Examining Objectification Theory:

Lesbian and Heterosexual Womens Experiences With Sexual- and Self-Objectification

Melanie S. Hill
State University of New York, New Paltz

Ann R. Fischer
Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale
Many theorists have suggested that living in a culture in which womens bodies are sexually objectified socializes girls and women to treat themselves as objects. This study developed a theory-based measure of cultural sexual objectification and explored the relationship between womens reports of cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification. The possible moderating effects of sexual orientation were explored using hierarchical moderated regressions. The major findings, in a sample of 361 women, were (a) womens reports of sexualized gaze/harassment were significantly related to their own self-objectification, (b) lesbian and heterosexual women reported similar levels of sexualized gaze/harassment, and (c) the relationship between sexualized gaze/harassment and self-objectification was not significantly different for the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples. Potential implications for counseling and directions for future research are discussed.

As a woman is embodied, so is she disembodied. E. Kaschak (1992) Part of the social context of womens lives in the United States is the experience of being treated as a sexual object, or as a body that exists for the pleasure of others (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Berger, 1972; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Johnston, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Stoltenberg, 1989; Young, 1990). Feminist theorists have long argued, and recent research has supported, that this widespread cultural sexual objectification leads to negative mental health consequences for women (e.g., Bartky, 1990; de Beauvoir, 1952; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Johnston, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Wolf, 1991).
We would like to thank all of the participants for their time and effort. Substantial portions of this work were completed while Melanie S. Hill was at the University of Akron and University of WisconsinMadison and Ann R. Fischer was at the University of Akron and Ball State University, so we thank these institutions for their support. Correspondence should be addressed to Melanie S. Hill, Department of Psychology, SUNY New Paltz, 1 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561.
THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX xx-xx DOI: 10.1177/0011000007301669 2007 by the Division of Counseling Psychology.

Copyright 2007 by Division 17 of Counseling Psychologist Association.

2 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

Cultural sexual objectification, or being treated as a sexual object, occurs in many forms, ranging from sexual evaluation (i.e., visual inspection of the body in interpersonal encounters and media, often accompanied by sexually evaluative commentary) to sexual violence (Bartky, 1990; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; Stoltenberg, 1989). It has been well documented in Western cultures that womens bodies are looked at, evaluated, and sexualized with greater frequency than are mens (for reviews, see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Hall, 1984; van Zoonen, 1994) and that being sexually objectified is a daily reality for many women in the United States (Kaschak, 1992; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). In a series of diary studies with college women, Swim et al. (2001) found sexual objectification emerged as a unique category of daily experiences of sexism; one participant described walking home from a party and [being] approached by three men. One complimented her on her Harley Davidson belt, and the other one stared at her chest and said, Forget the belt, look at her rack (p. 37). Cultural Sexual Objectification A substantial body of empirical research has independently established a link between various forms of cultural sexual objectification (i.e., exposure to objectifying images and themes in the media, sexual harassment, sexual assault) and negative psychological consequences for women such as body shame, anxiety, depression, and disordered eating (e.g., Cattarin, Thompson, Thomas, & Williams, 2000; Cutler & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991; Deep, Lilenfeld, Plotnicov, Pollice, & Kaye, 1999; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Gidycz & Koss, 1989; Harrison & Cantor, 1997). Although this research provides a certain level of understanding of the relationship between various forms of cultural sexual objectification and womens mental health, it does not provide much information on how cultural sexual objectification experiences are translated into mental health risks for women. Self-Objectification Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) proposed objectification theory in an effort to illuminate how cultural sexual objectification experiences affect women psychologically (see Figure 1). The core tenet of objectification theory, which reflects the work of many feminist scholars, is that it is the internalization of this cultural sexual objectification that is particularly problematic for the mental health of women (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Johnston, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Specifically, Fredrickson and Roberts assert that living in a culture in which womens bodies are sexually objectified socializes girls and women to treat themselves as objects (see Figure 1, Path A). In other words, women come to value their bodies in

Path D

Sexual Orientation

Sexual Objectification

Path A SelfObjectification

Path B

Psychological Consequences: Shame, anxiety, decreased peak motivational states, decreased awareness of internal bodily states Path C

Mental Health Risks: Depression, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders

FIGURE 1. Objectification Theory, With Sexual Orientation as Proposed Moderator SOURCE: Based on Fredrickson and Roberts (1997).

4 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

observable, appearance-based terms (e.g., How do I look?) rather than in nonobservable, competence-based terms (e.g., How do I feel? or What am I physically capable of?). This self-objectification, or persistent body surveillance, is then theorized to lead to negative psychological or subjective experiences for women (e.g., shame, anxiety, decreased peak motivational states, and decreased awareness of internal bodily states; see Figure 1, Path B), which may accumulate and possibly contribute to certain psychological disorders (e.g., depression, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders; see Figure 1, Path C). Thus, self-objectification is postulated to cause mental health risks (e.g., eating disorders) indirectly through psychological consequences (e.g., body shame). A small but growing body of research offers support for the claim that self-objectification (i.e., the internalization of cultural sexual objectification) is related to psychological consequences and thus mental health risks for women (Figure 1, Paths B and C). For example, it has been found that self-objectification is predictive of body shame and disordered eating and that body shame mediates (or partially mediates) the relationship between self-objectification and eating disorder symptomology (Calogero, Davis, & Thompson, 2005; Greenleaf, 2005; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001; Tylka & Hill, 2004). Other studies have found support for the relationship between self-objectification and depression (Brownlow, 1997; Miner-Rubino, Twenge, & Fredrickson, 2002; Muehlenkamp & SarisBaglama, 2002; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004) and the role of negative body regard in mediating the relationship between self-objectification and depression (Muehlenkamp, Swanson, & Brausch, 2005). While most of the research to date has been done with predominantly Caucasian samples, recent research using more diverse U.S. samples has found that the negative consequences associated with self-objectification (i.e., body shame, disordered eating) occur regardless of ethnicity (Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004). What is largely missing from this extant body of literature is research on the link between cultural sexual objectification experiences and selfobjectification. While research looking to the social context of womens lives in an effort to understand womens mental health has been increasingly recognized as a priority for counseling psychology (e.g., Enns, 2000; Gilbert, 1992), and locating the pathology in the political or social context rather than in the intrapsychic realm is theorized to be a core principle of feminist therapy (i.e., the personal political; Worell & Remer, 2003), the link between living in a culture in which women are sexually objectified and self-objectification, although central to objectification theory, has received limited attention. Ultimately, the understanding of cultural factors that contribute to mental health risks for women has the potential to inform both counseling interventions and prevention programs.

