
expressed by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, showed us that
factor 1 had an alpha of 0.80 and factor 2 had an alpha of 0.70.
Comparisons of Mean POWS Score for Age, Sex,
Professional Status, and Level of Study
Comparison of means across subjects (Table 5) shows that
enforcement agents and managers have a higher score of
perceived objectification at workplace than upper managers
(execution agent: t= 2.95, df = 82.50, p<0.005; manager:
t= 2.07, df = 132.18, p<0.05). For gender, males have a
significantly higher score than females (t= 2.68, df = 757.26,
p<0.05). Regarding age, we do not observe any difference in
POWS scores between the different age groups, however the
under 25s have a higher score of the powerfulness factor than the
41/50s (t= 1.91, df = 430.16, p<0.05). Finally, concerning the
level of study, we only observe a difference in average between
bachelor’s degree levels and postgraduate education, the first
having a higher average in the powerfulness factor (t= 2.51,
df = 288.3, p<0.05).
DISCUSSION
The objective of this first study was to construct a parsimonious
objectification at the workplace level with an unambiguous factor
structure. We took as a basis for our work the scale constructed by
Auzoult and Personnaz (2016a), which initially included 26 items
measuring an alleged general objectification factor.
First, we conducted a confirmatory analysis of the model
to ensure its psychometric properties. The indices showed us
that the 1-factor model was not adequate. An exploratory and
confirmatory analysis led us to choose a 10-item two-factor
structure. This two-factor structure does not contradict the idea
that objectification is a unitary phenomenon since these two
factors are strongly intercorrelated. As regards criteria validity,
the mean comparison of our sample shows us elements in line
with the literature. Indeed, we observe that the executing agents
have a higher mean of objectification than the upper managers.
This result supports the very definition of objectification, which
stems from a fragmented, repetitive activity but also from a power
relationship in which subordinates are treated exclusively on their
usefulness in achieving a goal (Magee and Galinsky, 2008).
The structural validity of this new scale is satisfactory.
The following two studies aim to establish the convergent
and divergent validity of the scale by taking into account
other psychological constructs supposed to be associated with
objectification at work.
STUDY 2: CONVERGENT AND
DIVERGENT VALIDITY
To verify the convergent and divergent validity of our
scale, we have compared the POWS scale to the following
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 7
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
TABLE 5 | Mean (standard deviation) for POWS score depending on age, sex, working status, and degree of study (N= 780).
NPOWS F1: Instrumentality F2: Powerfulness
Age
<25 221 2.50 (1.08)2.85 (1.28)1.68 (0.97)*
26–40 174 2.61 (1.10)3.01 (1.37)1.67 (1.01)
41–50 230 2.59 (1.12)3.05 (1.41)1.52 (0.83)
>51 155 2.57 (1.07)2.99 (1.31)1.58 (0.92)
Working status
Execution agent 562 2.61 (1.09)** 3.01 (1.34)*1.67 (0.97)***
Manager 150 2.54 (1.09)*2.99 (1.36)1.49 (0.90)
Upper manager 64 2.23 (0.97)2.62 (1.30)1.31 (0.60)
Sex
Female 395 2.46 (1.01)2.88 (1.28)1.50 (1.78)
Male 385 2.67 (1.67)*3.08 (1.42)*1.72 (1.06)**
Bachelor’s degree
<Bachelor 220 2.63 (1.06)3.05 (1.33)1.63 (0.89)
Bachelor 174 2.58 (1.13)2.93 (1.36)1.72 (1.06)*
>Bachelor 380 2.52 (1.09)2.95 (1.35)1.52 (0.89)
*p <0.05, **p <0.01, and ***p <0.001. POWS, Perception of Objectification at Work Short scale.
