An Object For Sexual Pleasure - Does Viewing Sexualized Media Pred

University of South Florida
Digital Commons @ University of

South Florida
USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations
October 2022
An Object for Sexual Pleasure: Does Viewing Sexualized Media

Predict Increases in Self and Partner Objectification Impacting
Feelings of Sexual and Romantic Closeness?
Kaitlyn Ligman
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd
Part of the Social Psychology Commons
Scholar Commons Citation

Ligman, Kaitlyn, "An Object for Sexual Pleasure: Does Viewing Sexualized Media Predict Increases in Self
and Partner Objectification Impacting Feelings of Sexual and Romantic Closeness?" (2022). USF Tampa
Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/9790
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations at Digital
Commons @ University of South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in USF Tampa Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. For more
information, please contact digitalcommons@usf.edu.
An Object for Sexual Pleasure: Does Viewing Sexualized Media Predict Increases in Self and
Partner Objectification Impacting Feelings of Sexual and Romantic Closeness?
by
Kaitlyn Ligman
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Psychology
College of Arts and Sciences
Major Professor: Jamie Goldenberg, Ph.D.

Jennifer Bosson, Ph.D.
Tiffany Chenneville, Ph.D.
Date of Approval:
October 13, 2022
Keywords: Relationships, Couples, Intimacy, Social media
Copyright © 2022, Kaitlyn Ligman

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Objectifying Media ..............................................................................................................2
Implications for Media and Objectification in Relationships ..............................................4
Self-objectification and Sexual Intimacy ...................................................................4
Partner-objectification and Relationship Satisfaction ................................................6
The Current Study ...............................................................................................................8
Method ...........................................................................................................................................11
Participants .........................................................................................................................11
Sexualized Media ...............................................................................................................11
Sexualized Media Content Exposure .....................................................................11
Measures ............................................................................................................................11
Self and Partner Objectification .............................................................................11
Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness ................................................................12
Sexual Closeness ....................................................................................................13
Relationship Length/Status ....................................................................................13
Social Media Use ...................................................................................................14
Demographics ........................................................................................................14
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................15
Results ............................................................................................................................................17
Social Media and Objectification.......................................................................................18
Social Media, Gender, and Objectification ........................................................................19
Social Media, Objectification, Sexual and Relational Closeness ......................................20
Social Media, Objectification, Gender, Sexual and Relational Closeness ........................24
Supplemental Analyses ..................................................................................................................35
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................43
Hypotheses and Anticipated Effects ..................................................................................43
Individuating Factors of Social Media Use and Relationship Status/Length ....................46
Self and Partner Objectification and Self and Partner Comparison ...................................47
Limitations and Future Directions .....................................................................................49
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................51
References ......................................................................................................................................52
i
Appendix A: Scripts .......................................................................................................................59
Appendix B: Measures ...................................................................................................................60
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Self-Objectification. ......................................28
Table 2: Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Partner-Objectification. .................................28
Table 3: Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification ................................................29
Table 4: Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification ...........................................29
Table 5: Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ......................................................30
Table 6: Mediation Analysis Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness ..................31
Table 7: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ...................................32
Table 8: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and

Closeness......................................................................................................................34
Table 9: Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification ................................................36
Table 10: Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification ...........................................37
Table 11: Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ......................................................38
Table 12: Mediation Analysis Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness ..................39
Table 13: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ...................................40
Table 14: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and