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 5

Several research studies have supported the relationship between various types of sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification (and a similar construct of body surveillance designed to measure the degree to which one thinks of her body in terms of how it looks versus how it feels; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). For example, magazine exposure (Morry & Staska, 2001), trying on swimsuits (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998), sports participation (Parsons & Betz, 2001), pressure to be thin (Tylka & Hill, 2004), and ballet participation (Tiggemann & Slater, 2001) have been found to be related to self-objectification and/or body surveillance. Only one published study has looked at sexual objectification experiences as a unified construct. Moradi, Dirks, and Matteson (2005) assessed the relationship between sexual objectification experiences and body surveillance by using the sexual objectification subscale of Swim, Cohen, and Hyerss (1998) 25-item measure of daily sexist events. Moradi et al. found, in a sample of college-age women, a significant and positive relationship between sexual objectification experiences and body surveillance. These findings provide preliminary support for the role of sexual objectification experiences proposed in objectification theory. The study conducted by Moradi et al., in particular, reinforces the importance of considering sexual objectification experiences more comprehensively. While the Sexual Objectification Experiences subscale (Swim et al., 1998) is an important addition to the literature, the items were created based on events women and men reported having experienced or observed in a diary study of sexist events, without a theoretical base. Building on decades of conceptual literature and empirical data, theory refinements such as that articulated by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) can provide important tools for building a coherent body of research. A measure of objectification experiences developed based on theory would include a more broad, and therefore comprehensive, range of experiences than is included in Swim et al.s operationalization. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to (a) develop and provide support for a theory-based measure of cultural sexual objectification and (b) empirically examine the relationship between experiences of cultural sexual objectification and self-objectification. Based on the theoretical literature, we hypothesized that self-reported experiences of cultural sexual objectification would be significantly related to measures of self-objectification (Hypothesis 1). Sexual Orientation as Moderator Counseling psychologists have increasingly recognized the need to address issues of sexual orientation in their work (e.g., Bieschke, Perez, & DeBord,

6 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

2007; Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003). Therefore, a second purpose of this study was to address the variability across the diversity of womens lives, specifically the role that sexual orientation may play in a womans experience with objectification. In their writings about objectification theory, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) proposed that individuals differ in the degree to which they might internalize the observers perspective. Specifically, Fredrickson and Roberts hypothesized that demographic variables may mitigate or protect certain subgroups of women against the negative psychological repercussions that we link to sexual objectification (p. 197). Based on a significant body of theoretical and empirical literature that suggests lesbian women may not internalize cultural sexual objectification experiences to the same extent as heterosexual women (e.g., Bergeron & Senn, 1998; Dworkin, 1988; Share & Mintz, 2002; Siever, 1994), the current study focused on sexual orientation as a potential moderator of the relationship between cultural sexual objectification experiences and selfobjectification. From early childhood, women are taught that their appearance is a crucial aspect in how they will be evaluated by others (Martin, 1996). Many theorists suggest that lesbians have undergone a great deal of the same socialization process (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Striegel-Moore, 1997; Dworkin, 1988; Rothblum, 1994). However, despite being socialized in a culture that sexually objectifies women, theorists have suggested that lesbians may not internalize these objectifying messages as much as heterosexual women do because (a) they are not trying to attract men (Dworkin, 1988; Rothblum, 1994; Siever, 1994), (b) lesbian communities may put less emphasis on appearance (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Brown, 1987; Striegel-Moore, McAvay, & Rodin, 1986), and/or (c) lesbians, by challenging the heterosexual norm with their sexual orientation, may be in a better position to challenge the idea of the cultural sexual objectification of women (Ferguson, 1985; Pitman, 1999). The research on whether lesbians are immune from the beauty mandate is mixed. Previous research has found that when compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women report less concern with physical appearance (Siever, 1994; Strong, Williamson, Netemeyer, & Geer, 2000), less internalization of sociocultural beauty norms (Bergeron & Senn, 1998; Share & Mintz, 2002), and less self-objectification (Brownlow, 1997; Noffsinger-Frazier, 2004). However, research has also found that lesbians are just as susceptible to body dissatisfaction as heterosexual women are (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; Myers, Taub, Morris, & Rothblum, 1999; Striegel-Moore, Tucker, & Hsu, 1990). In their interviews with lesbian women, Myers et al. (1999) illustrate these conflicting research findings well. One participant is quoted as saying, Lets

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 7

face it. The traditional standards of beauty for women are basically the same whether you are gay, straight, bisexual, or whatever (p. 20), while another states, I found out that as a lesbian . . . I could celebrate my body. I could be in my body for the first time. I could look in the mirror and have what I see be okay (p. 21). None of these studies examined the relationship between self-objectification and experiences of cultural sexual objectification. Thus, it is unclear whether lesbians indeed experience similar levels of cultural sexual objectification but internalize them less than heterosexual women do. In addition to Hypothesis 1, that womens self-objectification would be associated with their level of reported exposure to cultural sexual objectification, we made three additional predictions regarding sexual orientation. Based in part on research that has found that lesbian women report a greater number of sexual assault experiences in adulthood than heterosexual women do (Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005), suggesting that lesbian women are in no way immune from being victims of cultural sexual objectification, Hypothesis 2 stated that lesbians would report similar frequencies of cultural sexual objectification to those of heterosexual women. Based on previous research (e.g., Brownlow, 1997; Noffsinger-Frazier, 2004), Hypothesis 3 stated that lesbians would report less self-objectification than heterosexual women. Based on theoretical literature suggesting that lesbians may internalize cultural sexual objectification less than do heterosexual women (e.g., Brown, 1987; Dworkin, 1988; Pitman, 1999; Rothblum, 1994; Siever, 1994; Striegel-Moore et al., 1986), Hypothesis 4 predicted that sexual orientation would moderate the relationship between cultural sexual objectification and self-objectification, such that the magnitude of the relation between self-reported experiences of cultural sexual objectification and selfobjectification would be smaller for lesbians than for heterosexual women. One unique aspect of this study is that we explicitly attended to womens experiences of cultural sexual objectification not only by men but also by women. The large majority of past research has focused on mens objectifying behaviors, with little attention to the role that women may also play in enacting objectification of women. Thus, we assessed womens experiences of objectification from men separately from womens experiences of objectification from women. METHOD Participants A total of 361 (263 heterosexual, 98 lesbian) women participated in the study. The majority of the participants were White (83.9%; 8.3% African