elements: the dehumanization and humanization scales. We
postulated that the correlations would be significantly positive
between the POWS scale and the dehumanization scale
(convergent validity) and the correlations would be significantly
negative between the POWS scale and the humanization
(divergence validity). We expect these relationships which
have already been observed by Auzoult (2019). Indeed, the
fact of perceiving oneself as objectified by one’s professional
entourage is positively associated with a perception of oneself
as an instrument (i.e., mechanical dehumanization) and
negatively associated with the perception of oneself as a person
(i.e., humanization).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants and Procedure
74 participants participated in our study (12 men and 61
women). The average age is 37. As regards professional
status, we have 23% of executive agents, 43% of middle
managers, 11% of upper managers, 12% of artisans
and 11% of students. We distributed our questionnaire
on social networks, specifying that the answers were
anonymous. The contact procedure was similar to
the previous study.
Measures
Perception of Objectification
The perception of objectification was measured with the
previously validated 10-item POWS scale with an internal
consistency index of 0.92.
Mechanical Dehumanization and Humanization
A 2-dimensional scale of instrumentality and humanness
that measures the perception of being seen as an instrument
(mechanical dehumanization) or a human being (humanization)
(Andrighetto et al., 2017). Five words are presented
to describe oneself as a human person (human being,
individual, and person) and five words to describe oneself
as an instrument (tool, thing, machine). The first factor
(mechanical dehumanization) has an internal consistency
index of 0.90 and the second factor (humanization) has
an internal consistency index of 0.77. Participants respond
using a likert scale ranging from 1 «not at all” to 7
“quite.”
RESULTS
The Table 6 shows the correlations between objectification
(POWS scale), the 2 subjacent dimensions, mechanical
dehumanization and humanization. Objectification (POWS
scale) is positively associated to mechanical dehumanization
(r= 0.75) and negatively associated to the humanization
(r=−0.55). The two sub−dimensions of the POWS
scale are also positively associated to the mechanical
dehumanization (Instrumentality: r= 0.73; Powerfulness:
r= 0.63) and negatively associated to humanness
(Instrumentality: r=−0.54; Powerfulness: r=−0.44).
These results confirm a satisfactory convergent and divergent
validity of our scale.
DISCUSSION
The objective of this second study was to establish the
convergent and divergent validity of our new scale.
These are satisfactory, however, in view of our sample
(N= 74), comparisons in other larger samples with the
same measures of similar constructs will be included in
further studies.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 8
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
TABLE 6 | Correlations between perception of objectification at work (POWS
scale), dehumanization, and humanization (N= 74).
POWS Factor 1:
Instrumentalization
Factor 2:
Powerfulness
Dehumanization 0.75*** 0.73*** 0.63***
Humanness −0.55*** −0.54*** −0.44***
***p < 0.001. POWS, Perception of Objectification at Work Short scale.
Concerning the two subdimension of the POWS scale,
we have labeled these two factors “Instrumental value”
and “Powerfulness.” The first factor refers to a feeling of
being reduced to a mere support or physical object (like a
tool) and thus being represented in a work environment
more as tool than a social agent. Thus, the agent feels as
if he/she is being utilized and valuated in his/her working
environment. The second factor refers to the feeling of not
being recognized as an agent in the working environment.
Thus, the agent thinks that recognition comes solely
from their actions. This leads us to two observations. On
the one hand, objectification refers to a representation
of people which reflects the process of dehumanization
where the employee perceives himself/herself as a resource
at the service of others or to a process of comparative
devaluation of the employee in his or her technical
universe. These two representations of objectification are
not strictly similar. Indeed, the fact of perceiving oneself
as a resource at the service of the organization can be
considered relatively usual since the employment contract
reflects this organizational objective. If employees adhere
to organizational goals, this phenomenon of reducing the
person to a means may even be considered functional and
acceptable (Orehek and Weaverling, 2017). In some cases,
it can even be conceived that objectification can lead to an
increase in the market value of the employee (Rollero and
Tartaglia, 2013) or an increase in the feeling of self-efficacy
(Nistor and Stanciu, 2017). On the contrary, perceiving
oneself as having less power than a machine represents
an attack on the instrumental value of the worker. From
this point of view, the consequences of objectification
for health are not necessarily unambiguous depending
on whether we consider the two factors that make up our
scale.