Closeness......................................................................................................................42
iii
ABSTRACT
Exposure to sexually objectifying media has been linked to the objectification of the self and of
one’s romantic partner (e.g., partner-objectification); yet the implications of this for romantic
relationships have remained relatively unexamined. There is, however, reason to suspect that
exposure to sexually objectifying media and engaging in objectification may have implications
for romantic couples. When a woman frequently monitors her appearance this may undermine
her ability to sexually connect with her partner and when a man views his partner as an object for
sexual pleasure it may impede his ability to develop intimate feelings of relational closeness to
his partner. In the current study, 410 individuals who were in or had recently been in a romantic
relationship were randomly shown either a sexualized or non-sexualized clip from social media,
and then evaluated on rates of self and partner objectification and feelings of sexual closeness
and relationship satisfaction and closeness. As hypothesized, greater self-objectification was
related to decreases in aspects of sexual closeness to one’s partner and greater partner-
objectification was related to decreases in feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness to
one’s partner. However, contrary to the hypotheses, these pathways were not impacted by
exposure to sexualized social media. Collectively the current study illuminates the harm
objectification has upon romantic relationships and speaks to the need to further investigate the
role exposure to media may play in this dynamic.
iv
INTRODUCTION
The average American uses three to eight social media platforms, with 71% of young
adults logging on to photo or video-based sharing apps regularly (Auxier & Anderson, 2021;
Khattab, 2019). These platforms disseminate the message that women are objects valued for their
sexual features and physical appearance as opposed to their personal qualities (Halton, 2011;
Ramsey & Horan, 2018; Trekels et al., 2018). Not surprisingly, exposure to objectifying media,
particularly of women, has been linked to the objectification of the self (Harper & Tiggemann,
2008; Linder & Daniels, 2018) and of one’s romantic partner (Zurbriggen et al., 2011); yet the
implications of this in the context of romantic relationships has received little attention. There is,
however, reason to suspect that self and partner objectification may have implications for
heterosexual relationships. Frequent appearance monitoring that occurs when a woman views
herself as an object of sexual pleasure for a romantic partner may reduce a woman's capacity to
sexually connect or feel sexually close to her partner. Additionally, viewing one’s partner as an
object of sexual pleasure may reduce a man’s ability to foster intimate emotional connections
with his partner, thus diminishing feelings of relational satisfaction and closeness. The current
study has been designed to experimentally test how exposure to sexually objectifying media
impacts feelings of sexual and relational closeness to one’s romantic partner through self and
partner objectification while also exploring how these variables may differ depending upon
gender.
1
Objectifying Media
For decades a ubiquitous facet of mainstream media has been the sexual objectification of
women. Media sexualization may take many forms, from verbal references to women’s sexual
body parts to depictions of highly exposed women whose sole purpose is to look desirable (Ward
et al., 2016). Western media specifically is rampant with depictions of females as sexual objects,
serving as a proponent of objectification by publicly propagating the message to audiences that a
woman’s physical attractiveness and sexual features are prioritized above all other qualities
(Hatton & Trautner, 2011; Ward, 2016; Wright & Tokunaga, 2016). Recently, social media has
become a predominant platform for sharing and creating sexualized content, in particular of
young women (Trekels et al., 2018). This is especially concerning considering that 88% of
individuals aged 18-to-29 report the use of some form of social media (Auxier & Anderson,
2021), the most popular being photo and video-based sharing apps (e.g., Tik Tok, Instagram, and
Snapchat) (Auxier & Anderson, 2021). The high usage of photo and video-based sharing apps
however becomes concerning when evaluating the kind of content that is most popular within
these apps, which is sexualized young women.
Popular photo and video-based sharing apps central function are to view, like, share, and
comment on content that is most often relevant to the body’s physical appearance and
sexualization (Drenten et al., 2020; Ramsey & Horan, 2018). Indeed, Instagram accounts that
post sexualized images of women receive a significantly higher number of likes and followers
than accounts containing non-sexualized content (Ramsey & Horan, 2018). Evaluations of
TikTok reveal similar findings, where trending videos on the platform are commonly
characterized by heterosexual performances of feminine desirability in which females engage in
sexy poses to seduce the audience (Khattab, 2019).
2
Living in a culture that treats women as sexual objects may socialize women to self-
objectify, whereby women internalize an observer’s perspective on their bodily selves, viewing
their body as an object existing for the pleasure of others rather than as an entity to be
subjectively experienced (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Indeed, exposure to sexualized mass
media (e.g., television, movies, and music) and social media is predictive of increased rates of
self-objectification (Aubrey, 2007; Fardouly et al., 2015; Linder & Daniels, 2018). Specifically,
exposure to sexually objectifying media leads women to develop an objectified self-concept
(Vandenbosch et al., 2015), self-sexualize (Ramsey & Horan, 2018; Ward et al., 2016), and to
increase body surveillance (Aubrey, 2007; Aubrey & Gerding, 2015; Feltman & Syzmanski,
2018). Additionally, women who use popular photo-based sharing apps such as Instagram
demonstrate increased body image concerns (Fardouly et al., 2018) and report a greater
likelihood to utilize social media to appear sexually appealing to others (Ramsey & Horan,
2018). Collectively these findings become concerning as each of these behaviors may then be
associated with detrimental outcomes such as declines in mental health, disruptions in bodily
awareness, drives for thinness, and increases in disordered eating (Butkowski et al., 2019;
Dakanalis & Riva, 2013; Ward et al., 2016).
A culture that treats women as sexual objects not only contributes to women’s tendency
to objectify their selves but also to men’s belief that the female body is an object meant to
provide them with sexual pleasure (Zurbriggen et al., 2011). It follows that men who are exposed
to sexualized media may be more likely to objectify women. Consistent with this, research
demonstrates that men who consume sexually objectifying content show an increase in the
importance they assign to women’s sexual body parts (Ward et al., 2016). Specifically, men who
consume objectifying content of women are more likely to expect sexual relations from women
3
(Moreno et al., 2011), demonstrate increases in objectified cognitions and attitudes of violence
towards women (Wright & Tokunga, 2016), and possess higher endorsements of sexist attitudes
with increased hostility towards women (Rollero, 2013). Thus, there is evidence that the
consumption of mass media propagates men’s treatment of women as sexual objects (Karsay et
al., 2018; Seabrook et al., 2019; Wright & Tokunga, 2016; Zurbriggen et al., 2011).
Implications for Media and Objectification in Relationships
Exposure to sexualized media content of women has been linked to increases in self-
objectification for women (Fardouly et al., 2015; Linder & Daniels, 2018) and the objectification
of women by men (Karsay et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2016; Wright & Tokunga, 2016), but to date,
only one study (Zurbriggen et al., 2011) has investigated the relationship between consumption
of objectifying media and self and partner objectification in the context of romantic relationships.
Theorizing from research on objectification suggests that objectification of the self and one’s
partner may have implications for sexual and relationship satisfaction, respectively.
Self-Objectification and Sexual Intimacy.
From the perspective of objectification theory, self-objectification may interfere with the
ability to experience sexual intimacy, to the extent that monitoring one’s physical appearance
creates a barrier to internalizing the experience of interconnectedness during sex (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997). When women self-objectify, they monitor their external appearance rather than
their internal experiences. Frequent appearance monitoring results in increases in appearance
anxiety (Lustig, 2012; Robbins & Reissing, 2018). Moreover, increases in both body surveillance
and appearance anxiety are negatively correlated with sexual well-being and positively
correlated with disruptions in connecting with the surrounding environment (Claudat & Warren,
2014; Vencill et al., 2015). Therefore, as women vigilantly monitor their appearance, they
4
become hyper-focused on how they look and less attuned to bodily states and mindfully
interacting with the surrounding environment, two key aspects in establishing feelings of
interconnectedness during sex (Claudat & Warren, 2014; Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Vencill et al.,
2015). Further, females in romantic relationships report greater instances of self-objectification
than men (Shinne, 2017), with women high in the trait of self-objectification showing an increase
in the enjoyment of sexualization by one’s partner, which later results in diminished feelings of
intimate interconnectedness (Ramsey et al., 2017). This demonstrates that for women specifically
objectification through body surveillance and appearance anxiety may inhibit the ability to
establish feelings of sexual connectedness.
The implications of self-objectification may then be further informed by the regular use
of social media by individuals in romantic relationships. As discussed previously, social media’s
portrayal of women is often objectifying (Ramsey & Horan, 2018) and greater exposure to
objectifying mass media is associated with higher levels of self-objectification among women
(Fardouly et al., 2015). More specifically, social media may provide a script for young women to
more eagerly self-sexualize for their partners and to self-objectify by continually monitoring and
comparing their appearance to current beauty standards (Butkoski et al., 2019; Fardouly et al.,
2015; Feltman & Szymanski, 2018). Lastly, studies on media, virtual environments, and
sexualization have found that women exposed to sexually objectifying images in a potential
romantic partner’s virtual apartment increased body consciousness (Overstreet et al., 2015). Thus
exposure to sexually objectifying social media may increase the likelihood to sexualize oneself
and monitor one’s appearance, decreasing the ability to possess or desire feelings of sexual
closeness in one’s romantic relationship for females.
5
To date, little research has considered the impact of consuming sexually objectifying
media on objectification as it relates to romantic couples and relationship outcomes. However,
Zurbriggen et al. (2011) posited that heterosexual relationships offer a rich environment to
understand objectification of the female body as it relates to the consumption of sexually
objectifying media and relationship and sexual satisfaction. To examine self-objectification in
the context of heterosexual relationships, Zurbriggen et al. (2011) recruited men and women who
were currently in or who had recently been in a relationship and asked them to report how often
they viewed various genres of media (e.g., television, film, magazines, and internet sites).
Participants then completed measures of self and partner objectification, relationship satisfaction,
and sexual satisfaction. Results indicated self-objectification was positively associated with
viewing objectifying magazines. In addition, a statistically reliable negative correlation between
self-objectification and sexual satisfaction for men in relationships was observed. The direction
of the association between self-objectification and sexual satisfaction was the same for women in
the study however the correlation was not statistically reliable. The authors methodology for
sexual satisfaction may partially explain why significant results were not attributed to women as
it relates to self-objectification. Zurbriggen et al. (2011) measured sexual satisfaction for all
participants with one single item (e.g., “How satisfied are you with the sexual part of your
current relationship?”) which may not have strongly resonated with female participants due to
its broad scope and lack of consideration for intimate feelings of interconnectedness.
Partner-Objectification and Relationship Satisfaction.
Whereas the act of self-objectification may reduce the ability to feel sexually connected
and synched with one’s partner, the act of partner-objectification may reduce the ability for
couples to develop an intimate emotional closeness that comprises relationship satisfaction.
6
Relationship satisfaction is defined as the total and complete experience of intimacy that