8 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

American/Black, 2.8% Latina/Hispanic, 2.5% Asian, 0.3% international, 2.0% multiracial/other, with 0.3% not reporting their ethnicity). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 79 years, with 31.1 being the average age for the total sample (median = 27, SD = 11.53). The majority described themselves as middle class (51.8%; 1.4% upper class, 24.4% upper middle class, 20.2% working class, and 2.7% lower class; 0.6% did not report). There was a range among participants in terms of their education, although the majority had some college experience (40.7% had attended graduate school, 12.5% had completed college, 39.3% reported having some college, 1.9% reported completing high school, and 0.6% reported having some high school). Procedure The majority of the participants (n = 203) were recruited using snowball sampling via e-mail. An e-mail announcement recruiting heterosexual women and lesbian participants was sent to various student organizations (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups as well as more general organizations) and posted on professional listservs (e.g., a psychology of women listserv, a graduate student listserv). The e-mail contained a link to the survey and requested that people forward the link to other potential participants. Data were also collected from undergraduate students in psychology who received extra credit points for their participation in the study (n = 98) and from faculty and staff (n = 60) at a large public midwestern university. It should be noted that 99% of the lesbian participants were recruited electronically. Participants that were recruited via e-mail were not significantly different from those recruited in person in terms of age, t(347) = .053, p = .96; race/ethnicity, 2(6, N = 360) = 13.31, p = .07; or socioeconomic status, 2(4, N = 359) = 3.46, p = .48. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and were asked to complete a survey that contained the instruments listed below. All participants, including those who participated via e-mail and listservs, were assured that their responses would be anonymous. Efforts were taken to ensure that online participants could not be tracked and that cookies were not uploaded. To offset possible ordering effects, two different forms of the questionnaire (with instruments presented in different sequences) were used. After completing the survey, participants were debriefed in accordance with American Psychological Association standards. Instruments Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (CSOS). The CSOS is a 40-item scale developed for this project that measures individuals experiences

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 9

with cultural sexual objectification as described in objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), including the domains of (a) sexualized gaze (with and without verbal comments), (b) sexual harassment, and (c) sexual assault. Participants read descriptions of possible sexual objectification experiences and rated each item according to how often they had the experience (a) during the past year and (b) over the participants lifetime (1 = never, 6 = almost all of the time). This response format was modeled after the Schedule of Sexist Events (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995). Also, to acknowledge that the cultural sexual objectification of women can occur as a result of both mens and womens behaviors (i.e., sexual comments about womens bodies, whether made by men or women, may be objectifying to women), participants were asked to respond to each item separately by how often they experienced it by men and by women. The following is a brief overview of the items selected to measure each of the three different domains of cultural sexual objectification.1 Sexualized gaze (with and without verbal comments) was measured by items borrowed from the Objectification Experiences Questionnaire (Burnett, 1995), the Sexual Victimization Measure (Belknap, Fischer, & Cullen, 1999), and five items that we developed (e.g., How many times have you had someone stare at your breasts while talking to you? How many times have you been in a situation where someone made evaluative or judging comments on your weight or body shape?). Sexual harassment was measured using items borrowed from the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1988), the Sexual Victimization Measure and the Objectification Experiences Questionnaire (Burnett, 1995; e.g., How many times has someone stared at or leered at you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable? How many times has someone made offensive, sexualized gestures toward you?). Items from the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) were used to measure sexual assault experiences. To fit more closely with the structure of the rest of the items, participants were asked to rate the frequency with which they had experienced each of these sexually aggressive acts (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = more than once) rather than answering the items either yes or no as in the original survey. All of the items, except for those asking specifically about sexual intercourse, were also modified to be inclusive of sexual aggression perpetrated by women. For example, the item Have you given into sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didnt want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? was modified to read How many times have you given into sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didnt want to because someone gave you alcohol or drugs? In accordance with previous items, participants were then asked to respond to each item separately by how often they experienced it by men and by women.

10 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

The CSOS was reviewed independently by seven judges familiar with objectification theory (four faculty members and three graduate students in counseling and social psychology). Revisions to the items, focusing on clarity and construct validity, were made based on suggestions from the judges. Next, the revised version was pilot tested with 28 undergraduate women enrolled in an introductory womens studies class. Pilot participants reported that the scale was clear, the response format was easy to follow, it took 10 to 20 minutes to complete, and the items seemed to measure cultural sexual objectification appropriately. Preliminary analyses of data from the pilot sample revealed moderate to high internal consistency estimates () for logical combinations of items: all items combined, .96; items measuring cultural sexual objectification through gaze, .94; sexual harassment, .94; sexual assault, .85; and items measuring experiences of cultural sexual objectification within the past year, .93, and during the participants lifetime, .94. Analyses using the total current sample also revealed moderate to high internal consistency estimates (): all items combined, .96 (136 items, M = 252.84, SD = 45.65) and items measuring experiences of cultural sexual objectification within the past year, .93 (68 items, M = 126.65, SD = 24.25), and during the participants lifetime, .94 (68 items, M = 126.19, SD = 25.76). Similar internal consistency estimates recently have been reported in another sample of undergraduate women (Bossick, 2002). In the current study, only items measuring cultural sexual objectification within the past year were used. Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ). Our first measure of selfobjectification was the SOQ (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a 12-item scale that measures individual differences in the extent to which individuals view their bodies in observable, appearance-based (objectified) terms versus nonobservable, competence-based (nonobjectified) terms (p. 628). The SOQ focuses on respondents concern with their appearance rather than their satisfaction with their bodies because objectification theory predicts that women experience the negative consequences of self-objectification primarily as a result of being concerned [italics added] with physical appearance, regardless of whether they feel satisfied or dissatisfied with their bodies (Fredrickson et al., 1998, p. 273). Respondents were asked to rank order a list of six appearancebased (e.g., physical attractiveness, weight) and six competence-based (e.g., muscular strength, physical stamina) attributes by how important each is to their physical self-concept. Scores were obtained by separately summing the rankings associated with the appearance-based and competence-based attributes and then subtracting the sum of competence ranks from the sum of appearance ranks, resulting in difference scores ranging from 36 to 36, with higher scores indicating a greater emphasis on appearance. In a sample

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 11

of undergraduate women, Noll (1996) demonstrated construct validity of the SOQ by showing that it correlated positively with scores on an appearance anxiety scale (r = .52, p < .01). In addition, the mean in the present sample (M = 5.08, SD = 19.22) is consistent with previous research on similar samples (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; M = 5.7, SD = 18.4). Given the scoring system for the SOQ (i.e., subtracting sums of ranks vs. summing or averaging across similar items) and the ipsative, ordinal nature of rank-ordered data, traditional internal consistency estimates cannot be provided (Vanleeuwen & Mandabach, 2002). In fact, prior studies that have used the SOQ have neglected to provide information on its internal reliability (e.g., Fredrickson et al., 1998; Muehlenkamp et al., 2005; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001). In an effort to provide some indicator of how well the items on the scale are interrelated, a correlation was calculated between the sum of the six appearance-based items and the sum of the six competence-based items. Although the appearance-based and competencebased SOQ item rankings are not intended to be used as separate measures, the logic behind the development of the scale (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) suggests that if participants rank the appearance-based items highly they should conversely rank the competence-based items as less important. Consistent with this thinking, in the current sample, the correlation between the sum of rankings for the appearance-based items and the sum of rankings for the competence-based items was .81 (p < .001). Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBC). Our second measure of self-objectification was the Surveillance subscale of the OBC (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), an eight-item measure of how much respondents watch their bodies and think of their bodies in terms of how they look (vs. how their bodies feel). The OBC, which predates objectification theory, was developed to measure three components argued in feminist theory (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Spitzack, 1990) to be important to womens body experiences: (a) body surveillance, (b) body shame, and (c) beliefs about appearance control. A sample question includes I think more about how my body feels than how my body looks. Participants responded to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The Surveillance subscale has been found to be negatively related to a measure of body esteem (r = .39, p < .001) and positively related to public self-consciousness (r = .46, p < .001) and disordered eating (r = .48, p < .001; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Results from a sample of 103 undergraduate women showed good alpha (.79) and testretest reliability over a 2-week period (r = .79, p < .001; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). The internal consistency estimate for the current sample was .82. The mean in the present sample (M = 4.44, SD = 1.16) is consistent with previous research using undergraduate students (Moradi et al., 2005; M = 4.81, SD = 1.03).

