The Counseling Psychologist

http://tcp.sagepub.com/

Objectification Theory: Areas of Promise and Refinement

Bonnie Moradi
The Counseling Psychologist 2011 39: 153 originally published online 17
November 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0011000010384279

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/39/1/153

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

Additional services and information for The Counseling Psychologist can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/39/1/153.refs.html

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
 >> Version of Record - Dec 15, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 17, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
384279
4279MoradiThe Counseling Psychologist
© The Author 2011

Reprints and permission:

TCP39110.1177/001100001038

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Reaction
The Counseling Psychologist

Objectification 39(1) 153­–163

© The Author 2011
Reprints and permission:
Theory:  Areas sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011000010384279
of Promise and http://tcp.sagepub.com

Refinement

Bonnie Moradi1

Abstract
This article elaborates on three themes related to Szymanski, Moffitt, and
Carr’s major contribution aims. First, the article describes the promise of
objectification theory as a grounding framework in research and practice,
outlining how this theory integrates key aspects of several other important
theoretical models. Second, this article suggests areas for theoretical refine-
ment and clarification related to the conceptualization and operationalization
of self-objectification, sexually objectifying environments, and the mechanisms
linking sexual objectification with substance use. Third, this article offers con-
siderations regarding the state of objectification theory–based intervention
recommendations. The article concludes with a discussion of potential roles
of counseling psychologists in advancing research, practice, and advocacy
informed by objectification theory.

Keywords
objectification theory, self-objectification, body surveillance, gender, culture

Szymanski, Moffitt, and Carr’s (2011) major contribution is a commend-

able effort to provide an overview of objectification theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997) to counseling psychologists, apply this framework to the

1
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Bonnie Moradi, University of Florida, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 112250,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Email: moradib@ufl.edu

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
154 The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

study of substance use among women, describe women’s experiences in

environments of heightened sexual objectification, and offer recommenda-
tions for clinical practice and training. In this article, I elaborate on three
themes related to Szymanski et al.’s aims: (a) the promise of objectification
theory as a grounding framework in research and practice, (b) areas for theo-
retical refinement and clarification, and (c) the state of objectification the-
ory–based intervention recommendations. I conclude with a discussion of
potential roles of counseling psychologists in advancing research, practice,
and advocacy that is informed by objectification theory. I hope that the discus-
sion of these themes, along with Szymanski and colleagues’ important work,
encourages further attention to objectification theory in counseling psychol-
ogy research, practice, and advocacy.

Promise of Objectification Theory as

Grounding Framework in Research and Practice
In their original articulation of objectification theory, Fredrickson and
Roberts (1997) proposed that gender role socialization and sexual objectifica-
tion experiences socialize girls and women to internalize cultural standards of
attractiveness as their own and to take on an observer’s perspective on their
own body. Such self-objectification is manifested as persistent body surveil-
lance, which can promote body shame, increase anxiety, reduce awareness of
internal bodily states (e.g., hunger, fullness), and prevent peak motivational
states that are critical to psychological well-being (what Csikszentmihalyi,
1982, 1990, called flow). These factors, in turn, can promote eating disorder
symptoms, depressive symptoms, and sexual dysfunction.
An important contribution of the present major contribution is to bring
objectification theory and related research to greater focus among counseling
psychologists. Indeed, since Fredrickson and Roberts’s publication of objec-
tification theory in 1997, there has been a proliferation of scholarship related
to the theory. This research has extended the theory to diverse populations of
women as well as to men and has addressed important mental health and
well-being indicators such as body image problems, eating disorder symp-
tomatology, depression, sexual health and efficacy, flow, and task perfor-
mance (for a review, see Moradi & Huang, 2008). In addition to its general
scholarly impact, objectification theory is a particularly useful framework
because it integrates well-supported aspects of several other important theo-
ries and because it has the promise to accommodate the experiences of diverse
populations (Moradi, 2010; Smolak & Murnen, 2001).