encompasses physical and emotional feelings of connectedness, closeness, and bondedness
(Sternberg, 1986), which objectifying one’s partner should undermine. When a woman is valued
for her external attributes, it results in her being perceived as lacking certain human qualities,
such as warmth, competence, (Heflick et al., 2011; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2014) and mind
(Loughnan et al., 2013). Thus, women’s sexual objectification leads to less human attribution on
behalf of the perceiver (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009). These changes in perception due to
objectification then also influence how men interact with women by decreasing men’s empathy
towards women (Linz et al., 1988) and increasing proclivity toward sexually harassing behaviors
(Galdi et al., 2014). Therefore, objectifying one’s romantic partner places value upon a woman’s
body and appearance without consideration for human attributes, reducing the ability to cultivate
intimate emotional connections; as partner-objectification increases, feelings of relational
closeness that comprise relationship satisfaction decreases (Mahar et al., 2020; Ramsey et al.,
2017).
Limited research has been conducted on the impact of social media on partner-
objectification. However, it can be observed that consistent exposure to objectifying mass-media
predicts men’s belief of sexual reductionism (i.e., thinking of women in terms of their bodies and
evaluating them in terms of their physical appearance) (Wright & Tokunaga, 2015), which is
related to difficulties establishing intimate relationships with women (Wright et al., 2017). Thus
by viewing objectifying content of women it encourages men to view women they interact with
in a similar manner. Romantic relationships classified by instances of partner-objectification
show a negative association between dehumanization and intimate relational closeness to one’s
7
partner (Saez et al., 2019). The role social media may play in this environment is to repeatedly
expose men to the depiction of women as sexual objects. Social media exposure will perpetuate
the script of viewing one’s partner as an entity for male sexual pleasure therefore decreasing
ascriptions of warmth and humanness to one’s partner, ultimately impeding feelings of relational
closeness and the overall development of relationship satisfaction for men in particular.
Zurbriggen et al. (2011) theorized that objectification would impede relationship
development amongst couples due to male romantic partner’s internalizing the message from
media that women are sexual objects whose worth should be based upon their external
appearance. Their findings supported this; men in relationships reported greater instances of
partner-objectification than females, and further, consuming objectifying mass media was related
to lower relationship satisfaction through partner-objectification, for men only.
The Current Study
The aim of the current study is to expand on the findings of Zurbriggen et al. (2011) by
testing a causal impact of exposure to sexually objectifying social media on feelings of sexual
and relationship closeness. Zurbriggen et al.’s (2011) research was correlational and examined
traditional media, leaving modern media platforms (e.g., social media) unaccounted for in the
current implications. Further, individuating information such as levels of relationship length
(e.g., how long a couple has been together) and status (e.g., the title a couple assigns to their
relationship) were not assessed by Zurbriggen et al. (2011), a factor that may impact results as
feelings of sexual and relational closeness to one’s partner is affected by feelings of commitment
(Mahar et al., 2020). Relationships that are newly formed (e.g., friends with benefits, newly
dating) may foster an environment where feelings of lust and physical appearances are more
relevant and strongly valued in a relationship due to low levels of trust and comfort.
8
Comparatively, relationships that are not newly formed (e.g., engaged, married) are often long-
term partnerships where trust and comfort have been established amongst partners over time
(Mahar et al., 2020).
The current study aims to address these gaps in the literature by assessing the relationship
of the independent variable social media (sexualized vs. non-sexualized) on the outcomes of
objectification (self and partner), feelings of sexual closeness, and relational satisfaction and
closeness. Further, I will examine if the relationships between social media and feelings of
sexual closeness and relationship satisfaction and closeness are mediated by self and partner
objectification and further moderated by gender while controlling for relationship length/status
and social media use. The current design will serve three main purposes: (1) continue to expand
objectification research as it relates to romantic relationships, (2) examine the impact sexually
objectifying media content from social media has upon objectification in relationships, and (3)
evaluate how individuating factors such as gender may moderate the relationship amongst media
exposure, objectification, and feelings of closeness. To examine these three purposes, the
following hypotheses have been devised to independently evaluate individuals in romantic
relationships:
Hypothesis 1a: Individuals who are exposed to sexualized social media content will
experience higher levels of self-objectification than those who are exposed to non-sexualizing
social media content.
Hypothesis 1b: Individuals who are exposed to sexualized social media content will
experience higher levels of partner-objectification than those who are exposed to non-sexualized
social media content.
9
Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between exposure to sexualized social media content and
self-objectification will be moderated by gender, where females will report engaging in self-
objectification to a greater extent than males.
Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between exposure to sexualized social media content and
partner-objectification will be moderated by gender, where males will report engaging in partner-
objectification to a greater extent than females.
Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between social media content and feelings of sexual
closeness will be mediated by self-objectification, such that exposure to sexualized social media
will reduce feelings of sexual closeness through increases in self-objectification.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between social media content and feelings of
relationship satisfaction and closeness will be mediated by partner-objectification, such that
exposure to sexualized social media will reduce feelings of relationship satisfaction and
closeness through increases in partner-objectification.
Hypothesis 4a: Higher rates of self-objectification induced by exposure to sexualized
social media content will result in decreased feelings of sexual closeness, particularly for
women.
Hypothesis 4b: Higher rates of partner-objectification induced by exposure to sexualized
social media content will result in decreased feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness,
particularly for men.
10
METHOD
Participants
Four hundred and ten individuals (49.5% [n =203] women) ages 18-24 were recruited
through the University participant pool system and received partial course credit for participating
in this study. Participants were on average 19.52 years old (SD = 1.43) and were primarily
(54.8%) White, with 19.3% Hispanic, 8.6 % Black, 7.1 % Asian, and 6.4 % biracial or
multiracial.
Sexualized Media
Sexualized Media Content Exposure.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, exposure to non-
sexualized social media content or exposure to sexualized social media content. In both
conditions, participants were provided popularized videos from the social media site TikTok to
browse for two minutes and thirty seconds. Participants in the non-sexualized social media
content condition viewed brief snippets of videos that showed nature scenes whereas participants
in the sexualized social media content condition viewed targets presented in a sexually
objectifying manner dressed in minimal clothing while completing sexualized dances, poses, and
singing along to sexualized songs. Videos were rated by a panel of expert psychologists and
graduate students to ensure each condition provided accurate sexualized and non-sexualized
content that mimics the experience of scrolling through a modern social media feed.
Measures
Self and Partner Objectification.
11
To assess self-objectification, participants completed a modified version of the
surveillance subscale of McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale.
Participants responded to 7 items with 5 items reverse coded (from 1, strongly disagree to 7,
strongly agree) that analyzed the extent to which they take a third-person perspective of their
own body (e.g., “I am more concerned with what my body can do than how it looks”). An
average of the seven items was taken for the current study with higher scores reflecting greater
engagement in self-objectification. The average showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.78).
Following the methodology of Zurbriggen et al. (2011) to assess partner-objectification,
participants completed a modified version of the surveillance subscale (McKinley & Hyde,
1996). In this case, all instances of the words “I” and “my body” were replaced with “my partner”
or “my partner’s body.” Participants responded to the same 7 items with 5 reverse coded (from 1,
strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree) that analyzed the extent to which they take a third-person
perspective of their partner’s bodies (e.g., “I am more concerned with what my partner’s body can
do than how it looks”). An average of the seven items was taken for the current study with
higher scores reflecting greater engagement in partner-objectification. The average showed low
reliability (α = 0.58).
Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness.
To assess relationship satisfaction and closeness two measures were employed. First, to
assess relationship closeness as defined by feelings of connectedness with one’s partner, the
Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) scale by Aron et al. (1992) was used. Participants
selected one of seven pairs of increasingly overlapping circles. In each pair of circles, one circle
refers to the participant and the other circle to the participant’s romantic partner. Participants
12
were asked to select the pair of circles (from 1, not very connected, to 7, very connected) that
most accurately depicts how emotionally close they feel to their partner in the current moment,
ranging from an almost completely overlapping to a mostly non-overlapping pair of circles.
Second, relationship satisfaction was assessed utilizing the satisfaction subscale of the
Investment Model Scale (Rusbult et al., 1998), as a core component of relationship satisfaction is
bondedness (Sternberg, 1986). The subscale consisted of seven items that measured (from 1, do
not agree at all, to 7, agree completely) an individual’s satisfaction with their partner, where
higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the relationship (e.g., “I feel satisfied with my
relationship”). The two measures were averaged to create a composite measure of relationship
satisfaction and closeness and showed great reliability (α = .95).
Sexual Closeness.
Feelings of sexual closeness to one’s romantic partner were measured by a vignette
created by the PI. The vignette defined what it means to feel sexually close/connected to one’s
romantic partner (e.g., “when you feel wholly intertwined and fully lost in the being of your
partner, as though you do not know where they end and you begin.”). Participants were then
asked two questions assessing how sexually connected they would feel to their romantic partner
(from 5, I would definitely not feel sexually connected to 1, I definitely would feel sexually
connected) and how self-conscious they would feel about their physical appearance if they were
to have sex with their partner right now (from 1, I would definitely feel self-conscious to 5, I
definitely would not feel self-conscious). The first item was reverse scored such that high scores
would reflect high sexual closeness. Further, the two items showed poor reliability when
averaged together to form one scale of sexual closeness (α = 0.44) and thus were evaluated
13
independently for the current study.
Relationship Length/Status.
Relationship length was measured by the duration (e.g., months, years) of romantic
partnerships while relationship status of participants was measured by the legality of ties a
couple shares (e.g., newly dating, married). Thus, participants were asked to select what type of
relationship they are in (e.g., relationship status) when completing the demographics measure,
ranging from a variety of partnership options (e.g.,“ friends with benefits”, “engaged”) and how
long they have been dating their partner (e.g., relationship length; “less than one month”, “one
year”). These two items (e.g., relationship length and status) were then standardized and
averaged together to form a composite measure with acceptable reliability (α = 0.72). A higher
score on this measure reflects relationships that are longer in length and more bound by legal
agreements (i.e., marriages) in contrast to those short in length and not bound by legalities (e.g.,