12 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

Sexual orientation. Participants were asked to indicate which of the following best described their sexual orientation: exclusively heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or exclusively homosexual. Participants were also given the opportunity to indicate their preferred identity if none of the choices available represented their identity preference. For the purposes of this study, only participants who indicated they identified as exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual were included in the analyses. Due to the very small number of respondents who identified as mostly heterosexual, mostly homosexual, or bisexual, these participants were not included in subsequent analyses. Future research should attend to this gap in the literature.

RESULTS Preliminary Data Reduction and Descriptive Statistics A principal components analysis was conducted to examine the underlying structure within the total sample of the CSOS items measuring reported cultural sexual objectification experiences within the past year (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). 2 Conventional criteria were used to assess the appropriateness of possible solutions: (a) eigenvalues 1, (b) Cattells scree test, (c) interpretability, and (d) proportions of variance explained. Based on these considerations, a three-factor solution was retained, accounting for 34.2% of the variance. An orthogonal (varimax) rotation was used to interpret the factors because the overlap in variance among the factors was less than 10% (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Component loadings for the retained three-factor solution are presented in Table 1. Given the content of the items and their reported frequency, the three components were labeled Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment, Sexual Assault by Men, and Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women and accounted for 20.4%, 7.9%, and 5.8% of the total variance, respectively. Factor scores (i.e., estimates of the scores participants would have received on each of the components had they been measured directly) were calculated using the regression method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) and were used in subsequent analyses. Descriptive statistics for and intercorrelations among all variables are displayed in Table 2. In addition, preliminary demographic analyses revealed that women of different racial groups were not significantly different on either of the self-objectification measures, F(6, 359) = 1.15, p = .33; F(6, 359) = 0.55, p = .77 (for OBC and SOQ, respectively) nor on any of the three subscales of the CSOS, F(6, 359) = 0.49, p = .81; F(6, 359) = 0.30, p = .94; F(6, 359) = .45, p = .85 (for Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment, Sexual Assault

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 13

TABLE 1: Items, Component Loadings, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Three-Factor Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale Component Loadings Abbreviated Item Content How many times . . . A man made sexual comments about your body A man stared at or leered at you A man made sexual comments about other womens bodies A man made crude sexual remarks about your body You experienced cat calls from men or whistles about your looks A man made offensive, sexualized gestures toward you A man stared at your body in an intrusive way in public A man made crude sexual remarks about other womens bodies A man gave you unwanted sexual attention A man told offensive jokes/stories about women A man made general sexist remarks in front of you A man made judging comments about other womens bodies A date was more interested in your body than in you as a person A man made judging comments about your weight/body shape A man stared at your breasts while talking to you A man asked questions about your sex/romantic life that were none of his business A man spread false rumors about your sex life A man touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable A man made unwanted attempts to stroke or fondle you A woman asked questions about your sex/romantic life that were none of her business You looked at womens sexually suggestive swimsuit or lingerie catalogs A woman made judging comments about your weight/body shape A woman stared at your body in an intrusive way in public A woman made judging comments about other womens bodies A woman stared/leered at you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable 1 .76 .73 .69 .68 .67 .67 .67 .67 .64 .63 .63 .62 .60 .59 .58 .53 .52 .51 .49 .48 .47 .46 .45 .44 .44 2 3 M 2.87 2.86 3.70 2.06 2.65 2.03 3.41 2.67 2.43 3.19 3.13 3.71 2.49 3.00 2.70 2.04 1.71 2.12 1.91 1.77 2.80 2.92 2.29 3.46 1.72 SD 1.19 1.06 1.15 0.97 1.16 0.98 1.23 1.10 1.12 1.19 1.23 1.18 1.24 1.26 1.13 1.10 1.02 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.20 1.22 1.05 1.20 0.87

(continued)

14 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

TABLE 1 (continued) Component Loadings Abbreviated Item Content How many times . . . A woman spread false rumors about your sex life A woman made sexual comments about other womens bodies You looked at/been exposed to pornography displaying womens bodies You looked at womens fashion magazines You saw advertisements where a womans body was used to sell things You received sexually obscene phone calls or messages Your romantic partner checked out other women in your presence You had sexual intercourse when you didnt want to because a man threatened or used physical forcea You had sex acts when you didnt want to because a man gave you alcohol/drugsa You engaged in sex play when you did not want to because a man gave you alcohol/drugsa You had sex acts when you didnt want to because a man threatened or used physical forcea You had sexual intercourse when you didnt want to because a man gave you alcohol/drugsa You had sex acts when you didnt want to because overwhelmed by a mans arguments/pressurea You had sexual intercourse with a man when you didnt want to because overwhelmed by arguments/pressurea You engaged in sex play when you did not want to because a man threatened or used physical forcea You had a man attempt sexual intercourse when you did not want to by giving you alcohol/drugs, but intercourse did not occura You have given in to sex play when you didnt want to because overwhelmed by a mans arguments/pressurea You engaged in sex play when you didnt want to because a man used position of authoritya You had sexual intercourse when you didnt want to because a man used position of authoritya You had a man attempt sexual intercourse when you did not want to by threatening or using physical force, but intercourse did not occura A woman made offensive, sexualized gestures toward you 1 .43 .43 .39 .38 .33 .33 .32 .78 2 3 M 1.44 2.69 2.08 2.69 4.77 1.68 2.50 1.04 SD 0.95 1.32 1.03 1.42 1.08 0.88 1.11 0.25

.36

.71 .69 .68 .62 .61 .58

1.04 1.08 1.01 1.03 1.11 1.13

0.25 0.34 0.12 0.22 0.40 0.44

.58 .54

1.03 1.11

0.22 0.40

.52

1.41

0.73

.46 .43 .32

1.02 1.01 1.05

0.19 0.07 0.24

.71

1.15

0.42

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 15

A woman made unwanted attempts to stroke or fondle you A woman touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable A woman gave you unwanted sexual attention You gave in to sex play when you didnt want to because overwhelmed by a womans arguments/pressurea You experienced cat calls or whistles by a woman about your looks A woman made sexual comments about your body A woman made crude sexual remarks about other womens bodies A woman, without your consent, observed you (or tried) while undressing, nude, or involved in a sexual act A woman made crude sexual remarks about your body You received sexually obscene phone calls or messages from women You had sex acts when you didnt want to because overwhelmed by a womans arguments/pressurea A woman told offensive jokes/stories about women You engaged in sex play when you did not want to because a woman gave you alcohol/drugsa A woman made general sexist remarks in front of you A woman stared at your breasts while talking to you You had sex acts when you didnt want to because a woman gave you alcohol/drugsa

