C 2005) Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 9/10, May 2005 ( DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3
Brief Report
Women Who Objectify Other Women: The Vicious Circle of Objectification? Peter Strelan1,3 and Duane Hargreaves2
This study was designed to test the extent to which women who self-objectify also objectify other women. One hundred thirty-two university students and their friends (64 women and 68 men) completed three questionnaires: (1) Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) Self-Objectification Questionnaire, (2) a modified version of that questionnaire that measured individuals’ objectification of others, and (3) Slade, Dewey, Newton, and Brodie’s (1990) Body Cathexis scale. Women were more likely than men to self-objectify. Selfobjectification was negatively related to body satisfaction for women but not for men. Both women and men objectified women more than they objectified men, although women’s objectification of other women was not significantly different than their objectification of men. Men objectified women more than women did, and women objectified men more than men did. Women were more likely to objectify other women than to objectify themselves. Higher self-objectification among both women and men was related to increased objectification of other women and men, but the relationships were stronger for women. Results indicate that women also objectify women, although not to the degree exhibited by men. KEY WORDS: self-objectification; objectification; women; men.
Women, more than men, express dissatisfaction with their bodies (e.g., Furnham, Badmin, & Sneade, 2002). Body dissatisfaction has been linked to a number of negative consequences for women, including lowered self-esteem (Richards, Caspar, & Larson, 1990), depression (McCreary & Sasse, 2001), excessive dieting (Polivy & Herman, 1985), and disordered eating (Rieder & Ruderman, 2001). In fact, some authors have suggested that body dissatisfaction may be the “most consistent” predictor of eating disturbance (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999) and “an essential precursor” to eating disorders (Polivy & Herman, 2002).
One possible explanation for why women are likely to develop body dissatisfaction is provided by Fredrickson and Roberts’ (1997) objectification theory. The theory proposes that Westernized societies sexually objectify the female body. That is, women’s bodies are objects to be looked at and evaluated. Women tend to be judged on the basis of what they look like, not who they are, and the more positive the evaluation, the more likely a woman is to be valued by others. The perceived pressure to look good is so pervasive and strong, wrote Fredrickson and Roberts, that many women internalize the prevailing sociocultural attitudes. That is, they self-objectify; they take on the perspective of others, and therefore come to believe that they are defined by how they look. Self-objectification, in turn, leads women to experience appearance anxiety and body shame, and a robust literature has emerged to show that women who place undue emphasis on appearance are more likely to report some of the negative psychological and health consequences noted earlier, for example,
1 School
of Social Sciences and Liberal Studies, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia. 2 University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Social Sciences and Liberal Studies, Charles Sturt University, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, New South Wales, 2795, Australia; e-mail:
[email protected].
707
C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 0360-0025/05/0500-0707/0
708 reduced body satisfaction, self-esteem, and body esteem (McKinley, 1998; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Strelan, Mehaffey, & Tiggemann, 2003), and restrained or disordered eating (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). Consistent with objectification theory, studies have shown that women are more likely than men to self-objectify (for a review see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) suggested that women experience objectification primarily through perceived evaluation (e.g., men’s gaze) and idealized images of bodies that are constantly presented in the advertising and entertainment media. A number of studies have confirmed these sources, as well as the mediating influences of family and peers, as antecedents of objectification (e.g., Stice, 1994; van den Berg, Thompson, ObremskiBrandon, & Coovert, 2002). One factor that may also contribute to the objectification process, but which has not been formally addressed in the context of objectification research, is the views of women themselves. By definition, any individual who self-objectifies places an inordinate emphasis on appearance. It is reasonable to expect, then, that those who self-objectify are highly aware not only of their own appearance, but also of the appearance of others. Related research (e.g., Beebe, Hombeck, Schober, Lane, & Rosa, 1996) has shown that women who placed greater importance on their own weight and shape also placed greater importance on these dimensions when evaluating other women. Thus, we contend, high self-objectifiers should be more likely than low self-objectifiers to place great importance on others’ appearances. Further, we argue that, because women are the primary targets of objectification–often via the agency of men’s evaluations–women are therefore encouraged to believe it is important that women, more so than men, look good in order to be valued. Consequently, women should be more likely to project internalized views of objectification onto other women, more so than they would onto men. In short, women who self-objectify should be more likely to objectify others, particularly other women. Our question, then, is a modest one, but the answer should add to the general understanding of the dynamics that underlie women’s experience of objectification. Given the extent to which constant perceived evaluation and idealized media images encourage women to self-objectify, to what degree might women themselves contribute to the objectification process? Put another way, do the
Strelan and Hargreaves objectified, in fact, objectify others? Consistent with objectification theory, we made three predictions. First, women and men would be more likely to objectify women than they would be to objectify men. Second, men would objectify women more than women would, but men would not objectify other men as much as women would. Third, there would be a positive correlation between women’s and men’s self-objectification and their objectification of other women and men. Finally, we expected to replicate previous research by showing that women self-objectify more than men (e.g., Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and that increased self-objectification among women and men is related to decreased body satisfaction (e.g., McKinley, 1998; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Strelan et al., 2003).