newly dating).
Social Media Use.
The variable social media use was measured by four items (from 1, never to 7, multiple
times a day) assessing how frequently an individual uses social media (e.g., “How frequently do
you use social media?”) and its features (e.g., “How frequently do you post photos to social
media?”). The items showed acceptable reliability when averaged together (α = 0.64).
Demographics.
A standard demographics questionnaire was administered assessing the gender, age, race
and ethnicity, and academic year of all participants.
14
Procedure
Young adults, aged 18-24, who indicated that they were currently in or had been in a
relationship where they dated or had intimate sexual relations with an individual of the opposite
sex were recruited to participate in an online study in Qualtrics through SONA. Participants that
indicated they were not currently in a romantic relationship but had previously been in a
romantic relationship were asked to think of their most recent romantic partner for the duration
of the study. Upon clicking the link to participate in the Qualtrics survey through SONA,
participants were informed that we were conducting a study about the type of genres and media
content adults and couples currently like to watch that is a part of a larger study evaluating
relationship experiences overall (Appendix A). Participants were then randomly assigned to one
of two media content conditions to watch for just under three minutes. These served as our two
conditions (non-sexualized social media content and sexualized social media content). After the
manipulation, participants completed the modified Objectified Body Consciousness surveillance
subscale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996) for the partner and the self, the Inclusion of the Other in the
Self (IOS) scale (Aron et al., 1992), the sexual closeness items, the Investment Model
satisfaction subscale (Rusbult et al., 1998), a short demographic questionnaire inclusive of
relationship status/length questions, and a social media use questionnaire. The Objectified Body
Consciousness surveillance subscale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996) for the self and partner was
presented in a counterbalanced order. Further, scales were distributed with an attention check in
addition to filler questions pertaining to the media content watched (e.g., “my partner and I
would watch the previous media clips”) on a 5-point type Likert scale (from 1, “strongly
disagree” to 5, “strongly agree”) in order to keep participants from actively devising that we
were solely interested in objectification and satisfaction (see Appendix B). Upon completion,
15
participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. All procedures were approved by the
university’s Institutional Review Board.
16
RESULTS
Recall that we hypothesized that in response to the sexualized social media condition
individuals will experience higher levels of self and partner objectification (Hypotheses 1a and
1b), in response to the sexualized social media content women will engage in greater self-
objectification and men greater partner-objectification (Hypotheses 2a and 2b), exposure to
sexualized social media will reduce feelings of sexual closeness through increases in self-
objectification and reduce feelings of relationship closeness and satisfaction through increases in
partner-objectification (Hypotheses 3a and 3b), and exposure to sexualized social media will
reduce feelings of sexual closeness through increases in self-objectification specifically for
women and reduce feelings of relationship closeness and satisfaction through increases in
partner-objectification specifically for men (Hypotheses 4a and 4b).
To test these hypotheses, we first employed two linear regressions to examine the direct
effects of social media content on self and partner objectification. Second, we employed two
separate moderation analyses utilizing PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2012) with bias-accelerated
bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10000 draws to examine the direct effects of social
media content on self and partner objectification as moderated by gender. Third, we utilized
three PROCESS Model 4s (Hayes, 2012) with bias-accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals
based on 10000 draws to assess the relationship between exposure to sexualized social media
content and self-objectification as it relates to the two items assessing sexual closeness and
partner-objectification as it relates to the one item assessing relationship closeness and
satisfaction. Lastly, we employed two PROCESS Model 7s (Hayes, 2012) with bias-accelerated
17
bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10000 draws to assess if gender moderates the
relationship between exposure to sexualized social media content and self and partner
objectification as it relates to the outcomes of sexual closeness and relationship closeness and
satisfaction. In all analyses, apart from the linear regressions, the variables of relationship
length/status and social media use were entered as covariates to control for their effects. All
results and analyses are reported below.
Social Media and Objectification
In order to test Hypothesis1a, that individuals who are exposed to sexualized social media
content will experience higher levels of self-objectification than those who are exposed to non-
sexualizing social media content, a simple linear regression was employed to test if social media
condition (0 = non-sexualized, 1 = sexualized) significantly predicted self-objectification. The
model was not significant, F (1,408) = 1.667, p = 0.197. Therefore, contrary to the hypothesis,
social media condition did not significantly predict self-objectification. The model explained
0.04% of the variance in self-objectification (R2 = .004). See Table 1.
To assess Hypothesis 1b, that individuals who are exposed to sexualized social media
content will experience higher levels of partner-objectification than those who are exposed to
non-sexualized social media content, a simple linear regression was carried out to test if social
media condition significantly predicted partner-objectification. The model was not significant, F
(1,408) = 0.02, p = 0.871. Therefore, contrary to the hypothesis, social media condition did not
significantly predict partner-objectification. The model explained less than 1% of the variance in
partner-objectification (R2 = .000). See Table 2.
18
Social Media, Gender, and Objectification
To assess Hypothesis 2a, which predicts that the relationship between exposure to
sexualized social media content and self-objectification will be moderated by gender, where
females will report engaging in self-objectification to a greater extent than males, a moderation
analysis using Model 1 of the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2012) was employed. For
this analysis, self-objectification served as the dependent variable and social media condition (0
= non-sexualized, 1 = sexualized) was the predictor variable. Gender served as a moderator of
the condition/self-objectification relationship.
Consistent with the results of the linear regression, the results of the regression analysis
revealed that social media condition was not associated with self-objectification, β = 0.17, SE =
0.16, t (388) = 1.04, p = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.49]. Gender was also not associated with self-
objectification, β = -0.24, SE = 0.16, t (388) = -1.45, p = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.08]. Moreover,
contrary to the hypothesis, the interaction between social media condition and gender was not
statistically significant, β = -0.10, SE = 0.23, t (388) = -0.46, p = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35]. The
covariate relationship length/status was also not statistically significant, β = 0.02, SE = 0.06, t
(388) = 0.31, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.15]. Social media use, however, was associated with
self-objectification, β = 0.20, SE = 0.06, t (388) = 3.22, p = .001; 95% CI [0.07, 0.32]. Greater
social media use was associated with greater self-objectification. See Table 3.
To assess Hypothesis 2b, which examines whether the relationship between exposure to
sexualized social media content and partner-objectification will be moderated by gender, where
males will report engaging in partner-objectification to a greater extent than females. A
moderation analysis was employed, a moderation analysis was conducted using Model 1 of the
PROCESS macro developed by Hayes. For this analysis, partner-objectification was the
19
dependent variable and social media condition was the predictor variable. Gender served as a
moderator of the condition/partner-objectification relationship.
In-line with the previous linear regression analysis, the results of the regression analysis
revealed that social media condition was not associated with partner-objectification, β = -0.02,
SE = 0.12, t (388) = -0.16, p = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.22]. Gender was associated with partner-
objectification β = 0.26, SE = 0.13, t (388) = 2.00, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.005, 0.52]. Males
engaged in greater partner-objectification than females. However, contrary to the hypothesis, the
interaction between social media condition and gender was not statistically significant, β = 0.03,
SE = 0.18, t (388) = 0.17, p = .85, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.38]. Further, the covariate relationship
length/ status was not statistically significant, β = -0.08, SE = 0.05, t (388) = -1.58, p = 0.11,
95% CI [-0.18, 0.01]. Social media use, however, was associated with partner-objectification, β =
0.10, SE = 0.04, t (388) = 2.24, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.20]. Greater social media use was
associated with greater partner-objectification. See Table 4.
Social Media, Objectification, Sexual and Relational Closeness
To assess Hypothesis 3a, which states the relationship between social media content and
feelings of sexual closeness will be mediated by self-objectification, such that exposure to
sexualized social media will reduce feelings of sexual closeness through increases in self-
objectification, analyses of mediation were conducted with each item of sexual closeness:
feelings of sexual connectedness and feelings of self-consciousness about physical appearance
during sex. The outcome of sexual closeness was evaluated using the two separate items due to
poor reliability between the items. Both analyses used Model 4 of the PROCESS macro
developed by Hayes.
20
In the first analysis, social media condition (0 = non-sexualized, 1 = sexualized) served as
the independent variable, self-objectification was the mediator and feelings of sexual
connectedness was the outcome. In concordance with prior analyses, the effect of social media
condition on self-objectification was not statistically significant, β = 0.13, SE = 0.11, t (396) =
1.18, p = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36]. Once again, the covariate social media use did significantly
affect rates of self-objectification, β = 0.21, SE = 0.06, t (396) = 3.52, p <.001, 95% CI [0.09,
0.33]. Greater social media use was related to greater rates of self-objectification. Relationship
length/status however was again not significantly related to self-objectification, β = 0.02, SE =
0.06, t (396) = 0.40, p = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.15].
Further, self-objectification did not significantly predict feelings of sexual connectedness,
β = -0.06, SE = 0.04, t (395) = -1.42, p = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.02]. Social media condition also
did not predict feelings of sexual connectedness, β = 0.02, SE = 0.10, t (395) = 0.19, p = 0.84,
95% CI [-0.19, 0.23]. The covariate social media use did, however, significantly affect feelings
of sexual connectedness, β = 0.13, SE = 0.05, t (395) = 2.44, p = 0.01, 95% CI [0.02, 0.25].
Greater social media use was related to greater feelings of sexual connectedness. Relationship
length/status was also significantly related to feelings of sexual connectedness, β = 0.30, SE =
0.06, t (395) = 4.98, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.42]. Individuals who have been in a relationship
for a long period of time and who are seriously dating their partner feel greater feelings of sexual
connectedness towards their partner. However, contrary to the hypothesis, there was not an
indirect effect of condition on feelings of sexual connectedness mediated by self-objectification,
B = -0.009, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.01]. See Table 5.
The analysis was then repeated with self-consciousness about physical appearance during
sex as the outcome. Again, the effect of social media condition on self-objectification was not
21
statistically significant, β = 0.13, SE = 0.11, t (396) = 1.18, p = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36]. The
covariate social media use continued to significantly affect rates of self-objectification, β = 0.21,
SE = 0.06, t (396) = 3.57, p < .001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.33]. Greater social media use was related to
greater rates of self-objectification. Relationship length/status was not significantly related to
self-objectification, β = 0.02, SE = 0.06, t (396) = 0.40, p = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.15].
In contrast to the other measure of sexual closeness, self-objectification significantly