.68 .65 .65 .63

1.16 1.28 1.35 1.10

0.40 0.50 0.57 0.41

.31 .38

.61 .48 .48 .47

1.25 1.84 1.67 1.13

0.56 0.98 0.83 0.38

.33

.45 .43 .43 .42 .42 .40

1.32 1.09 1.04 1.89 1.02 1.74 1.68 1.01

0.64 0.40 0.29 0.82 0.18 0.83 0.82 0.07

.38

.40 .40

NOTE: Component 1 = Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment; Component 2 = Sexual Assault by Men; Component 3 = Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women. Sex acts was defined as anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis. Sex play was defined as fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse. Only component loadings .30 were included in the table. a. Items measured on a 1 (never) to 3 (more than once) scale. All other items used a 1 (never) to 6 (almost all the time) scale.

by Men, and Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women, respectively). Similarly, participants from different socioeconomic statuses were not significantly different on either of the self-objectification measures, F(4, 358) = 1.68, p = .15; F(4, 358) = 1.24, p = .29 (for OBC and SOQ, respectively) nor on any of the three subscales of the CSOS, F(4, 358) = 0.43, p = .79; F(4, 358) = 1.86, p = .12; F(4, 358) = 1.37, p = .24 (for Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/ Harassment, Sexual Assault by Men, and Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women, respectively).

16 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics for and Intercorrelations Among Major Variables Variable 1a. Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment 1b. Sexual Assault by Men 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b

1c. Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women

.00 .18 .05 .05 .07 .11 .22*** .19 .26*** .19*** .16 .21*** 0.00 1.00 2.52 to 3.90

.03 .25 .03 .03 .10 .04 .09 .01 .02 0.00 1.00 0.93 to 8.85

2a. OBC-Surveillance

2b. SOQ

Mean Standard deviation Range

.02 .14 .09 .04 .17 .04 0.00 1.00 1.86 to 5.67

.52*** .52*** .51*** 4.51 1.14 1.38 to 7.00

5.63 18.85 36 to 36

NOTE: The top figure in each cell (Roman type) is for the total sample. The middle figure (bold type) is for the lesbian subsample. The bottom figure (italic type) is for the heterosexual subsample. OBC-Surveillance = Surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale; SOQ = Self-Objectification Questionnaire. Factor scores were used for the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (i.e., standardized); therefore, the total-sample means are 0 and the standard deviations are 1 for variables 1a to 1c. The zero correlations between the factors are due to the orthogonal rotation. ***p < .001.

Link Between Cultural Sexual Objectification Experiences and Self-Objectification To test Hypothesis 1, that womens reported experiences of cultural sexual objectification would be significantly and positively related to their self-objectification, two simultaneous regression analyses were conducted. In the first regression analysis, the criterion variable was scores on the SOQ. The criterion variable in the second regression analysis was scores on the Surveillance subscale of the OBC. Results are summarized in Table 3. As predicted, the set of cultural sexual objectification variables predicted a significant, though small, proportion of variance in each of the two selfobjectification measures (both Fs at p < .01). Examination of regression coefficients revealed that the Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment factor of the CSOS was weakly but statistically significantly associated with unique

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 17

TABLE 3: Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Objectification (SOQ) and the Surveillance Subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness (OBC) Scale From Cultural Sexual Objectification Experiences Criterion: SOQ Predictor USG/H SAM SHAW Criterion: OBC-Surveillance R2

.19 .06 .05

t 3.68*** 1.06 0.88

.22 .03 .03

t 4.27*** 0.54 0.57

R2

.04 Overall F(3, 360) = 5.05*

0.05 Overall F(3, 360) = 6.23***

NOTE: USG/H = Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze and Harassment factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale; SAM = Sexual Assault by Men factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale; SHAW = Sexual Harassment and Assault by Women factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale. *p < .01. ***p < .001.

variance in each of the two measures of self-objectification (both ts at p < .001). However, the Sexual Assault by Men and Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women factors did not uniquely predict variance in either measure of selfobjectification above and beyond what was accounted for by the Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment factor. Sexual Orientation Cultural sexual objectification. To test Hypothesis 2, that lesbian women (n = 98) and heterosexual women (n = 263) would report experiencing similar levels of cultural sexual objectification, mean scores on the three cultural sexual objectification factors were compared for the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples (see Table 4). Prior to testing Hypothesis 2, t-test and 2 analyses were conducted to see whether lesbian and heterosexual participants were significantly different on various demographic variables. Results indicated that the lesbian and heterosexual participants were not significantly different in terms of age, t(347) = .317, p = .75; race/ethnicity, 2(6, N = 360) = 8.29, p = .22; or socioeconomic status, 2(4, N = 359) = 3.47, p = .48. However, the lesbian participants did report a significantly higher education level than did the heterosexual participants, 2(5, N = 360) = 15.91, p = .007. Therefore, reported education level was controlled by entering it as a covariate in a series of ANCOVAs. Furthermore, to decrease the chances of making a Type I error in testing Hypotheses 2 and 3, a Bonferroni adjustment to the alpha was made (i.e., a family-wise alpha of .05 divided by 11 analyses across the two sets of hypothesis tests equals an alpha of approximately .001).

18 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

TABLE 4: ANCOVA Comparing Means of Major Variables for Lesbian (n = 98) and Heterosexual Subsamples (n = 263) Controlling for Education Level Adjusted M 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.37 0.64 4.63 4.20 6.52 3.10 Effect Size (2) .009 .013 .191 .028 .007

Variable Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment Sexual Assault by Men Sexual Harassment/ Assault by Women OBC-Surveillance SOQ

Subsample

SD 1.07 0.99 1.07 0.77 0.74 1.30 1.07 1.24 19.14 17.90

F 3.09 4.87 84.27*** 10.45*** 2.35

Heterosexual 0.11 Lesbian 0.06 Heterosexual 0.09 Lesbian 0.20 Heterosexual 0.37 Lesbian 0.65 Heterosexual 4.63 Lesbian 4.18 Heterosexual 6.61 Lesbian 2.87

NOTE: df(1, 358). SOQ = Self-Objectification Questionnaire; OBC-Surveillance = Surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment, Sexual Assault by Men, and Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women are subscales of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale. Factor scores were used for the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (i.e., standardized); therefore, the total-sample means are 0 and the standard deviations are 1. ***p < .001.