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
Moradi 155

A Framework for Theoretical Integration

The promise of objectification theory as a framework for theoretical integra-
tion has been detailed previously (Moradi, 2010). But a brief overview is
helpful to the present discussion. Objectification theory incorporates a num-
ber of key aspects of other theories. Specifically, objectification theory
includes the constructs of body surveillance and body shame from the objecti-
fied body consciousness framework (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Within its
conceptualization of sexual objectification experiences, objectification theory
includes thinness pressures implicated as a risk factor in the dual pathway
model (e.g., Stice & Agras, 1999) and the tripartite influence model (e.g.,
Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999; van den Berg,
Thompson, Obremski-Brandon, & Coovert, 2002). Within the concept of
internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, objectification theory
subsumes the dual pathway model’s concept of internalization of the thin
ideal. Objectification theory also includes the tripartite influence model’s
concept of heightened appearance comparison within its conceptualizations of
self-objectification and body surveillance. Although referred to with varying
terminology across theories, these overlapping constructs of sexual objectifi-
cation experiences, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness,
body surveillance, and body shame are among the most consistently sup-
ported risk factors in the eating disorder literature (Stice, 2002).
Beyond its integration of empirically supported areas of model conver-
gence, objectification theory also extends prior frameworks in important
ways. For example, objectification theory proposes a mediating role of body
shame in the link of body surveillance with other risk factors. It delineates
distinctive roles for anxiety and depression (as opposed to a focus on overall
negative affect) and includes a potential health promoting role of flow.
Objectification theory also addresses the co-occurrence of eating disorder and
depressive symptoms. It also acknowledges a wide range of sexual objectifi-
cation experiences, including but not limited to thinness pressures, as mental
health risk factors (Moradi, 2010).

Promise for Investigating the

Experiences of Diverse Populations
Another important strength of the objectification theory framework is that its
basic constructs and tenets can be broadened to accommodate the experiences of
diverse populations (Moradi, 2010). For example, objectification theory’s

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
156 The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

scope of consideration beyond thinness pressures, to include socialization and

sexual objectification experiences, has been extended to include experiences of
sexual objectification and recalled harassment for childhood gender nonconfor-
mity among sexual minority men (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010) and conflict
between deaf and hearing cultures among deaf women (Moradi & Rottenstein,
2007), the concept of body surveillance has been extended to include skin tone
surveillance among African American women (Buchanan, Fischer, Tokar, &
Yoder, 2008), and the set of relations posited in the framework has been exam-
ined with racially and ethnically diverse samples (e.g., Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004;
Mitchell & Mazzeo, 2009; Quinn, Kallen, Twenge, & Fredrickson, 2006) and
with heterosexual and sexual minority women and men (e.g., Hill & Fischer,
2008; Kozee & Tylka, 2006; Martins, Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007;
Wiseman & Moradi, 2010). Objectification theory is also being used to study a
broad range of criterion variables beyond those originally outlined (i.e., eating
disorders, depression, sexual dysfunctions), including, for example, propensity
for cosmetic surgery (Calogero, Pina, Park, & Rahemtulla, 2010), attitudes
toward menstruation and breast-feeding (e.g., Johnston-Robledo & Fred,
2008; Johnston-Robledo, Wares, Fricker, & Pasek, 2007; Roberts, 2004), and
substance use, as illustrated in this issue (Carr & Szymanski, 2011).

Areas for Theoretical Refinement

and Conceptual Clarification
The rich body of research on objectification theory, including the advance-
ments offered in this issue, suggests opportunities for theoretical refinement
and conceptual clarification. One such area was noted previously (Moradi,
2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008) as a point of clarification regarding the con-
ceptualization and measurement of self-objectification, and the qualitative
data offered by Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) speak to this issue.
Specifically, there is some variability in how self-objectification has been
operationalized in prior research. For example, it has been measured as the
difference between participants’ perceived importance of appearance-based
versus competence-based body attributes (Self-Objectification Question­
naire; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), as body surveillance (Objectified Body
Consciousness Scale–Surveillance; McKinley & Hyde, 1996), as a separate
construct from body surveillance (e.g., Slater & Tiggemann, 2002; Tiggemann
& Slater, 2001), and as a latent construct with body surveillance and internal-
ization of cultural standards of attractiveness as indicators (e.g., Kozee, Tylka,
Augustus-Horvath, & Denchik, 2007).