predicted feelings of self-consciousness about one’s physical appearance during sex, β = -0.35,
SE = 0.05, t (395) = -6.40, p<.001, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.24]. Greater self-objectification was also
related to greater feelings of self-consciousness about one’s appearance and body during sex.
Social media condition did not predict feelings of self-consciousness about one's physical
appearance during sex, β = -0.08, SE = 0.12, t (395) = -0.67, p = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.16].
Further, in this analysis, the covariate social media use did not significantly affect feelings of
self-consciousness about one's physical appearance during sex, β = 0.08, SE = 0.06, t (395) =
1.30, p = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22]. Relationship length/status was significantly related to
feelings of self-consciousness about one's physical appearance during sex, β = 0.29, SE = 0.07, t
(395) = 4.00, p < .001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.43]. Individuals who had been in a relationship for a
long period of time and who were seriously dating their partner reported feeling less self-
conscious about their physical appearance during sex. Lastly, contrary to the hypothesis, there
was not an indirect effect of social media condition on feelings of self-consciousness about one's
physical appearance during sex mediated by self-objectification, B = -0.04, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [-
0.14, 0.03]. See Table 5.
To test Hypothesis 3b, which examines whether the relationship between social media
content and feelings of relationship satisfaction is mediated by partner-objectification, such that
22
exposure to sexualized social media will reduce feelings of relationship satisfaction through
increases in partner-objectification a mediation analysis was conducted using Model 4 of the
PROCESS macro developed by Hayes. In this analysis, social media condition (0 = non-
sexualized, 1 = sexualized) served as the independent variable, partner-objectification was the
mediator and feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness was the outcome. Relationship
length/status and social media use were entered in the model as covariates.
As observed in previous analyses, the effect of social media condition on partner-
objectification was not statistically significant, β = 0.01, SE = 0.09, t (396) = 0.15, p = 0.88, 95%
CI [-0.16, 0.19]. Further, in this analysis, the covariate social media use in this current model did
not significantly affect rates of partner-objectification, β = 0.07, SE = 0.04, t (396) = 1.58, p =
0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.16]. Relationship length/status was also not significantly related to
partner-objectification, β = -0.09, SE = 0.05, t(396) = -1.87, p = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.01].
Moreover, partner-objectification significantly predicted relationship satisfaction and
feelings of closeness to one’s partner, β = -0.19, SE = 0.07, t (395) = -2.43, p = .015, 95% CI [-
0.34, -0.03]. Greater partner-objectification was related to less relationship satisfaction and
feeling distant from one’s romantic partner. Further, social media condition did not predict
feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness, β = 0.06, SE = 0.14, t (395) = 0.48, p = 0.62,
95% CI [-0.21, 0.34]. The covariate social media use did not significantly affect feelings of
relationship satisfaction and closeness, β = 0.006, SE = 0.07, t (395) = 0.08, p = 0.93, 95% CI [-
0.14, 0.15]. Relationship length/status was significantly related to feelings of relationship
satisfaction and closeness to one’s partner, β = 0.93, SE = 0.08, t (395) = 11.60, p < .001, 95% CI
[0.77, 1.09]. Individuals who have been in a relationship for a long period of time and who are
seriously dating their partner, feel greater relationship satisfaction and closeness to their romantic
23
partner. However, contrary to the hypotheses there was not an indirect effect of social media
condition on feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness to one’s partner mediated by
partner-objectification, B = -0.002, SE = 0.01, 95%CI [-0.04, 0.03]. See Table 6.
Social Media, Objectification, Gender, Sexual and Relational Closeness
To assess Hypothesis 4a, which assesses if higher rates of self-objectification induced by
exposure to sexualized social media content will result in decreased feelings of sexual closeness,
particularly for women, two analyses of moderated mediation were conducted, one on each
measure of sexual closeness. The first analysis used Model 7 of the PROCESS macro developed
by Hayes. In this analysis, social media condition (0 = non-sexualized, 1 = sexualized) served as
the independent variable, self-objectification was the mediator, feelings of sexual connectedness
was the outcome, and gender was the moderator.
As observed in the previous analyses, the effect of social media condition on self-
objectification was not significant, β = 0.17, SE = 0.16, t (388) = 1.04, p = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15,
0.49]. Gender did not significantly affect self-objectification in this analysis, β = -0.24, SE =
0.16, t (388) = -1.45, p = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.08]. Gender also did not interact with condition,
β = -0.10, SE = 0.23, t (388) = -0.46, p = 0.64, CI [-0.57, 0.35]. Further, the covariate social
media use once again significantly affected rates of self-objectification, β = 0.20, SE = 0.06, t
(388) = 3.22, p = .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.32]. Greater social media use was related to greater rates
of self-objectification. Relationship length/status was not significantly related to self-
objectification, β = 0.02, SE = 0.06, t (388) = 0.31, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.15].
Further, as in the previous analysis self-objectification did not significantly predict
feelings of sexual connectedness, β = -0.06, SE = 0.04, t (389) = -1.41, p = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15,
0.02]. Social media condition also did not predict feelings of sexual connectedness, β = 0.02, SE
24
= 0.10, t (389) = 0.26, p = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24]. The covariate social media use did again
significantly affect feelings of sexual connectedness, β = 0.13, SE = 0.05, t (389) = 2.36, p =
0.01, 95% CI [0.02, 0.25]. Greater social media use was related to greater feelings of sexual
connectedness. Relationship length/status was also significantly related to feelings of sexual
connectedness, β = 0.30, SE = 0.06, t (389) = 4.97, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.42]. Individuals
who have been in a relationship for a long period of time and who are seriously dating their
partner, feel greater feelings of sexual connectedness to their partner. Contrary to the hypothesis,
however, there was not an indirect effect of social media condition on sexual connectedness
mediated by self-objectification, for males, B = -0.004, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.02], or
females, β = -0.011, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.01]. Lastly, gender did not moderate this effect,
β = 0.007, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.05]. See Table 7.
The analyses were then repeated with feelings of self-consciousness about physical
appearance during sex as the outcome. In concordance with the prior analysis, the effect of social
media condition on self-objectification was not significant, β = 0.17, SE = 0.16, t (388) = 1.04, p
= 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.49]. Gender also did not significantly affect self-objectification in this
analysis, β = -0.24, SE = 0.16, t (388) = -1.45, p = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.08]. Gender also did
not interact with condition, β = -0.10, SE = 0.23, t (388) = -0.46, p = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35].
Further, the covariate social media use did significantly affect rates of self-objectification, β =
0.20, SE = 0.06, t (388) = 3.22, p = .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.32]. Greater social media use was
related to greater rates of self-objectification. Relationship length/status was not significantly
related to self-objectification, β = 0.02, SE = 0.06, t (388) = 0.31, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.15].
Further, in contrast to the analysis on feelings of sexual connectedness, self-objectification
significantly predicted feelings of self-consciousness about one’s physical appearance during sex,
25
β = -0.36, SE = 0.05, t (389) = -6.64, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.47, -0.25]. Greater self-objectification
was related to greater feelings of self-consciousness about one’s appearance and body during sex.
However, social media condition did not predict feelings of self-consciousness about one's
physical appearance during sex, β = -0.10, SE = 0.12, t (389) = -0.85, p = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.36,
0.14]. The covariate social media use in this analysis once again did not significantly affect
feelings of self-consciousness about one's physical appearance during sex, β = 0.10, SE = 0.06, t
(389) = 1.52, p = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23]. Relationship length/status was significantly related
to feelings of self-consciousness about one's physical appearance during sex, β = 0.30, SE =
0.07, t (389) = 4.16, p < .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]. Individuals who had been in a relationship
for a long period of time and who were seriously dating their partner, reported feeling less self-
conscious about their physical appearance during sex. Contrary to the hypothesis, there was not
an indirect effect of social media condition on feelings of self-consciousness about one's physical
appearance during sex mediated by self-objectification, for either males, B = -0.02, SE = 0.06,
95% CI [-0.14, 0.09], or females B = -0.06, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.05]. Gender did not
moderate this effect, B = 0.03, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.21]. See Table 7.
To test Hypothesis 4b, which states that higher rates of partner-objectification induced by
exposure to sexualized social media content will result in decreased relationship satisfaction,
particularly for men, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted using Model 7 of the
PROCESS macro developed by Hayes. In this analysis, social media condition (0 = non-
sexualized, 1 = sexualized) served as the independent variable, partner-objectification was the
mediator, feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness was the outcome, and gender was the
moderator.
26
As observed in all previous analyses, the effect of condition on partner-objectification was
not statistically significant, β = -0.02, SE = 0.12, t (388) = -0.16, p = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.21].
Gender was related to partner-objectification, β = 0.26, SE = 0.13, t (388) = 2.00, p = 0.04, 95%
CI [0.005, 0.52]. Males engaged in greater partner-objectification than females. Gender,
however, did not interact with social media condition, β = 0.03, SE = 0.18, t (388) = 0.17, p =
0.85, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.38]. In contrast to the mediation analysis but in alignment with the prior
moderation analysis, the covariate social media use did significantly affect rates of partner-
objectification, β = 0.10, SE = 0.04, t (388) = 2.24, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.20]. Greater social
media use was associated with greater partner objectification. Relationship length/status was not
significantly related to partner-objectification, β = -0.08, SE = 0.05, t (388) = -1.58, p = 0.11,
95% CI [-0.18, 0.01].
Further, partner-objectification once again significantly predicted relationship satisfaction
and feelings of closeness to one’s partner, β = -0.20, SE = 0.07, t (389) = -2.52, p = .01, 95% CI
[-0.35, -0.04]. Greater partner-objectification was related to less relationship satisfaction and
feeling distant from one’s romantic partner. Social media condition, however, did not predict
feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness, β = 0.08, SE = 0.14, t (389) = 0.59, p = 0.54,
95% CI [-0.19, 0.36]. The covariate social media use did not significantly affect feelings of
relationship satisfaction and closeness, β = 0.009, SE = 0.07, t (389) = 0.01, p = 0.99, 95% CI [-
0.14, 0.14]. Relationship length/status was significantly related to feelings of relationship
satisfaction and closeness to one’s partner, β = 0.93, SE = 0.08, t (389) = 11.52, p < .001, 95% CI
[0.77, 1.09]. Individuals who had been in a relationship for a long period of time and who were
seriously dating their partner, reported greater relationship satisfaction and closeness to their
romantic partner. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, there was not an indirect effect of social
27
media condition on feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness mediated by partner-
objectification, for either males B = -0.002, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.04] or females B =
0.004, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.06]. Lastly, gender did not moderate this effect, B = -0.006,
SE = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.07]. See Table 8.
Table 1. Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Self-Objectification.