As shown in Table 4, the ANCOVAs revealed that neither reports of Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze/Harassment experiences nor reports of experiences of Sexual Assault by Men were significantly different for the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples when controlling for education level. However, the lesbian subsample reported significantly more experiences of Sexual Harassment/Assault by Women. Self-objectification. To test Hypothesis 3, that lesbian women would selfobjectify less than heterosexual women do, mean scores on the two measures of self-objectification were compared using ANCOVAs, again controlling for reported education level (see Table 4) and using the adjusted alpha level of .001 described in the previous section. Consistent with previous research, significant adjusted mean differences were found for the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples on the Surveillance subscale of the OBC after controlling for education level, with the lesbian subsample reporting significantly less body surveillance than the heterosexual subsample did. However, no significant differences were found on the SOQ scores for lesbian and heterosexual participants. Moderation of the link between cultural sexual objectification and selfobjectification. Hypothesis 4 stated that sexual orientation would moderate

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 19

the relationship between reported cultural sexual objectification and selfobjectification. This prediction was tested using a series of hierarchical moderated regressions, as recommended by Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004). Our moderator variable, sexual orientation, was dummy coded (West, Aiken, & Krull, 1996), and the scores on the two self-objectification measures were standardized (i.e., z scores were calculated such that the mean score on each measure was equal to 0 and the standard deviation was equal to 1). There was no need to standardize scores for the Cultural Sexual Objectification factors since the factor scores created from the principal components analysis were already standardized. In the first moderated regression analysis, the criterion variable was scores on the SOQ. The criterion variable in the second moderated regression analysis was scores on the Surveillance subscale of the OBC. At Step 1 in each of the regressions, the predictor variable was self-reported recent experiences of cultural sexual objectification (scores on one of the three CSOS factors). Sexual orientation, the dummy-coded potential moderator variable, was entered as the predictor at Step 2. Finally, at Step 3, the predictor was an interaction (product) term of the variables in Steps 1 and 2. A statistically significant increment in R2 at Step 3 would provide evidence of a moderator effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). A Bonferroni adjustment again was applied to the alpha (i.e., a family-wise alpha of .05 divided by 6 analyses equals an alpha of approximately .008). The results of these regressions are presented in Table 5. None of the six moderated regression analyses showed a significant interaction between cultural sexual objectification and sexual orientation in predicting selfobjectification.

DISCUSSION Being treated as a sexual object is a daily reality for many women living in the United States (Kaschak, 1992; Swim et al., 2001; see Table 1). According to objectification theory, The most profound effect of objectifying treatment is that it coaxes girls and women to adopt a peculiar view of self (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997, p. 177), which can ultimately lead to experiences of shame, anxiety, decreased peak motivation states, and ultimately disordered eating and sexual dysfunction. The two primary purposes of this study were to (a) develop a theory-based measure of cultural sexual objectification and (b) explore the relationship between the reported experience of cultural sexual objectification and its proposed internalization, self-objectification. A third purpose was to examine sexual orientation as a potential moderator of the relation between experiences of cultural sexual objectification and self-objectification.

20 Criterion: OBC-Surveillance R2 inc F inc 13.30*** 3.99 0.13 1.07 3.42 0.37 0.44 4.99 0.45 .04 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01 .00

TABLE 5: Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Objectification (SOQ) and the Surveillance Subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness (OBC) Scale From Cultural Sexual Objectification Experiences and Sexual Orientation

Criterion: SOQ

Step and Predictor

Cumulative R2

Adjusted R2

Cumulative R2

Adjusted R2

R2 inc .05 .04 .00 .00 .03 .00 .00 .04 .00

F inc 18.15*** 14.59*** 0.02 0.28 12.27*** 0.53 0.12 15.96*** 0.01

1 USG/H 2 SO 3 SO USG/H

1 SAM 2 SO 3 SO SAM

1 SHAW 2 SO 3 SO SHAW

.19*** .04 .03 .10 .05 .04 .06 .05 .04 Overall F(3, 360) = 5.83*** .05 .00 .00 .10 .01 .01 .11 .01 .01 Overall F(3, 360) = 1.62 .04 .00 .00 .13 .02 .01 .13 .02 .01 Overall F(3, 360) = 1.96

.22*** .05 .05 .19*** .09 .08 .02 .09 .08 Overall F(3, 360) = 11.12*** .03 .00 .00 .18*** .03 .03 .13 .04 .03 Overall F(3, 360) = 4.36** .02 .00 .00 .23*** .04 .04 .01 .04 .04 Overall F(3, 360) = 5.35***

NOTE: USG/H = Ubiquitous Sexualized Gaze and Harassment factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale; SO = sexual orientation; SAM = Sexual Assault by Men factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale; SHAW = Sexual Harassment and Assault by Women factor of the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale; inc = increment. Step 3 of each analysis represents the product of the first two variables. **p < .008. ***p < .001.

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 21

Cultural Sexual Objectification Experiences and Self-Objectification Consistent with theory (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Berger, 1972; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Johnston, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; Martin, 1996; Young, 1990), the more women reported being gazed at, evaluated, and harassed, the more they reported viewing their own bodies in observable, appearance-based (objectified) terms versus nonobservable, competence-based (nonobjectified) terms. This finding lends preliminary empirical support to the central tenet of objectification theory, that self-objectification is related to cultural sexual objectification experiences, which until now had not been comprehensively tested. Reported experiences of being sexually assaulted by men or sexually harassed/assaulted by women, however, were not significantly related to self-objectification. While numerous theorists have asserted that cultural sexual objectification includes the multiple domains of sexualized gaze, sexual harassment, and sexual assault (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; Stoltenberg, 1989), the results of the current study suggest that only certain forms of cultural sexual objectification (i.e., sexualized gaze and harassment) may be significantly related to how much a woman self-objectifies. While reported sexual assault experiences were not significantly related to self-objectification in this study, their impact on womens psychological wellbeing has been well documented (e.g., Gidycz & Koss, 1989). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) suggested that there are two main routes through which sexual objectification might contribute to poor mental health outcomes for women, one more indirect and insidious and one more direct and extreme (p. 185). The current results, that experiences of being sexually objectified by gaze were significantly related to self-objectification while more extreme forms of cultural sexual objectification (i.e., sexual assault) were not, are consistent with Fredrickson and Robertss assertion that more extreme forms of cultural sexual objectification (i.e., sexual assault) may lead directly to negative psychological consequences (Figure 1, Path D), while the more insidious (daily) experiences of being sexually objectified by gaze leads indirectly to negative consequences through self-objectification (Figure 1, Paths A to B to C). Further research is needed to explore this and other potential explanations for these findings. Interestingly, reports of being sexually gazed at and evaluated both by men and by women were related to self-objectification. These results imply that women may be socialized not only to see themselves as objects but perhaps to see other women as objects as well. In other words, since both men and women are socialized in a culture that sexually objectifies women, both