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
Moradi 157

On the basis of empirical support for the unique roles of internalization of

cultural standards of attractiveness and body surveillance, however, a useful
conceptual shift may be to consider self-objectification as a process rather
than as a specific variable to be measured. As such, the process of self-
objectification may be promoted by sexual objectification experiences and
manifested by internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness and
body surveillance, and their links, in turn, with greater body shame, and the
other intermediary variables delineated in objectification theory (for a fig-
ural depiction of this process, see Moradi, 2010).
This conceptualization is consistent with some of Moffitt and Szymanski’s
(2011) qualitative findings with women who worked in an environment of
heightened sexual objectification. Specifically, among the manifest
changes from working in that environment, these participants described how
they came to internalize the beauty standards of their work environment to
the extent of applying them outside of that environment; they also described
engaging in greater body surveillance. Both of these changes—internalization
of beauty standards and increased body surveillance—may reflect manifes-
tations of the self-objectification process promoted by working in an envi-
ronment of heightened sexual objectification. These qualitatively reported
changes suggest that measuring internalization and body surveillance directly
may be important in future objectification theory research (Moradi, 2010;
Moradi & Huang, 2008).
Another point of theoretical refinement and an important contribution of
Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) is an articulation of the characteristics of a
sexually objectifying environment. These characteristics provide a framework
for thinking about sexual objectification at the level of environments or insti-
tutions in addition to the typical conceptualization of the construct as an inter-
personal phenomenon (e.g., Kozee et al., 2007; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson,
2005). Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) described sexually objectifying envi-
ronments as environments in which

(a) traditional female and male gender roles exist, (b) a high degree of
attention is drawn to physical/sexual attributes of women’s bodies,
(c) a high probability of male contact exists, (d) women have little
power in that environment, and (e) there is approval and encourage-
ment of male gaze. (p. 69)

Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) described restaurants such as Hooters as

examples of such environments.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
158 The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

It seems that these five characteristics of sexually objectifying environments

exist to some degree in many contexts in a patriarchal society where women
and their bodies are treated as sexual objects. Indeed, at the societal level
within the United States (and many other countries), these five characteristics
may be inescapable; this omnipresence of the sexual objectification of women
is a key premise of objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
Thus, one area of conceptual clarification may be to consider whether sexu-
ally objectifying environments are a qualitatively unique form of environ-
ment. If so, what is a non–sexually objectifying environment, and where do
such environments exist? Alternatively, is Hooters (and other such restau-
rants) an environment that exaggerates and monetizes sexual objectification
characteristics that exist more subtly in most other environments? In other
words, is Hooters an environment of heightened sexual objectification rela-
tive to environments of typical levels of sexual objectification or a uniquely
distinct type of environment? Similarly, are there environments of lower than
typical levels of sexual objectification? Also, what are the effects of pay for
sexual objectification on women’s experiences of such environments? Such
questions can be useful to address in clarifying whether the characteristics of
sexually objectifying environments that Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) out-
lined describe differences in kind or degree across environments.
Another important contribution made by Carr and Szymanski (2011) is
the articulation of mechanisms through which sexual objectification experi-
ences may be linked with substance use. Specifically, Carr and Szymanski
(2011) proposed that sexual objectification may promote women’s substance
use (a) through media and cultural messages that pair women’s sexual desir-
ability with substance use, (b) by creating stress and negative affect that elicit
substance use as a coping or numbing strategy, and (c) through promoting the
series of relations posited in objectification theory among self-objectification,
body shame, and depression. The cross-sectional correlational data offered
by Carr and Szymanski (2011) suggest that the link between sexual objectifi-
cation experiences and substance use is largely direct; a small total indirect
effect also emerged from the series of links from sexual objectification expe-
riences to body surveillance, to body shame, to depressive symptoms, to sub-
stance use.
Several observations emerge from considering these data against the
three posited mechanisms of translation from sexual objectification experi-
ences to substance use. First, the proposition that one mechanism of transla-
tion is media and cultural messages that sexualize substance use suggests
the utility of directly assessing internalization of these cultural messages in
models of the link between sexual objectification experiences and substance
use; perhaps the inclusion of internalization would suggest a larger indirect

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
Moradi 159

effect. Second, as in many objectification theory studies, self-objectification

was operationalized as body surveillance in Carr and Szymanski’s (2011)
study. These two observations underscore the aforementioned point about
the utility of assessing internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness
and body surveillance as distinct manifestations of the self-objectification
process. Finally, as in many tests of indirect effects, the cross-sectional cor-
relation data offered by Carr and Szymanski (2011) provide groundwork for
investigating the causal and temporal precedence implied in the model.