df SS MS F p
Regression 1 2.34 2.34 1.66 0.19
Residual 408 572.50 1.40
Total 409 574.84
Coefficient SE LLCI ULCI t p
Constant 4.00 0.08 3.83 4.16 47.78 0.00***
Condition 0.15 0.11 -0.07 0.38 1.29 0.19

Note. In the model, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2. Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Partner-Objectification.

df SS MS F p
Regression 1 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.87
Residual 408 338.51 0.83
Total 409 338.53
Coefficient SE LLCI ULCI t p
Constant 3.31 0.06 3.19 3.44 51.52 0.00***
Condition -0.01 0.09 -0.19 0.16 -0.16 0.87

Note. In the model, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
28
Table 3. Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification
Model 1 (n=394) Effect SE LLCI ULCI t p
Predictor
Condition 0.17 0.16 -0.15 0.49 1.04 0.29
Moderator
Gender -0.24 0.16 -0.58 0.08 -1.45 0.14
Interaction
Condition→ Gender -0.10 0.23 -0.57 0.35 -0.46 0.64
Covariate
Relationship length 0.02 0.06 -0.11 0.15 0.31 0.75
SNS Use 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.32 3.22** 0.00
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. In the model, condition is coded such
that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <
.001.
Table 4. Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification

Predictor
Condition -0.02 0.12 -0.15 0.49 1.04 0.29
Moderator
Gender 0.26 0.13 0.005 0.52 2.00* 0.04
Interaction
Condition→ Gender 0.03 0.18 -0.32 0.38 0.17 0.85
Covariate
Relationship length -0.08 0.05 -0.18 0.01 -1.58 0.11
SNS Use 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.20 2.24* 0.02
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. In the model, condition is coded such
that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <
.001
29
Table 5. Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness
Path
a: C→SO 0.13 0.11 -0.09 0.36 1.18 0.23
b: SO→ SC -0.06 0.04 -0.15 0.02 -1.42 0.15
c’: C→SC 0.02 0.10 -0.19 0.23 0.19 0.84
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.21 0.06 0.09 0.33 3.57*** 0.00
RLL→ SO 0.02 0.06 -0.10 0.15 0.40 .68
SNS→SC 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.25 2.44* 0.01
RLL→SC 0.30 0.06 0.18 0.42 4.98*** 0.00
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SC -0.009 0.01 -0.03 0.007
Path
a: C→SO 0.13 0.11 -0.09 0.36 1.18 0.23
b: SO→ SFC -0.35 0.05 -0.45 -0.24 -6.40*** 0.00
c’: C→SFC -0.08 0.12 -0.33 0.16 -0.67 0.50
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.21 0.06 0.09 0.33 3.57*** 0.00
RLL→ SO 0.02 0.06 -0.10 0.15 0.40 0.68
SNS→SFC 0.08 0.06 -0.04 0.22 1.30 0.19
RLL→SFC 0.29 0.07 0.14 0.43 4.00*** 0.00
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SFC -0.04 0.04 -0.14 0.03
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. Model 1 refers to the analysis
evaluating feelings of sexual connectedness. Model 2 refers to the analysis of evaluating self-consciousness about one’s
appearance during sex. In both models, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1. “C” refers to
Condition, “SO” refers to self-objectification, “SNS” refers to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length/status, “SC” refers to
sexual connectedness, and “SFC” refers to self-consciousness about appearance. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
30
Table 6. Mediation Analysis Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness
Path
a: C→PO 0.01 0.09 -0.16 0.19 0.15 0.88
b: PO→ RSC -0.19 0.07 -0.34 -0.03 -2.43* 0.01
c’: C→RSC 0.06 0.14 -0.21 0.34 0.48 0.62
Covariate
SNS→ PO 0.07 0.04 -0.01 0.16 1.58 0.11
RLL→ PO -0.09 0.05 -0.19 0.004 -1.87 0.06
SNS→RSC 0.006 0.07 -0.14 0.15 0.08 0.93
RLL →RSC 0.93 0.08 0.77 1.09 11.60*** 0.00
Indirect effect
c: C→PO→RSC -0.002 0.01 -0.04 0.03
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. In this model, condition is coded such
that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1. “C” refers to Condition, “PO” refers to partner-objectification, “SNS” refers to SNS
Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “RSC” refers to relationship satisfaction and closeness . *p < .05, **p < .01,
***p < .001.
31
Table 7. Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness
Path
a: C→SO 0.17 0.16 -0.15 0.49 1.04 0.29
a2: G→ SO -0.24 0.16 -0.58 0.08 -1.45 0.14
b: SO→ SC -0.06 0.04 -0.15 0.02 -1.41 0.15
c’: C→SC 0.02 0.10 -0.18 0.24 0.26 0.79
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.32 3.22** 0.00
RLL→ SO 0.02 0.06 -0.11 0.15 0.31 0.75
SNS→SC 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.25 2.36* 0.01
RLL→SC 0.30 0.06 0.18 0.42 4.97*** 0.00
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.10 0.23 -0.57 0.35 -0.46 0.64
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SC -0.01 0.01 -0.05 0.01
0.01 -0.03 0.02

-0.004
Moderated
mediation
0.007 0.02 -0.02 0.05
Path
a: C→SO 0.17 0.16 -0.15 0.49 1.04 0.29
a2: G→ SO -0.24 0.16 -0.58 0.08 -1.45 0.14
b: SO→ SFC -0.36 0.05 -0.47 -0.25 -6.64*** 0.00
c’: C→SFC -0.10 0.12 -0.36 0.14 -0.85 0.39
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.32 3.22** 0.00
32
Table 7. Cont.
RLL→ SO 0.02 0.06 -0.11 0.15 0.31 0.75
SNS→SFC 0.10 0.06 -0.02 0.23 1.52 0.12
RLL→SFC 0.30 0.07 0.15 0.44 4.16*** 0.00
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.10 0.23 -0.57 0.35 -0.46 0.64
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SFC -0.06 0.06 -0.19 0.05
-0.02 0.06 -0.14 0.09
Moderated
mediation
0.03 0.08 -0.12 0.21
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. Model 1 refers to the analysis
evaluating feelings of sexual connectedness. Model 2 refers to the analysis of evaluating self-consciousness about one’s
appearance during sex. In both models, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded
such that female is 0 and male is 1. “C” refers to Condition, “SO” refers to self-objectification, “G” refers to gender, “SNS” refers
to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “SC” refers to sexual connectedness, and “SFC” refers to self-
consciousness about appearance. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
33
Table 8. Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness
Path
a: C→PO -0.02 0.12 -0.26 0.22 -0.16 0.87
a2: G→ PO 0.26 0.13 0.005 0.52 2.00* 0.04
b: PO→ RSC -0.20 0.07 -0.35 -0.04 -2.52* 0.01
c’: C→RSC 0.08 0.14 -0.19 0.36 0.59 0.54
Covariate
SNS→ PO 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.20 2.24* 0.02
RLL→ PO -0.08 0.05 -0.18 0.01 -1.58 0.11
SNS→RSC 0.0009 0.07 -0.14 0.14 0.01 0.99
RLL→RSC 0.93 0.08 0.77 1.09 11.52*** 0.00
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.10 0.23 -0.57 0.35 -0.46 0.64
Indirect effect
c: C→PO→RSC 0.004 0.02 -0.05 0.06
0.02 -0.06 0.04