METHOD Participants There were 132 participants (64 women and 68 men), who ranged in age from 17 to 30 years (for women, M = 20.7, SD = 1.8; for men, M = 21.0, SD = 2.5). All were White and middle-class. Seventy were undergraduate psychology students at an Australian university, who participated as part of their Social Psychology course requirement. The remaining 62 participants were friends of the students (39 were undergraduate students, and 23 were in fulltime employment).
Measures Self-Objectification Self-objectification was measured with Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) Self-Objectification Questionnaire, where individuals indicate the extent to which they view their bodies in appearancebased, objectified terms, or competence-based, non-objectified terms. There are 10 items, each of which identifies different body attributes. Five are competence-based (i.e., strength, physical coordination, energy level, health, physical fitness), and five are appearance-based (i.e., weight, sex appeal, physical attractiveness, firm/sculpted muscles, measurements). Respondents rank how important they perceive each attribute to be from 10 = most important to 1 = least important. Final scores are
Objectification and Self-Objectification
709
the result of the difference between the sum of the competence ratings and the sum of the appearance ratings. Possible scores range from −25 to 25; higher scores indicate higher levels of self-objectification.
Objectification of Others Individuals’ objectification of others was measured in the same way as self-objectification; the only difference was that that participants rated the importance of the attributes of others. Separate ratings were provided for men and women (the presentation order of scales for men and women were counterbalanced). Participants read the following instructions: “This section is concerned with how people think about other people’s bodies. Listed below are 10 different body attributes. When you think about, or look at other people in general, which of these body attributes do you think is most important? Furthermore, I would like you to think about both men’s and women’s body attributes. For both men and women, I would like you to rank the attributes in order from what you think is most important in others to what you think is least important in others.”
Fig. 1. Self-objectification and objectification of others by women and men.
of 17 and 30—to complete the survey. To ensure anonymity, the friends were required to complete the survey in their own time, in a private space convenient to them, and then to place it in a provided postage-paid, self-addressed, sealable envelope and mail it back to the researcher.
RESULTS Self-Objectification
Body Satisfaction Body satisfaction was measured with Slade, Dewey, Newton, and Brodie’s (1990) 16-item adaptation of the Body Cathexis Scale (Secord & Jourard, 1953). Participants rate their attitudes toward several of their body parts (e.g., ankles, hips, thighs) on a 5-point scale, where 1 = strong negative feelings and 5 = strong positive feelings. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for women was α = .87, and for men, α = .60.
Procedures One of the researchers administered a “Body Attitudes” survey to the Social Psychology students during class-time. The survey took approximately 15 min to complete. Following this, students were debriefed, and given a short lecture on survey administration and issues of research ethics. As part of their course requirement, students took away a copy of the survey, as well as a set of instructions for administering the survey, and asked one of their friends— preferably a friend of the other sex between the ages
Mean objectification scores for men and women are represented in Fig. 1. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that, as expected, women (M = −3.89, SD = 14.78) reported significantly higher self-objectification than men did (M = −9.91, SD = 11.98), t(129) = 2.57, p < .05. Notably, however, just 24% of men (16 of 68) and 43% of women (27 of 64) reported a selfobjectification score greater than the midpoint of 0, although the mean score for women was similar to that of a comparable sample of Australian women (M = −5.78; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). Also as expected, self-objectification was significantly negatively related to body satisfaction for women, r = −.40, p < .01, but not for men, r = −.17, p > .05.