The State of Objectification Theory-

Based Intervention Recommendations
Szymanski, Carr, and Moffitt (2011) offer a range of thoughtful intervention
and training suggestions based on objectification theory. These suggestions
represent many directions for further investigation and intervention evalua-
tion. Two brief but important points may be helpful in informing such
efforts. First, the body of research on objectification theory is primarily com-
posed of cross-sectional correlational data, some short-term experimental
studies, and a few longitudinal studies (Moradi & Huang, 2008). Thus, there
are limited data that can address directly the potential effectiveness of any
psychoeducational or therapeutic intervention based on objectification the-
ory. However, as Szymanski, Carr, and Moffitt (2011) suggestions illustrate,
there are ample data to inform hypotheses about such interventions.
Developing and evaluating theoretically and empirically informed interven-
tions continues to be an important needed direction within the objectifica-
tion theory literature (Moradi, 2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008).
The second point and caution is that in developing objectification theory
interventions, researchers and practitioners may do well to think outside of the
traditional individual therapy framework. For example, Carr and Szymanski’s
(2011) findings suggest that much of the link between sexual objectification
experiences and substance use is direct rather than indirect through the intrap-
ersonal mediating variables. If the causal and temporal relations of these find-
ings are supported, then intervening directly to reduce sexual objectification
experiences seems a much more efficient approach than focusing on intraper-
sonal factors such as body surveillance, body shame, or depression. Although
individual-level interventions fit with conventional approaches to therapy, it is
important to attend to data suggesting that they might not be the most fruitful
approaches to intervention. Calls for increasing counseling psychologists’
roles as social justice advocates (e.g., Vera & Speight, 2003) are consistent
with such a shift from the intrapersonal to the contextual and interpersonal in
intervention foci.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
160 The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

Role of Counseling Psychologists in Advancing

Objectification Theory Research and Practice
The scholarly impact of objectification theory, its utility for theoretical
integration, its promise for accommodating experiences of salience across
diverse populations, and its potential to inform the development and
evaluation of intervention strategies point to its importance for counseling
psychology research and practice. Indeed, a PsycINFO search in prepa-
ration for this article revealed that the Journal of Counseling Psychology
and The Counseling Psychologist are among the peer-reviewed outlets for
the most objectification theory–related articles: the most frequent outlets
were Sex Roles (33 articles), Psychology of Women Quarterly (24 arti-
cles), and Body Image (14 articles), with Journal of Counseling Psychology
(8 articles) appearing fourth; The Counseling Psychologist would appear
fifth (2 prior articles plus the present major contribution articles), fol-
lowed by Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, and Journal of Applied Social Psychology (2 or 3 arti-
cles each).
As Szymanski and colleagues’ work in the present issue exemplifies,
counseling psychologists have been contributing in important ways to
advancing objectification theory research. Counseling psychologists have
been engaged in operationalizing key objectification theory constructs—for
instance, Kozee et al.’s (2007) development of the Interpersonal Sexual
Objectification Scale; counseling psychologists have been integrating group-
specific experiences of salience within the framework—for instance,
Buchanan et al.’s (2008) research on skin tone surveillance with African
American women; and counseling psychologists have been testing the appli-
cability of the framework with diverse populations—for instance, Hill and
Fischer’s (2008) research with heterosexual and sexual minority women.
Importantly, the areas identified as important for advancing objectification
theory literature include broadening the scope and applicability of the frame-
work to capture experiences of diverse populations, evaluating and improv-
ing the operationalization of key constructs, and developing and testing
prevention and intervention strategies informed by the theory and its growing
research literature (Moradi & Huang, 2008). These areas for advancement fit
with counseling psychologists’ expertise and stated commitments to diversity
theory and research, psychometrics, and counseling and social justice inter-
ventions. The current major contribution represents an important step in
encouraging counseling psychologists’ continued (and greater) engagement in
objectification theory research, practice, and advocacy. I hope that the themes
discussed in this article are useful for such efforts.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
Moradi 161