22 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

men and women may come to internalize this socialization and sexually objectify women. Women come to experience not only themselves, but other women as well, through the eyes of the indeterminate observer (Kaschak, 1992, p. 178). Indeed, recent research has found that the more women selfobjectify, the more they objectify other women (r = .69, p < .001), although not to the degree exhibited by men; that is, men were found to objectify women significantly more than women objectify other women, t(127) = 2.26, p < .05 (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). Although not reflecting a primary purpose of this study, the descriptive statistics presented in Table 2 are worthy of commentary. These figures suggest that many women experience substantial amounts of ubiquitous sexualized gaze and harassment, which is consistent with past research and theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; Swim et al., 2001). Sexual Orientation as Moderator Contrary to prediction, the magnitude of the relationship between reported cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification was not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual women. However, consistent with theoretical literature that has suggested that both heterosexual and lesbian women are socialized in a culture that sexually objectifies women (e.g., Beren et al., 1997; Dworkin, 1988; Rothblum, 1994), both lesbian and heterosexual women in the current study reported similar frequencies of being sexually gazed at (by men and women) and sexually harassed and assaulted by men during the past year. Also consistent with previous research (e.g., Myers et al., 1999; Noffsinger-Frazier, 2004), the current study found mixed results on whether lesbians self-objectify less than heterosexual women do. Lesbians in the current study reported similar levels of selfobjectification but significantly less body surveillance than heterosexual participants did. Taken together, these results support previous research that has indicated that the cultural beauty mandate for women continues to affect how at least some lesbian women view their bodies (Heffernan, 1999; Myers et al., 1999). Striegel-Moore et al. (1990) suggested that the protective factors associated with identifying with the lesbian community (e.g., not trying to attract a man, less emphasis on appearance) may not be enough to counteract already internalized values and beliefs. If subsequent research replicates the current findings, future investigators could explore whether identifying with the lesbian community functionally protects lesbian women from some of the negative psychological repercussions linked to self-objectification. Similarly, future research might want to explore further whether self-objectification and body surveillance are indeed similar constructs.

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 23

Directions for Future Research Since this is one of the first studies, according to our searches of the literature, to explore the relationship between cultural sexual objectification and self-objectification, further research should be carried out using more diverse samples, instrumentation, and/or methods. For example, future research should explore the experiences of sexual objectification and selfobjectification among women who do not identify as exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual. The literature on bisexual women is virtually nonexistent; thus, the experiences of bisexual women need to be explored in more depth (Phillips et al., 2003). In addition, future research should incorporate more sophisticated measures of sexual orientation. While the most common method of assessing sexual orientation appears to be asking participants to self-identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or gay (Chung & Katayama, 1996), various scholars have emphasized the importance of assessing sexual orientation on multiple dimensions as well as distinguishing between sexual preference, sexual orientation, and sexual identity (e.g., Phillips et al., 2003; Sell, 1997). Similarly, as no person has only one identity (Arredondo, 1999; Fukuyama & Ferguson, 2000; Root, 1990), it is important that future research attend to the confluence of multiple identities, such as race, ethnicity, age, ability status, and so on. As a much ignored but critical dimension of diversity within psychology, social class would be important to examine in relation to womens experiences with cultural objectification and self-objectification. For example, it may be that thinking of ones body based on appearance versus function (self-objectifying) is experienced by some as a luxury not afforded to poor or working-class women. This is of particular note since the majority of the participants in the current study were middle class and highly educated. Other potential moderators of the relationship between cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification could be explored, such as participation in athletic activities, relationship status, how close one is to achieving the cultural standard of beauty, how one publicly enacts gender, and early childhood messages received from family about ones body and the relative importance of appearance. A significant portion of the participants was solicited through e-mail and completed the survey online. While this method may reach a more diverse subsample of lesbians, including those who may not be out fully, further research is needed in comparing the results of online data collection with results of other methods. Some research supports the use of online surveys with marginalized populations. Koch and Emrey (2001) posted a series of online surveys on a gay and lesbian Web site and found minimal differences between the demographic data of their participants and national data collected in more traditional ways on gay men and lesbians.

24 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

Finally, asking participants to self-report on the cultural sexual objectification they have encountered is not the only method that could be useful. Theorists (e.g., Kaschak, 1992) have suggested that womens experiences of feeling the gaze are not limited to discrete, countable events, such as those we asked participants to quantify. Women live in a culture that is imbued with objectifying messages, some perhaps too subtle for pencil-and-paper measures. Qualitative methods may reveal additional layers and connections among womens experiences. Similarly, it is possible that women who score higher on self-objectification may be more vigilant for or solicitous of some kinds of sexualized attention. Therefore, the obtained relationship between cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification may be bidirectional. Implications for Practice Tentative implications for prevention, education, and counseling interventions can be suggested. First, helping clients explore the possible connections between their experiences in a patriarchal culture that sexually objectifies women and their own self-objectification meets the implicit goal of feminist therapy to uncover the presence of the patriarchy as a source of distress so that this influence of the dominant can be named, undermined, resisted, and subverted (Brown, 1994, p. 25). Second, recognizing that one can be sexually objectified by men and women further assists clients in learning the ways in which each of us is damaged by our witting or unwitting participation in dominant norms or by the ways in which such norms have been thrust upon us (p. 25). Third, while experiences of sexualized gaze, evaluation, and harassment seem to have the most substantial relationships with self-objectification in this sample, given the preliminary nature of this study it should not be assumed that experiences of being sexually harassed by women or sexually assaulted are unrelated to the extent to which one self-objectifies. Fourth, the finding that sexual orientation did not moderate the relationship between cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification challenges the perception that lesbians do not internalize cultural sexual objectification as much as heterosexual women do (Brown, 1987; Dworkin, 1988). Finally, research documenting the mental health consequences of sexual objectification for women may assist existing efforts by profeminist men to educate other men and ultimately eradicate the sexual objectification of women (e.g., Brooks, 1995; Stoltenberg, 1989; the White Ribbon Campaign). To change attitudes and beliefs regarding the objectification of women, it is important to target mens attitudes and behaviors as well as womens. For example, encouraging boys to examine the meanings they

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 25

attach to concepts of masculinity, relationships, and gender-based violence could reduce the frequency with which women are objectified by men. All of these possibilities should be examined within the multiple contexts of mens and womens lives, reflecting the realities of living within systems of sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and other oppressions. Summary Theorists have proposed that self-objectification results from being socialized in a culture that sexually objectifies women (Bartky, 1990; Berger, 1972; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Johnston, 1997; Kaschak, 1992; Martin, 1996; Young, 1990). In general, these findings provide some initial support for this crucial link between cultural sexual objectification experiences and self-objectification. The current data suggest that cultural sexual objectification (in particular, ubiquitous sexualized gaze, evaluation, and harassment) is at least one factor in understanding trait-like self-objectification for both lesbian and heterosexual women. The current findings highlight the need for future research to attend to the heterogeneity and complexity of womens lived experiences. Given self-objectifications empirical links with psychological concerns, counseling psychologists can look forward to continued research on this promising theory, whose understanding has the potential to improve womens lives and mental health.

NOTES
1. More detailed information on the development of the scale can be obtained from the first author. 2. To determine whether the factor structure obtained using the total sample was representative of both the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples, separate factor analyses were conducted for the two subsamples. In both subsamples, a three-factor structure was deemed to be the most appropriate. The resulting factor structures were compared by calculating a comparability coefficient based on the correlation of factor scores (Everett & Entrekin, 1980). Due to the high degree of similarity between the factor scores in the lesbian and heterosexual subsamples, and for the sake of simplicity, the factor scores derived from the total sample were used in all further analyses.