This observation led us to question one of the observations
made about the consequences of the objective for health.
Specifically, one of the consequences of objectification
is self-objectification. Self-objectification is thought to
take place through dementalization, which is to say, a
perception of the self as being incapable of feeling or
thinking about work. In studies in which objectification
and mentalization are measured, there is a relatively weak
relationship (<0.30) (Baldissarri et al., 2014;Auzoult
and Personnaz, 2016b) or an absence of a relationship
between these two psychological constructs (Auzoult,
2019). We think that this difficulty in observing a strong
and consistent relationship is due to the fact that the
different dimensions of objectification, “Instrumental
value,” and “Powerfulness” are not equivalent from
the point of view of the consequences for health, here
dementalization at work. Specifically, we think that
only the “Powerfulness” dimension of objectification
is systematically negatively associated at the level of
mentalization, which results in self-objectification at work.
The aim of this third study was to test this hypothesis
using the reduced scale (POWS) and self-objectification
at work.
STUDY 3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OBJECTIFICATION AND
SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AT WORK
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A total of 650 participants (307 females, 343 males)
participated in the study. They were on average 38 years
old. Regarding education level, 31% had a level of
education lower than the bachelor’s degree, 43% a
bachelor’s degree and 25% a level higher than the
bachelor’s degree. Regarding status, 69% of them were
executive, 21% were middle managers and 9% were senior
managers.
Participants were invited to complete an online
questionnaire. The questionnaire allowed us to measure
the study variables. The answers were anonymous
and once data were completed and results processed,
respondents received a report of the study’s main results by
email.
Measures
Perception of Objectification at Work
Objectification was measured using the short scale POWS
developed in the previous study. It consisted of 10
items and participants responded using 7-point scales
ranging from “not at all” (1) to “quite” (7). This scale is
composed of 2 factors: “Instrumental value” with an internal
consistency index of 0.87 and “Powerfulness,” with an internal
consistency index of 0.73.
Self-Objectification
Self-objectification was measured using the Self-Mental State
Attribution Task (Baldissarri et al., 2014). The scale is based
on 19 items, with an internal consistency index of 0.89,
allowing the attribution of different mental states during
a working day (for example: “To what extent have you
been likely to feel psychological states during a working
day?: feel a need;have an intention; reasoning”). Participants
responded using seven-point scales ranging from “not at all”
(1) to “quite” (7).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 9
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
RESULTS
The two indicators of objectification were positively
associated (r= 0.40). Self-objectification was significantly
negatively associated with powerfulness (r=−0.11) and
tendentially with instrumental value (r=−0.07) (Table 7).
We conducted a regression analysis considering self-
objectification as a dependent variable and the two dimensions
of objectification as independent variables. Powerfulness
(β=−0.09) explained self-objectification (Table 8). Our
hypothesis was confirmed.
DISCUSSION
In this third study the objectification was measured using the
reduced scale. We measured dementalization at work as a
consequence of objectification. It was observed, as expected, that
only the second factor named powerfulness was systematically
associated with self-objectification (dementalization), that is
to say with negative consequences for occupational health.
This result confirms that it is not the fact of perceiving
oneself as a means of serving others that is problematic
for occupational health. It appears that it is the fact of
perceiving oneself as comparable to an instrument or a
machine that is deleterious to health at work. From this
point of view, self-objectification appears as the result of a
comparative devaluation of social agents in their technical
universe. However, a single study is not a sufficient basis
to draw a conclusion, further studies are needed to confirm
this first result.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The two factors involved in the measurement of objectification
refer to the value of the employee in reference to the action
TABLE 7 | Correlations between variables: self-objectification, instrumental value,
and powerfulness (N= 650).
M SD α1 2 3
1. Self-obj certification 4.58 0.87 0.89 –−0.07* −0.11**
2. Instrumental value 2.99 1.34 0.86 0.40**
3. Powerfulness 1.59 0.91 0.73 –
*p < 0.10 and **p < 0.05.