Acknowledgments

I thank Brandon Velez for his assistance with preparing this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure/Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

References
Buchanan, T. S., Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., & Yoder, J. D. (2008). Test-
ing a culture-specific extension of objectification theory regarding African
American women’s body image. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 697-718.
doi:10.1177/0011000008316322
Calogero, R. M., Pina, A., Park, L. E., & Rahemtulla, Z. (2010). Objectification theory
predicts college women’s attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 63, 32-41.
Carr, E. R., & Szymanski, D. R. (2011). Sexual objectification and substance abuse in
young adult women. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 39-66.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In L.
Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (vol. 3, pp. 12-36).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,
NY: Harper.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understand-
ing women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 21, 173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity,
gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331. doi:10.1177/0146167204264052
Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2008). Examining objectification theory: Lesbian and
heterosexual women’s experiences with sexual- and self-objectification. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36, 745-776. doi:10.1177/0011000007301669
Johnston-Robledo, I., & Fred, V. (2008). Self-objectification and lower income preg-
nant women’s breastfeeding attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1-2.
Johnston-Robledo, I., Wares, S., Fricker, J., & Pasek, L. (2007). Indecent exposure:
Self-objectification and young women’s attitudes toward breastfeeding. Sex Roles,
56, 429-437. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9194-4

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
162 The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of objectification theory with lesbian
women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 348-357. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2006.00310.x
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development
and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176-189. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x
Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those Speedos become them: The
role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634-647. doi:10.1177/0146167206297403
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale:
Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
Mitchell, K. S., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2009). Evaluation of a structural model of objecti-
fication theory and eating disorder symptomatology among European American
and African American undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
33, 384-395. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01516.x
Moffitt, L. B., & Szymanski, D. R. (2011). Experiencing sexually objectifying envi-
ronments: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 67-106.
Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification expe-
riences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptom-
atology: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 420-428. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.420
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women:
A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,
377-398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
Moradi, B., & Rottenstein, A. (2007). Objectification theory and deaf cultural identity
attitudes: Roles in deaf women’s eating disorder symptomatology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 178-188. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.178
Moradi, B. (2010). Addressing gender and cultural diversity in body image: Objectifica-
tion theory as a framework for integrating theories and grounding research. Sex Roles,
63, 138-148.
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.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x
Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The disruptive
effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,
59-64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00262.x
Roberts, T. A. (2004). Female trouble: The menstrual self-evaluation scale and women’s
self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 22-26. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2004.00119.x

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012
Moradi 163

Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in adolescent

girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343-349. doi:10.1023/A:1020232714705
Smolak, L., & Murnen, S. H. (2001). Gender and eating problems. In R. H. Striegel-
Moore & L. Smolak (Eds.), Eating disorders: Innovative directions in research
and practice (pp. 91-110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion. doi:10.1037/10403-005
Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825-848. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
128.5.825
Stice, E., & Agras, W. S. (1999). Subtyping bulimic women along dietary restraint
and negative affect dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
67, 460-469. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.460
Szymanski, D. R., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification of
women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 6-38.
Szymanski, D. R., Carr, E. R., & Moffitt, L. B. (2011). Sexual objectification of
women: Clinical implications and training considerations. The Counseling Psy-
chologist, 39, 107-126.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M. N., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting
beauty: Theory, assessment and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10312-000
Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers
and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57-64. doi:10.1111/1471-
6402.00007
van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., & Coovert, M. (2002).
The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covari-
ance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance
comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 1007-1020. doi:10.1016/
S0022-3999(02)00499-3
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and
counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,
253-272. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003001
Wiseman, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms
in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57, 154-166. doi:10.1037/a0018937

Bio
Bonnie Moradi is an Associate Professor of psychology at the University of Florida.
Her research focuses on discrimination experiences and identities of women, racial/
ethnic minority, sexual minority, and other minority groups.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012