REFERENCES
Arredondo, P. (1999). Multicultural counseling competencies as tools to address oppression and racism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 102-108. Balsam, K. F., Rothblum, E. D., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477-487.

26 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. New York: Routledge. Belknap, J., Fischer, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (1999). The development of a comprehensive measure of the sexual victimization of college women. Violence Against Women, 5, 185-214. Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The influence of sexual orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 135-141. Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1997). Body dissatisfaction among lesbian college students: The conflict of straddling mainstream and lesbian cultures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 431-445. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin. Bergeron, S. M., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Body image and sociocultural norms: A comparison of heterosexual and lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 385-401. Bieschke, K. J., Perez, R. M., & DeBord, K. A. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, and sex. New York: William Morrow. Bossick, B. (2002). Objectification theory: The link between cultural and self-objectification and the moderating effects of neuroticism. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Akron, OH. Brand, P. A., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, L. A. (1992). A comparison of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on weight and restrained eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 253-259. Brooks, G. R. (1995). The centerfold syndrome. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, L. S. (1987). Lesbians, weight, and eating: New analyses and perspectives. In Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective (Ed.), Lesbian psychologies (pp. 294-309). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy. New York: Basic Books. Brownlow, B. S. (1997). The relationship between objectification, body image disturbances, and disordered eating: Investigating race, socioeconomic status, acculturation and self-objectification as mediators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. Burnett, R. E. (1995). Gender objectification experiences: Construct validation, implications for dysphoria and depression, and phenomenology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. Calogero, R. M., Davis, W. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The role of self-objectification in the experience of women with eating disorders. Sex Roles, 52, 43-50. Cattarin, J. A., Thompson, J. K., Thomas, C., & Williams, R. (2000). Body image, mood, and televised images of attractiveness: The role of social comparison. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 19, 220-239. Chung, Y. B., & Katayama, M. (1996). Assessment of sexual orientation in lesbian/gay/bisexual studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 49-62. Cutler, S. E., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Accounting for sex differences in depression through female victimization: Childhood sexual abuse. Sex Roles, 24, 425-438. de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York: Knopf. Deep, A. L., Lilenfeld, L. R., Plotnicov, K. H., Pollice, C., & Kaye, W. H. (1999). Sexual abuse in eating disorder subtypes and control women: The role of comorbid substance dependence in bulimia nervosa. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 1-10.

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 27

Dworkin, S. H. (1988). Not in mans image: Lesbians and the cultural oppression of body image. Women & Therapy, 8, 27-39. Enns, C. Z. (2000). Gender issues in counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 601-638). New York: John Wiley. Everett, J. E., & Entrekin, L. V. (1980). Factor comparability and the advantages of multiple group factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15, 165-180. Ferguson, A. (1985). Lesbian identity: Behavior and history. Womens Studies International Forum, 8, 203-208. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., et al. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding womens lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., 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. Fukuyama, M. A., & Ferguson, A. D. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of color: Understanding cultural complexity and managing multiple oppressions. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 81-105). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gidycz, C. A., & Koss, M. P. (1989). The impact of adolescent sexual victimization: Standardized measures of anxiety, depression, and behavioral deviancy. Violence & Victims, 4, 139-149. Gilbert, L. A. (1992). Gender and counseling psychology: Current knowledge and directions for research and social action. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 383-416). New York: John Wiley. Greenleaf, C. (2005). Self-objectification among physically active women. Sex Roles, 52, 51-62. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1997). The relationship between media consumption and eating disorders. Journal of Communication, 47, 40-67. Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331. Heffernan, K. (1999). Lesbians and the internalization of societal standards of weight and appearance. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 121-127. Johnston, J. (1997). Appearance obsession: Womens reactions to mens objectification of their bodies. In R. F. Levant & G. R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex: New psychological perspectives (pp. 61-83). New York: John Wiley. Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A new psychology of womens experience. New York: Basic Books. Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The Schedule of Sexist Events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in womens lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439-472.

28 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / Month XXXX

Koch, N. S., & Emrey, J. A. (2001). The Internet and opinion measurement: Surveying marginalized populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 131-138. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. Martin, K. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Boys and girls at adolescence. New York: Routledge. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215. Miner-Rubino, K., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Trait self-objectification in women: Affective and personality correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 147-172. Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 420-428. Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internalization, self-objectification, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in male and female university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 269-279. Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 371-379. Muehlenkamp, J. J., Swanson, J. D., & Brausch, A. M. (2005). Self-objectification, risk taking, and self-harm in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 24-32. Myers, A., Taub, J., Morris, J. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (1999). Beauty mandates and the appearance obsession: Are lesbian and bisexual women better off? Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 15-26. Noffsinger-Frazier, N. A. (2004). Objectification theory and disordered eating: The impact of feminist identification, internalization of sociocultural standards of appearance, and sexual orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis, TN. Noll, S. M. (1996). The relationship between sexual objectification and disordered eating: Correlational and experimental tests of body shame as a mediator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. 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. Parsons, E. M., & Betz, N. E. (2001). The relationship of participation in sports and physical activity to body objectification, instrumentality, and locus of control among young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 209-222. Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles in counseling journals: 1990-1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 25-62. Pitman, G. E. (1999). Body image, compulsory heterosexuality, and internalized homophobia. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 129-139. Root, M. P. (1990). Resolving other status: Identity development of biracial individuals. Women & Therapy, 9, 185-205. Rothblum, E. D. (1994). Lesbians and physical appearance: Which model applies? In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 84-97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sell, R. L. (1997). Defining and measuring sexual orientation: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 643-658. Share, T. L., & Mintz, L. B. (2002). Differences between lesbians and heterosexual women in disordered eating and related attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 89-106.

Hill, Fischer / SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION 29

Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 252-260. Spitzack, C. (1990). Confessing excess: Women and the politics of body reduction. Albany: State University of New York Press. Stoltenberg, J. (1989). Refusing to be a man. New York: Penguin. Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707-712. Striegel-Moore, R. H., McAvay, G., & Rodin, J. (1986). Psychological and behavioral correlates of feeling fat in women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 935-947. Striegel-Moore, R. H., Tucker, N., & Hsu, J. (1990). Body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating in lesbian college students. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 493-500. Strong, S. M., Williamson, D. A., Netemeyer, R. G., & Geer, J. H. (2000). Eating disorder symptoms and concerns about body differ as a function of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 19, 240-255. Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The targets perspective (pp. 37-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31-53. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299-311. Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57-64. Tylka, T. L., & Hill, M. S. (2004). Objectification theory as it relates to disordered eating among college women. Sex Roles, 51, 719-730. Vanleeuwen, D. M., & Mandabach, K. H. (2002). A note on the reliability of ranked items. Sociological Methods and Research, 31, 87-105. van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist media studies. London: Sage. West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality, 64, 1-49. Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Anchor. Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse women. New York: John Wiley. Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.