-0.002
Moderated
mediation
-0.006 0.03 -0.08 0.07
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label as well as SNS use as a covariate. In this model, condition is coded such
that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1. “C” refers to Condition, “G”
refers to gender, “PO” refers to partner-objectification, “SNS” refers to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status,
“RSC” refers to relationship satisfaction and closeness . *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
34
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES
In order to demonstrate the above effects were unique to the variables of self and partner
objectification four items, two assessing self-comparison (e.g., “I am inclined to compare my
physical appearance to the appearance of others”) and two assessing partner-comparison (e.g.,
“I am inclined to compare my partner’s physical appearance to the appearance of others”) were
included in the current study on a 7-point type Likert scale (from 1, “strongly disagree” to 7,
“strongly agree”. The two sets of comparison items, one for the self and one for the partner, were
independently averaged together to create a composite of self-comparison (α = .73) and partner-
comparison items (α = .63). The comparison items were then entered as a covariate into each
model listed above (e.g., self-comparison was entered when evaluating models inclusive of self-
objectification and partner-comparison was entered when evaluating models inclusive of partner-
objectification).
When examining the results, all models of self-objectification inclusive of self-
comparison remain unchanged. However, when evaluating the models of partner-objectification
inclusive of partner-comparison, the results do not remain consistent. For one when including
partner-comparison into the moderation analysis of social media condition on partner-
objectification, gender becomes not significant, B = 0.19, t (388) = 1.73, p = 0.08, SE = 0.11,
95% CI [-0.02, 0.42]. Secondly, in the mediation analysis of social media on relationship
satisfaction and closeness as mediated by partner-objectification the path of partner-
objectification on relationship satisfaction and closeness becomes not significant, B = -0.05, t
(388) = -0.63, p = 0.52, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.11]. Then lastly, in line with the prior
35
analysis listed, when examining the moderated mediation analysis of social media condition to
relationship satisfaction and closeness, the path of gender to partner-objectification remains not
significant, B = 0.19, t (388) = 1.73, p = 0.08, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.42], and the path of
partner-objectification to relationship satisfaction closeness also remains not significant, B = -
0.06, t (388) = -0.68, p = 0.49, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.223, 0.11]. This illuminates that partner-
objectification is impacted by the inclusion of the covariate partner-comparison and as a result
partner-objectification may not fully explain the relationships observed amongst the variables of
interest in the current study. All results and analyses inclusive of self and partner comparison as
a covariate are reported in Tables 9-14. The new pathways inclusive of the comparison items and
any pathways that change as a result of the comparison items for the self or partner being entered
into the model have been highlighted below.
Table 9. Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification

Predictor
Condition 0.21 0.13 -0.03 0.47 1.67 0.09
Moderator
Gender 0.06 0.13 -0.20 0.33 0.46 0.64
Interaction
Covariate
SNS Use 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.23 2.74** 0.00
Self-Comparison 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.49 14.84*** 0.00
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label, SNS use, as well as self-comparison as a covariate. In the model, the
condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
36
Table 10. Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification
Predictor
Condition 0.003 0.11 -0.21 0.22 0.02 0.97
Moderator
Gender 0.19 0.11 -0.02 0.42 1.73 0.08
Interaction
Covariate
SNS Use 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.18 2.43* 0.01
Partner-Comparison 0.28 0.02 0.23 0.33 10.75* 0.02
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label, SNS use, as well as partner-comparison as a covariate. In the model,
condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1.*p <
.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
37
Table 11. Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness
Path
a: C→SO 0.16 0.09 -0.01 0.34 1.77 0.07
b: SO→ SC -0.01 0.05 -0.12 0.09 -0.27 0.78
c’: C→SC 0.01 0.10 -0.20 0.22 0.09 0.92
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.22 2.63** 0.00
RLL→ SO -0.03 0.05 -0.14 0.06 -0.74 0.45
SNS→SC 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.25 2.46* 0.01
RLL→SC 0.31 0.06 0.19 0.42 5.09*** 0.00
SSC→SO 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.49 15.15*** 0.00
SSC→SC -0.05 0.04 -0.14 0.02 -1.41 0.15
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SC -0.002 0.01 -0.02 0.02
Path
a: C→SO 0.13 0.11 -0.09 0.36 1.18 0.23
b: SO→ SFC -0.35 0.05 -0.45 -0.24 -6.40*** 0.00
c’: C→SFC -0.08 0.12 -0.33 0.16 -0.67 0.50
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.22 2.63** 0.00
RLL→ SO -0.03 0.05 -0.14 0.06 -0.74 0.45
SNS→SFC 0.09 0.06 -0.04 0.22 1.37 0.17
RLL→SFC 0.31 0.07 0.16 0.45 4.31*** 0.00
SSC→SO 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.49 15.15*** 0.00
SSC→SFC -0.15 0.04 -0.25 -0.06 -3.19** 0.00
38
Table 11. Cont
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SFC -0.03 0.02 -0.10 0.003
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label, SNS use, as well as self-comparison as a covariate. Model 1 refers to the
analysis evaluating feelings of sexual connectedness. Model 2 refers to the analysis of evaluating self-consciousness about one’s
appearance during sex. In both models, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1. “C” refers to
Condition, “SO” refers to self-objectification, “SNS” refers to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “SSC”
refers to self-comparison, “SC” refers to sexual connectedness, and “SFC” refers to self-consciousness about appearance. *p <
.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 12. Mediation Analysis Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness

Path
a: C→PO -0.005 0.08 -0.16 0.15 -0.07 0.94
b: PO→ RSC -0.05 0.08 -0.22 0.11 -0.63 0.52
c’: C→RSC 0.07 0.14 -0.19 0.35 0.56 0.57
Covariate
SNS→ PO 0.08 0.04 -0.001 0.16 1.93 0.05
RLL→ PO -0.03 0.04 -0.12 0.05 -0.69 0.48
SNS→RSC -0.007 0.07 -0.15 0.13 -0.09 0.92
RLL →RSC 0.91 0.08 0.75 1.07 11.36*** 0.00
PC→PO 0.28 0.02 0.23 0.33 10.76*** 0.00
PC→RSC -0.16 0.05 -0.27 -0.06 -3.21** 0.00
Indirect effect
c: C→PO→RSC 0.003 0.008 -0.01 0.01
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label, SNS use, as well as partner-comparison as a covariate. In this model,
condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1. “C” refers to Condition, “PO” refers to partner-
objectification, “SNS” refers to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “PC” refers to partner comparison,
“RSC” refers to relationship satisfaction and closeness . *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
39
Table 13. Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness
Path
a: C→SO 0.21 0.13 -0.03 0.47 1.67 0.09
a2: G→ SO 0.06 0.13 -0.20 0.33 0.46 0.64
b: SO→ SC -0.01 0.05 -0.13 0.09 -0.27 0.78
c’: C→SC 0.01 0.10 -0.19 0.23 0.17 0.85
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.23 2.74** 0.00
RLL→ SO -0.03 0.05 -0.13 0.07 -0.62 0.52
SNS→SC 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.25 2.37* 0.01
RLL→SC 0.31 0.06 0.19 0.43 5.08*** 0.00
SSC→SO 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.49 14.84*** 0.00
SSC→SC -0.05 0.04 -0.14 0.02 -1.39 0.16
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.16 0.18 -0.53 0.20 -0.87 0.38
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SC -0.003 0.01 -0.03 0.02
0.009 -0.01 0.02

-0.0009
Moderated
mediation
0.002 0.01 -0.02 0.04
Path
a: C→SO 0.21 0.13 -0.03 0.47 1.67 0.09
a2: G→ SO 0.06 0.13 -0.20 0.33 0.46 0.64
b: SO→ SFC -0.23 0.06 -0.37 -0.10 -3.47*** 0.00
c’: C→SFC -0.13 0.12 -0.38 0.11 -1.04 0.29
40
Covariate
SNS→ SO 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.23 2.74** 0.00
RLL→ SO -0.03 0.05 -0.13 0.07 -0.62 0.52
SNS→SFC 0.10 0.06 -0.02 0.23 1.54 0.12
RLL→SFC 0.31 0.07 0.17 0.45 4.44*** 0.00
SSC→SO 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.49 14.84*** 0.00
SSC→SFC -0.14 0.04 -0.24 -0.05 -3.02** 0.00
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.16 0.18 -0.53 0.20 -0.87 0.38
Indirect effect
c: C→SO→SFC -0.05 0.03 -0.14 0.008
-0.01 0.03 -0.09 0.04
Moderated
mediation
0.03 0.04 -0.05 0.14
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label,SNS use, as well as self-comparison as a covariate. Model 1 refers to the
analysis evaluating feelings of sexual connectedness. Model 2 refers to the analysis of evaluating self-consciousness about one’s
appearance during sex. In both models, condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded
such that female is 0 and male is 1. “C” refers to Condition, “SO” refers to self-objectification, “G” refers to gender, “SNS” refers
to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “SSC” refers to self-comparison, “SC” refers to sexual connectedness,
and “SFC” refers to self-consciousness about appearance. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
41
Table 14 Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness
Path
a: C→PO 0.003 0.11 -0.21 0.22 0.02 0.97
a2: G→ PO 0.19 0.11 -0.02 0.42 1.73 0.08
b: PO→ RSC -0.06 0.09 -0.23 0.11 -0.68 0.49
c’: C→RSC 0.10 0.14 -0.17 0.37 0.70 0.47
Covariate
SNS→ PO 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.18 2.43* 0.01
RLL→ PO -0.02 0.04 -0.11 0.06 -0.48 0.62
SNS→RSC -0.01 0.07 -0.16 0.13 -0.19 0.84
RLL→RSC 0.91 0.08 0.75 1.07 11.29*** 0.00
PC→PO 0.28 0.02 0.23 0.33 10.75*** 0.00
PC→RSC -0.16 0.05 -0.27 -0.06 -3.14** 0.00
Interaction effect
c: C x G -0.06 0.15 -0.37 0.25 -0.39 0.69
Indirect effect
c: C→PO→RSC -0.0002 0.01 -0.02 0.02
0.01 -0.02 0.03