Objectification of Others Figure 1 shows that, as predicted, men objectified women (M = 5.46, SD = 13.33) significantly more than they objectified other men (M = −7.00, SD = 13.95), t(63) = 5.64, p < .001. Women also objectified other women (M = 0.13, SD = 15.43) more
710
Strelan and Hargreaves Table I. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Self-Objectification, Objectification of Women, and Objectification of Men Women
Men
Objectification Objectification Objectification Objectification of women of men of women of men Self-objectification Objectification of women ∗p
.69∗∗∗
.52∗∗∗ .76∗∗∗
.27∗
.26∗ .19
< .05. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
than they objectified men (M = −1.78, SD = 12.16), but this difference was not significant, t(63) = 1.52, p > .05. Women were significantly more likely to objectify other women than they were to objectify themselves, t(63) = 2.57, p < .05, but men were not significantly more likely to objectify other men than they were to objectify themselves, t(65) = 1.49, p > .05. Finally, and as predicted, men objectified women significantly more than women objectified other women, t(127) = 2.26, p < .05, and men objectified other men significantly less than women objectified men, t(127) = 2.10, p < .05.
The Relationship Between Self-Objectification and Objectification of Others Table I shows the correlations between women’s and men’s self-objectification and the objectification of others. It can be seen from Table I that women and men who self-objectify were more likely to objectify women, and this relationship was much stronger for women, r = .69, p < .001, than for men, r = .27, p < .05. Women and men who self-objectify were also more likely to objectify men. The relationship was again much stronger for women, r = .52, p < .001, than for men, r = .26, p < .05. For women, the objectification of other women and men was strongly related, r = .76, p < .001, but for men the objectification of women and other men was unrelated, r = .19, p > .05.
DISCUSSION Consistent with theory and previous research (e.g., Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), our findings indicate that women self-objectify more than men do. In addition, higher self-objectification is related to lower body satisfaction among women, but not among men. The finding for women is in line with the results of previous research (e.g., McKinley, 1998;
McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Strelan et al., 2003), and thus confirms self-objectification as a risk factor for distorted body image among women. The absence of a relationship for men may be a reflection of the arguably female-orientation of many of the body satisfaction items (e.g., ankles, hips, thighs, calves), as indicated by the low internal reliability coefficient for the Body Cathexis scale for men (α = .60). More important, in the context of the present study, are the findings for individuals’ objectification of others. A central tenet of objectification theory is that women are the main targets of sociocultural pressure to attain an idealized body, and a primary source of such perceived pressure is evaluation by men. Accordingly, we found that men objectify women more than they objectify other men. In addition, and also consistent with objectification theory, we found that men objectify women more than women objectify other women, and men are objectified to a much lesser degree by both women and other men. The correlations in Table I tell a similar story: there is a strong relationship between women’s objectification of both women and men, but no relationship for men’s objectification of both women and men. Contrary to prediction, women did not objectify other women more than they objectified men. We argued that because women are the targets of objectification, often by men, they are encouraged to believe that it is important that women must look good in order to be valued. Consequently, they should be more likely to project internalized views of objectification onto other women, rather than onto men. Although the pattern of means was in the predicted direction, the results suggest that women’s evaluation of others, in contrast to men’s evaluations of others, tend not to be gender-specific. The central aim of this was to examine the impact that self-objectification has on individuals’ evaluations of others. We argued that women and men who self-objectify are, by definition, highly aware of their own appearance, and therefore should also be
Objectification and Self-Objectification highly aware of the appearance of others. The results bear this out: the more men and women selfobjectify, the more likely they are to objectify others, although the relationship clearly is stronger for women. Further, Table I indicates a stronger correlation between women’s self-objectification and their objectification of other women than their objectification of men. One might tentatively infer from this that women who self-objectify are more likely to project their preoccupation with appearance onto other women than onto men. In addition, it may be seen from Fig. 1 that women objectify other women more than they objectify themselves, which suggests that, in relative terms, women place greater importance on other women’s appearances than they do on their own. Of course, we acknowledge that the potential causal relationship between self-objectification and objectification of others could also be operating in the opposite direction. That is, the practice of objectifying others may possibly lead individuals, particularly women, to internalize appearance standards for themselves, thereby increasing self-objectification. Future researchers might consider a longitudinal design to delineate these causal relationships. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the central tenets of objectification theory. That is, as a consequence of constant perceived evaluation by men and the persistent promotion of images of idealized bodies within the media, women are encouraged to internalize a prevailing sociocultural view that appearance—certainly women’s appearance—is inordinately important. As the results suggest, the women in our study, particularly those who selfobjectify, consider other women’s appearances to be relatively important. Thus, to answer our original question, it appears that the objectified do, in fact, objectify others. Finally, we note two qualifications. First, the results for objectification of others are based on a modification of Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) SelfObjectification Questionnaire, where individuals responded to the original items, but were instructed to think not of themselves, but of others. For the purpose of discriminant validity, future researchers may consider applying an alternative measure of objectification of others, for example, using an adaptation of McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Second, the women in our study scored below the mid-point for self-objectification, and on the midpoint for objectification of other women, which sug-
711 gests that their preoccupation with their own and other women’s appearance is relatively unproblematic. Indeed, as the mean objectification scores in Fig. 1 show, it is men who exhibit a possibly unhealthy preoccupation with women’s appearances. Thus, we strongly concur with McKinley (2002), who argued that the focus on women’s body consciousness and the consequent negative outcomes, such as body dissatisfaction, erroneously leads to the conclusion that the solution to addressing selfobjectification is to encourage women to change how they think about their own bodies. Women themselves may indeed objectify other women, but to get to the root of the issue, cultural constructions of women’s bodies—and on the basis of our results, men’s perspectives in particular—need to change.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made possible by funding from the Charles Sturt University Seed Grant Scheme to Peter Strelan. We thank Marika Tiggemann for her comments on an earlier draft.
REFERENCES Beebe, D. W., Hombeck, G. N., Schober, A., Lane, M., & Rosa, K. (1996). Is body focus restricted to self-evaluation? Body focus in the evaluation of self and others. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 415–422. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207– 226. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. Furnham, A., Badmin, N., & Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gender differences in eating attitudes, self-esteem, and reasons for exercise. Journal of Psychology, 136, 581– 596. McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2001). Exploring the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297–304. McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates’ body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113–123. McKinley, N. M. (2002). Feminist perspectives and objectified body consciousness. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice (pp. 55–62). New York: Guilford. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.
712 Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1985). Dieting and binging: A causal analysis. American Psychologist, 40, 193–201. Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). Causes of eating disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 187–213. Richards, M. H., Caspar, R. C., & Larson, R. W. (1990). Weight and eating concerns among pre- and young adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 85–89. Rieder, S., & Ruderman, A. (2001). Cognitive factors associated with binge and purge eating behaviours: The interaction of body dissatisfaction and body image importance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 801–812. Secord, P. F., & Jourard, S. M. (1953). The appraisal of bodycathexis: Body-cathexis and the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 343–347. Slade, P. D., Dewey, M. E., Newton, T., & Brodie, D. A. (1990). Development and preliminary validation of the Body Satisfaction Scale (BSS). Psychology and Health, 4, 213–220.
Strelan and Hargreaves Stice, E. (1994). Review of the evidence for a sociocultural model of bulimia nervosa and an exploration of the mechanisms of action. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 633– 661. Strelan, P., Mehaffey, S. J., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Selfobjectification and esteem in young women: The mediating role of exercise. Sex Roles, 48, 89–95. Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the lifespan in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243–253. Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., & Coovert, M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modelling investigation testing the meditational role of appearance comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 1007–1020.