TABLE 8 | Regression analysis – self-objectification as dependent variable
(N= 650).
BSE B P
Constant 4.79 0.09
Instrumental value −0.02 0.03 −0.03
Powerfulness −0.09 0.04 −0.09*
Model R20.012*
*p < 0.05.
he/she can perform for others, but also to his/her lack of
value that reflects the lack of importance of his/her health or
replaceability by machines. Work on social perception leads
to the idea that common sense knowledge is evaluative and
utilitarian in the sense that it does not aim for accuracy
but for action (Funder, 1987). The process of objectification
thus appears as the product of an action-oriented evaluative
activity, that is to say endowed with functionality as has been
previously emphasized (Haque and Waytz, 2012). According to
“economy of action” (e.g., Proffitt, 2006), individuals perceive
their environment through its opportunity for action and
its associated cost. In this process, individuals integrate each
source (i.e., physical or social) reducing the cost of their
action depending on the nature of the task (e.g., Meagher
and Marsh, 2014;Osiurak et al., 2014). This is probably why
objectification occurs in contexts where control of action is
salient (power, relational uncertainty) and where production
through activity is based on the coordination of the human
and the technical.
The objectification process refers to a perceptive activity
in which the person is encoded through his/her form
(structural dimension) but also and above all through
his/her functional properties (semantic dimension) that
is to say in accordance with the same processes as the
perceptive activity of objects (Humphreys et al., 1997;
Martin, 2007). Numerous studies have suggested that
people think about objects in much the same way as they
think about people (Lakey and Orehek, 2011;Orehek and
Forest, 2016). When action is concerned, people are used
in the same way as objects and are evaluated according
to their instrumental usefulness for achieving others’ goals
(Orehek and Weaverling, 2017). Objectification in the
workplace therefore involves a process of social perception
that accounts for basic perceptual mechanisms. We thus
find a frame of reference similar to the process of sexual
objectification (Bernard et al., 2018). From this point of
view, the scale that we have developed takes a closer look
at the phenomenon of objectification at work, which can
then be considered as a process of social perception in the
work context. This also leads to the dissociation of the
objectification process from its immediate consequences, i.e.,
instrumentalization, violability, interchangeability, denial of
agency, and so on.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to construct a short scale for
objectification in the workplace. At the end of this validation
study we obtained a scale of 10 items with a bifactorial structure
whose psychometric qualities are very satisfactory. From the
point of view of content, this scale seems to comprehend the
process of objectification as a process of social perception. In
future studies, therefore, it would be better to dissociate the
objectification process from its consequences in terms of social
behavior at work. Likewise, the fact that objectification accounts
for the value of people in their work context leads to an
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 10
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
interesting question that we need to address experimentally: is
objectification a loss of social value or an absence of social
attribution?
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided
their written informed consent to participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
LC, LB, and LA participated in the design of the study and
analyzed the results and wrote the manuscript. LC conducted the
experiment. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
FUNDING
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the EPSYLON
laboratory (Montpellier 3) and LB, for the open access
publication costs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank all the participants for their time and
willingness to participate.
REFERENCES
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., and Volpato, C. (2017). (Still) Modern times:
objectification at work. European Journal of Social Psychology 47, 25–35. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.2190
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Gabbiadini, A., Sacino, A., Valtorta, R. R.,
and Volpato, C. (2018). Objectified conformity: Working self-objectification
increases conforming behavior. Social Influence 13, 78–90. doi: 10.1080/
15534510.2018.1439769
Auzoult, L. (2019). Can meaning at work guard against the consequences of
objectification? Psychological Reports doi: 10.1177/0033294119826891 ∗vpq,
Auzoult, L., and Personnaz, B. (2016a). The role of organizational culture and
self-consciousness in self-objectification in the workplace. TPM – Testing,
Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 23, 271–284.
Auzoult, L., and Personnaz, B. (2016b). Les relations de travail sont-elles un moyen
de faire face à l’objectification ? [Are working relationships a way to deal
with objectification ?]. Lyon: IXème Congrès de l’Association Francophone de
Psychologie de la Santé. 14-16 décembre 2016∗.
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., Gabbiadini, A., and Volpato, C. (2017a). Work and
freedom? Working self-objectification and belief in personal free will. British
Journal of Social Psychology 56, 250–269. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12172
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., and Volpato, C. (2014). When work does not
ennoble man: Psychological consequences of working objectification. TPM -
Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 21, 327–339.
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., and Volpato, C. (2017b). Workers as objects: the
nature of working objectification and the role of perceived alienation. TPM –
Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 24, 1–14. doi: 10.
4473/TPM24.2
Bernard, P., Gervais, S. J., and Klein, O. (2018). Objectifying objectification: When
and why people are cognitively reduced to their parts akin to objects. European
Review of Social Psychology 29, 82–121. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2018.1471949
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S., and De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived
organizational support and employees’ well-being: the mediating role of
organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology. 26, 527–540. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: some scientific
and ethical considerations. Frontiers in human neuroscience 8:748. doi: 10.3389/
fnhum.2014.00748
Cheney, G., and Carroll, C. (1997). The person as object in discourses in and
around organizations. Communication Research 24, 593–630. doi: 10.1177/
0093650297024006002
Durkheim, E. (1893). De la division du travail social [The Division of Social Work].
Paris: Felix Alcan.
Fromm, E. (1956). The Sane Society. New York, NY: Routledge.
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: evaluating the accuracy of social
judgment. Psychological Bulletin 101, 75–90. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.75
Gervais, S. J., Wiener, R. L., Allen, J., Farnum, K. S., and Kimble, K. (2016). Do
you see what I see? The consequences of objectification in work settings for
experiencers and third party predictors. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy 16, 143–174. doi: 10.1111/asap.12118
Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., and Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a
body: Mind perception and the surprising nature of objectification. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 101, 1207–1220. doi: 10.1037/a0025883
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., and Galinski, A. D. (2008). Power and
the Objectification of Social Targets. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
95, 111–127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
Haque, O. S., and Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: causes,
solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 176–186. doi:
10.1177/1745691611429706
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 10, 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., and Price, C. J. (1997). Top-down processes in
object identification: evidence from experimental psychology, neuropsychology
and functional anatomy. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal society of
London. 352, 1275–1282. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0110
Inesi, M. E., Lee, S. Y., and Rios, K. (2014). Objects of desire: Subordinate
ingratiation triggers self-objectification among powerful. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 53, 19–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.010
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., Keefer, L. A., Rothschild, Z. K., and Osman, M. R.
(2012). Subjectivity uncertainty theory of objectification: Compensating for
uncertainty about how to positively relate to others by downplaying their
subjective attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, 1234–1246.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.003
Langton, R. (2011). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and
objectification. European Journal of Philosophy 19, 327–334. doi: 10.1111/j.
1468-0378.2011.00478.x
Lakey, B., and Orehek, E. (2011). Relational regulation theory: A new approach
to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health.
Psychological Review 118, 482–495. doi: 10.1037/a0023477
Loughnan, S., Baldissarri, C., Spaccatini, F., and Elder, L. (2017). Internalizing
objectification: Objectified individuals see themselves as less warm, competent,
moral, and human. British Journal of Social Psychology 56, 217–232. doi: 10.
1111/bjso.12188
Magee, J. C., and Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing
nature of power and status. Academy of Management annals, 2, 351–398. doi:
10.1080/19416520802211628
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual
Review of Psychology 58, 25–45. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
fpsyg-12-651071 June 1, 2021 Time: 18:47 # 11
Crone et al. Short Form of Objectification Scale
Marx, K. (1944). “The economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844,” in
The marx/engels reader, ed. R. Tucker (New York, NY: Norton & Company),
66–125.
Meagher, B. R., and Marsh, K. L. (2014). The costs of cooperation: Action-specific
perception in the context of joint action. Journal of experimental psychology:
human perception and performance 40, 429. doi: 10.1037/a0033850
Moore, P., and Robinson, A. (2016). The quantified self: What counts in the
neoliberal workplace. New Media & Society 18, 2774–2792. doi: 10.1177/
1461444815604328
Nistor, N., and Stanciu, I. D. (2017). “Being sexy” and the labor market: Self-
objectification in job search related social networks. Computers in Human
Behavior 69, 43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.005
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, 249–
291.
Orehek, E., and Weaverling, C. G. (2017). On the Nature of Objectification:
Implications of Considering People as Means to Goals. Perspectives on
Psychological Science 12, 719–730. doi: 10.1177/1745691617691138
Orehek, E., and Forest, A. L. (2016). When people serve as means to goals:
Implications of a motivational account of close relationships. Current Directions
in Psychological Science 25, 79–84. doi: 10.1177/0963721415623536
Osiurak, F., Morgado, N., Vallet, G. T., Drot, M., and Palluel-Germain, R. (2014).
Getting a tool gives wings: overestimation of tool-related benefits in a motor
imagery task and a decision task. Psychological research 78, 1–9. doi: 10.1007/
s00426-013- 0485-9
Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action.
Perspectives on psychological science 1, 110–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006
.00008.x
Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. R
package version 1.5.1.
Renger, D., Mommert, A., Renger, S., and Simon, B. (2016). When less equal is
less human: Intragroup (dis)respect and the experience of being human. The
Journal of Social Psychology 5, 553–563. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1135865
Rochford, K. C., Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., and French, S. E. (2016). Ethical
leadership as a balance between opposing neural networks. Journal of Business
Ethics 144, 755–770. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3264- x
Rollero, C., and Tartaglia, S. (2013). Men and women at work: the effect of
objectification on competence, pay, and fit for the job. Studia Psychologica 55,
139–152. doi: 10.21909/sp.2013.02.631
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and
more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of statistical software 48, 1–36. doi:
10.1002/9781119579038.ch1
Sanders, S., Wisse, B. M., and Yperen, N. W. V. (2015). Holding Others
in Contempt: the Moderating Role of Power in the Relationship Between
Leaders’Contempt and their Behavior Vis-a-vis Employees. Business Ethics
Quarterly 25, 213–241. doi: 10.1017/beq.2015.14
Shields, J., and Grant, D. (2010). Psychologising the Subject: HRM,
Commodification, and the Objectification of Labour. The Economic and
Labour Relations Review 20, 61–76. doi: 10.1177/103530461002000205
Szymanski, D. M., and Feltman, C. E. (2015). Linking Sexually Objectifying Work
Environments Among Waitresses to Psychological and Job-Related Outcomes.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 39, 390–404. doi: 10.1177/0361684314565345
Szymanski, D. M., and Mikorski, R. (2016). Sexually objectifying restaurants and
waitresses’ burnout and intentions to leave: The roles of power and support. Sex
Roles 75, 328–338. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0621-210.1007/s11199-016-0621-2
Timmermans, S., and Almeling, R. (2009). Objectification, standardization, and
commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment. Social Science &
Medicine 69, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.020
Volpato, C., and Andrighetto, L. (2015). Dehumanization. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 6, 31–37.
Wiener, R. L., Gervais, S. L., Allen, J., and Marquez, A. (2013). Eye of the Beholder:
Effects of Perspective and Sexual Objectification on Harassment Judgments.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 19, 206–221. doi: 10.1037/a0028497
Wiener, R. L., Gervais, S. J., Brnjic, E., and Nuss, G. D. (2014). Dehumanization
of Older People: The Evaluation of Hostile Work Environments. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law 20, 384–397. doi: 10.1037/law0000013
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Crone, Brunel and Auzoult. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 651071
Content uploaded by Crone Lola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Crone Lola on Jun 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