0.003
Moderated
mediation
0.003 0.01 -0.03 0.04
Note. These analyses treat relationship length and label, SNS use, as well as partner-comparison as a covariate. In this model,
condition is coded such that non-sexualized is 0 and sexualized is 1 and gender is coded such that female is 0 and male is 1. “C”
refers to Condition, “G” refers to gender, “PO” refers to partner-objectification, “PC” refers to partner-comparison, “SNS” refers
to SNS Use, “RLL” refers to relationship length and status, “RSC” refers to relationship satisfaction and closeness . *p < .05, **p
< .01, ***p < .001.
42
DISCUSSION
Sexually objectifying content in media has evolved to encompass social media
applications, where the sexualization of the female body has become a popularized trend
observed by mass audiences online (Drenten et al., 2020). The present study aimed to establish a
causal relationship between exposure to sexualized social media content and increases in self and
partner objectification as it relates to the outcomes of sexual closeness and relationship
satisfaction and closeness within a population scarcely studied within these contexts: young
people in romantic relationships.
Hypotheses and Anticipated Effects
The results of the current study reveal that the relationship amongst the variables of
interest are far more dynamic than originally hypothesized, as several pathways deviate from the
hypothesized effects. For one, the relationship between self and partner objectification and
exposure to sexualized social media was not statistically significant across all models, which
indicates that exposure to sexualized social media is not the driving force of self and partner
objectification effects in the current study. However, the lack of relationship between the
manipulation (e.g., social media condition) and objectification may be the result of the short
length (e.g., roughly three minutes) and environment (e.g., remote and unmonitored online) in
which the manipulation took place. Prior research examining objectification and sexualized
media has found significant findings for self-objectification when examining consumption of
sexually objectifying media over sustained periods of time (Zurbriggen et al., 2011) and when
asking participants to actively interact with the sexualized media content (Fox et al., 2015). Due
43
to the manipulation taking place remotely, it cannot be verified how consistently or closely
participants watched or engaged with the virtual content (e.g., checking their phone,
communicating with another person in the room). Although participants were not permitted to
proceed through the online survey until the entire video manipulation had been completed, this
does not ensure active participant engagement or sustained attention with the content. In
addition, this does not account for a participant's overall consumption of media over time. Prior
research has proposed that media may impact objectification through the scripts it provides to its
audiences that a woman is a sexual object (Wright et al., 2017). As such, greater and repeated
exposure to scripts from media may have a greater impact on participant engagement in
objectification as compared to the brief clips from the current manipulation. Thus, the lack of
effects for condition may be the result of the brevity of the exposure to the media content as well
as a lack of participant engagement and attention toward the online environment and content.
Next, when examining the main effects of gender, partner-objectification but not self-
objectification was significantly related to participant gender, such that male participants
engaged in greater partner-objectification than female participants. The direction of self-
objectification as it relates to gender are in the direction researchers would anticipate, however it
was not significant. This illuminates an inconsistent relationship amongst the variables when
detecting main effects. Further, when examining the predicted interaction effects of the current
study, no significant results emerge. Partner-objectification has been scarcely studied within
these contexts, however, these results collectively deviate from prior research that has
continually established a significant relationship between rates of self-objectification in women
after consumption or exposure to sexually objectifying media (Aubrey, 2007; Fardouly et al.,
2015; Linder & Daniels, 2018). The lack of significant results may again be a consequence of the
44
manipulation being too brief as well as not engaging nor sustaining participant attention and as a
result not being powerful enough to consistently elicit effects within participants.
Additionally, the path of self-objectification to feelings of sexual connectedness was
found to be not significant which is in direct contrast to the path examining self-objectification to
feelings of self-consciousness about one’s appearance during sex. However, recall the dependent
variable of sexual closeness for the current study was meant to be comprised of both of these
items as one scale of sexual closeness, but due to poor reliability they were evaluated
independently. Therefore, the nonsignificant results of self-objectification as it relates to the item
of feelings of sexual connectedness is not entirely surprising as the variable of sexual
connectedness for the current study was exploratory, constructed by the PI, and was originally
intended to be a scale comprised of two items. Therefore, when examining the single item
assessing feelings of sexual connectedness for the current study, it may not have been sensitive
nor varied enough to assess the construct of interest, which would support similar nonsignificant
findings within this domain when evaluating feelings of sexual satisfaction as a broad one-item
measure (Zurbriggen et al., 2011).
With regards to the second dimension of sexual closeness (e.g., how self-conscious would
you feel if you were to imagine having sex with your partner right now), some of the
hypothesized effects did in fact emerge. For one, greater self-objectification is related to greater
feelings of self-consciousness about one’s appearance when imagining having sex with a
romantic partner. These results support the position that to the extent an individual engages in
appearance monitoring, it creates a barrier to the experience of intimacy during sex (Fredrickson
& Roberts, 1997) and builds on prior research demonstrating appearance anxiety negatively
impacts sexual well-being and positive relates to an inability to connect with the surrounding
45
environment (Claudat & Warren, 2014; Vencill et al., 2015). In particular, the current results
highlight the inability of those engaging in self-objectification to connect with one’s romantic
partner during sex, implicating self-objectification undermines aspects of sexual relations for
young couples, a factor that assists in the formation of enduring bonds for couples (Birnbaum &
Reis, 2019).
Moreover, the results of the current study also support the hypothesized effect of partner-
objectification negatively impacting feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness.
Collectively, these results demonstrate that when a partner is valued for their external attributes it
results in viewing one’s partner more like an object than a human-being (e.g., partner-
objectification) and as a result of this objectifying perspective, feelings of relationship
satisfaction and closeness towards one’s partner are compromised. Specifically, the current study
finds that men in particular are more likely to engage in partner-objectification and, as a result,
feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness to their female partner diminishes. This
supports an empirical line of research that when a partner places value upon a woman’s
appearance it severely undermines the ability to cultivate intimate emotional connections (Mahar
et al., 2020; Ramsey et al., 2017).
Individuating Factors of Social Media Use and Relationship Status/Length
Furthermore, when evaluating the covariates of the current study, the results speak to the
impact individuating information has upon young adults in romantic relationships. For example,
contrary to the hypotheses, for individuals who are in, or have been in, a romantic relationship
with a member of the opposite sex, exposure to sexualized content from social media does not
result in increased rates of self and partner objectification. Rather, social media use, a covariate
in the current study, predicted greater self-objectification and partner-objectification. In addition,
46
greater social media use was also related to feeling greater sexual connectedness to a romantic
partner, a finding which does not align with the results observed when examining social media
use to feeling self-conscious about one’s appearance. This indicates that the two items which
were originally intended to comprise one measure of sexual closeness may be tapping into
different constructs, and may also partially explain why the two items share low reliability with
one another. Additionally, it is possible the sexual connectedness item asks participants too
directly about their experiences of connected sex with their partner, and as a result, may lead to
bias when responding as young individuals may not be open to expressing having non-connected
(e.g., bad) sex with their partner nor may they have enough sexual experience to identify what
sexual connectedness feels like for them. As a whole, the pattern of results continues to suggest
that exposure to brief sexualized video clips from social media may not be powerful enough to
impact individuals; rather, it is perhaps extended consumption and use of social media which
may be the predominant factor impacting self and partner objectification and related outcomes.
Further, couples who indicate that they have been together for a long period of time and
define their relationship in formal terms (e.g., seriously dating, married) are less likely to be
impacted by detrimental outcomes. Young adults who were high in relationship length/status
were less self-conscious about their appearance when imagining sex with a partner, were higher
in terms of feeling relationship satisfaction and closeness to one’s partner, and engaged in less
partner-objectification. Indicating that relationships that are not newly formed are more robust to
detrimental outcomes.
Self and Partner Objectification and Self and Partner Comparison
To support the position that the effects of self and partner objectification are unique to the
current study, the variables of self and partner comparison were entered into the model as a
47
covariate to control for the effects of self and partner comparison, respectively. Results largely
remain unchanged when entering the variables of self and partner comparison into the models as
a covariate. For instance, when entering self-comparison into the models with self-
objectification, the effects of self-objectification upon the variables of interest remain
unchanged. However, the effects of partner-objectification are somewhat impacted by partner-
comparison. For instance, upon entering partner-comparison into the model the effects of
partner-objectification on relationship satisfaction and closeness becomes nonsignificant. In
addition, the effect of gender on partner-objectification also becomes nonsignificant. These
results indicate that some of the relationships observed when entering partner-objectification into
a model are also capable of being explained by partner-comparison. To some degree, this is
unsurprising as the measure of partner-objectification for the current study demonstrated low
reliability. Therefore, the current measure is not wholly reliable in measuring the construct of
interest and therefore may not entirely capture the phenomena and therefore reduce its
robustness. In addition, the variables of partner-objectification and partner comparison are
significantly related, indicating they share variance, which may compromise the reliability of
relationships when both are entered in a model together.
Collectively, the current study remains one of the few aimed at investigating a causal
relationship amongst factors and the detrimental impact objectification has on romantic
relationships and feelings of closeness and satisfaction amongst young couples. Although the
results of the current study do not entirely support the proposed hypotheses, the results of the
current study illuminate the valuable context of romantic relationships afford to understand
objectification. In addition, it may be seen that there is growing need for additional research in
this area to further understand how couples may be negatively impacted by the perspective that is
48
taken when objectification occurs and how precisely social media may contribute to eliciting this
perspective in individuals. Specifically, this research suggests that exposure to brief sexualized
clips from social media may not impact rates of self and partner objectification. Rather, the
current study implicates the variable of social media use as a larger factor of concern, however
this implication is dependent upon certifying that participants fully watched and engaged with
the video manipulation, which is something that cannot be fully concluded. Ultimately,
understanding how these factors develop and relate to individuals in romantic relationships is
crucial as objectifying oneself and one’s partner is associated with risks greater than the ones
assessed in the current study. For instance, self and partner objectification have been associated
with severely detrimental outcomes such as low self-esteem, depression, sexual assault,
harassment, and coercion (Berberick, 2010; Saez et al., 2019). Thus, the current study sets the
stage for beginning to understand how social media informs couples to view both their own and
their partner’s body and how objectification may impede the positive development of romantic
relationships for young couples.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study is not without its limitations. First, the sample largely consisted of
college-aged students as participants who were recruited through a university research portal,
limiting the generalizability of the results. Second, the current research examined the perspective
of one relationship partner in a dyad, as recruitment was not centered on examining both partners
from a relationship simultaneously. Again, this limits the generalizability of the results as it does
not fully encompass the perspective of both relationship partners as it relates to the current
factors and their relationship. Third, the current research examined individuals who were in or
had been in a romantic relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, the current
49
results largely speak to heterosexual relationships which limits the generalization of the current
findings as it relates to considering non-heterosexual relationships and populations. In addition, it
can be observed that the variables of partner-objectification and the proposed 2-item measure of
sexual closeness showed low reliability as compared to a well-validated measure. However,
well-developed measures examining partner-objectification and sexual closeness currently
remain undeveloped. Thus, the current study may be considered a substantial step forward in
acknowledging and developing measures to assess the constructs of partner-objectification and
sexual closeness. Further, the researchers cannot verify that participants watched the video
manipulation with sustained attention, although precautionary measures were taken (e.g., the
video must be completed before moving forward in the survey and the use of an attention check
question pertaining to the social media platform used). This ultimately limits the current study’s
ability to potentially detect effects as it relates to one of the key variables of interest, exposure to
sexualized social media clips.
Future research may aim first aim to parse out the unique relationship between social
media use, exposure to sexualized social media, and objectification. Media content has
previously been theorized to induce feelings of self and partner objectification through the scripts
it provides to users. For example, it provides the script that a woman is an object to be used for
sexual pleasure and valued for her appearance, due to the way an icon in media is repeatedly
portrayed (Wright et al., 2017). Therefore, perhaps greater social media use in the current study
is more strongly related to self and partner objectification due to more frequent and repeated
exposure to the script that a woman is a sexualized object. Researchers should thus strive to
understand how various aspects of media such as exposure, engagement, length of time, and
content impact rates of self and partner objectification. It may be more critical that the findings
50
of previous research be directly replicated, such as the findings of Zurbriggen et al. (2011) which
points to sustained consumption of sexualized media content and Fox et al. (2015) which points
to active engagement with sexualized media content, to solidify the understanding of how the
various aspects of media impact objectification before progressing into research examining
nuanced extensions of media.
Conclusion
The current study ultimately contributes to the literature examining the impact of
sexualized media content on individuals and further illuminates the viable context media and
romantic relationships afford for evaluating objectification. The findings of this study extend
beyond previous research in order to encompass how facets of social media impact romantic
couples, as well as how objectification may impact feelings of sexual closeness and relationship
satisfaction and closeness for young adults in romantic relationships. Collectively, the current
study emphasizes the need to further examine facets of media and the domain of social media in
the current context and to continually develop and establish empirical models that are more
inclusive of examining romantic relationships, objectification, and gender.
51
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental
generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363-377.
Aubrey, J. S. (2007). The impact of sexually objectifying media exposure on negative body
emotions and sexual self-perceptions: Investigating the mediating role of body self-
consciousness. Mass Communications and Society, 10, 1-23.
Aubrey, J. S., & Gerding, A. (2015). The cognitive tax of self-objectification. Journal of Media
Psychology, 27(1), 22-32.
Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center.
Berberick, S. N. (2010). The objectification of women in mass media: Female self-image in
misogynist culture. The New York Sociologist, 5(2), 1-15.
Butkowski, C. P., Dixon, T. L., & Weeks, K. (2019). Body surveillance on Instagram: examining
the role of selfie feedback investment in young adult women’s body image concerns. Sex
Roles, 81(5), 385-397.
Claudat, K., & Warren, C. S. (2014). Self-objectification, body self-consciousness during sexual
activities, and sexual satisfaction in college women. Body Image, 11(4), 509-515.
Dakanalis, A., Riva, G., Timko, A. C., Volpato, C., Clerici, M., & Zanetti, A. M. (2013).The
association between body image issues and women's sexual functioning through the lens
of the objectification theory. European Psychiatry, 28(S1), 1-15.
52
Drenten, J., Gurrieri, L., & Tyler, M. (2020). Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram
influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work & Organization,
27(1), 41-66.
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). The mediating role of
appearance comparisons in the relationship between media usage and self-objectification
in young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 447-457.
Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2018). Instagram use and young women’s
body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing mediational pathways. New Media
& Society, 20(4), 1380-1395.
Feltman, C. E., & Szymanski, D. M. (2018). Instagram use and self-objectification: The roles of
internalization, comparison, appearance commentary, and feminism. Sex Roles, 78(5),
311-324.
Fox, J., Ralston, R. A., Cooper, C. K., & Jones, K. A. (2015). Sexualized avatars lead to
women’s self-objectification and acceptance of rape myths. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 39(3), 349-362.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding
women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173–206.
Galdi, S., Maass, A., & Cadinu, M. (2014). Objectifying media: Their effect on gender role
norms and sexual harassment of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 398-
413.
Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-
objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9), 649-657.
53
Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of
men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15(3), 256-278.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that
objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598-601.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of
women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 225-229.
Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From women to objects:
Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 572-581.
Karsay, K., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 9-28.
Khattab, M. (2019). Synching and performing: body (re)-presentation in the short video app
TikTok. WiderScreen, 21(1-2), 1-16.
Linder, J. R., & Daniels, E. A. (2018). Sexy vs. sporty: The effects of viewing media images of
athletes on self-objectification in college students. Sex Roles, 78(1-2), 27-39.
Linz, D. G., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to violent and
sexually degrading depictions of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55(5), 758-766.
54
Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape
victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4),
455-461.
Lustig, K. B. (2012). Objectification theory and sexual health among women. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Mahar, E. A., Webster, G. D., & Markey, P. M. (2020). Partner–objectification in romantic
relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 27(1), 4-26.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development
and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181-215.
Moreno, M. A., Swanson, M. J., Royer, H., & Roberts, L. J. (2011). Sexpectations: Male college
students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social networking web
sites. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 24(2), 85-89.
Overstreet, N. M., Quinn, D. M., & Marsh, K. L. (2015). Objectification in virtual romantic
contexts: Perceived discrepancies between self and partner ideals differentially affect
body consciousness in women and men. Sex Roles, 73(9), 442-452.
Ramsey, L. R., & Horan, A. L. (2018). Picture this: Women's self-sexualization in photos on
social media. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 85-90.
Ramsey, L. R., & Hoyt, T. (2015). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual
pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
39(2), 151-170.
Ramsey, L. R., Marotta, J. A., & Hoyt, T. (2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied:
Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived
partner-objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 258-278.
55
Robbins, A. R., & Reissing, E. D. (2018). Appearance dissatisfaction, body appreciation, and
sexual health in women across adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(3), 703-714.
Rollero, C. (2013). Men and women facing objectification: The effects of media models on well-
being, self-esteem and ambivalent sexism. Revista de Psicología Social, 28(3), 373-382.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357-382.
Sáez, G., Riemer, A. R., Brock, R. L., & Gervais, S. J. (2019). Objectification in heterosexual
romantic relationships: Examining relationship satisfaction of female objectification
recipients and male objectifying perpetrators. Sex Roles, 81(5), 370-384.
Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2019). Less than human? Media use,
objectification of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of
Violence, 9(5), 536-548.
Shinne, E. D. (2017). The relationship between sexual objectification and self-objectification,
adult romantic attachment, and relationship satisfaction. Proquest Dissertations
Publishing.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-126.
Trekels, J., Ward, L. M., & Eggermont, S. (2018). I “like” the way you look: How appearance-
focused and overall Facebook use contribute to adolescents' self-sexualization.
Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 198-208.
56
Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2012). Understanding sexual objectification: A
comprehensive approach toward media exposure and girls' internalization of beauty
ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 869-
887.
Vencill, J. A., Tebbe, E. A., & Garos, S. (2015). It’s not the size of the boat or the motion of the
ocean: The role of self-objectification, appearance anxiety, and depression in female
sexual functioning. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 471–483.
Ward, L. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. The
Journal of Sex Research, 53(4-5), 560-577.
Ward, L. M., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2006). Breasts are for men: Media, masculinity
ideologies, and men’s beliefs about women’s bodies. Sex Roles, 55(10), 703-714.
Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., Manago, A., & Reed, L. (2016). Contributions of diverse media to
self-sexualization among undergraduate women and men. Sex Roles, 74(1), 12-23.
Wright, P. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Activating the centerfold syndrome: Recency of
exposure, sexual explicitness, past exposure to objectifying media. Communication
Research, 42(6), 864–897.
Wright, P. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2016). Men’s objectifying media consumption, objectification
of women, and attitudes supportive of violence against women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 45(4), 955-964.
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., Kraus, A., & Klann, E. (2017). Pornography consumption and
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 43(3), 315–343.
57
Zurbriggen, E. L., Ramsey, L. R., & Jaworski, B. K. (2011). Self-and partner-objectification in
romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship
satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7-8), 449-46.
58
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY SCRIPT
“We are interested in gathering some feedback about the type of media adults currently enjoy
watching both independently and with their romantic partners. We are going to present you a
series of different media clips from the social media site TikTok and would like you to watch the
brief videos for the next few minutes. Further, we are part of a larger study overall that is
interested in learning about adult relationship experiences, therefore general relationship
questions will also be included.”
59
APPENDIX B: MEASURES
Sexual Closeness
For the following questions we'd like you to consider what it means to be SEXUALLY
CONNECTED to your partner. Being sexually connected to one’s romantic partner can be
defined as times when you feel wholly intertwined and fully lost in the being of your partner, as
though you do not know where they end and you begin. It is an intimate experience where you
can share and enjoy your body in its most raw form with another. You may feel free with little on
your mind in the current moment beyond the sensation of touch you are receiving from your
romantic partner.
Item 1: Sexual Connectedness
How much do you think you would experience sexual connectedness, as previously defined
above, if you were to have sex with your romantic partner right now?
1. I would definitely feel sexually connected to my partner if we had sex right now
2. I would likely feel sexually connected to my partner if we had sex right now
3. I might feel sexually connected to my partner if we had sex right now
4. I don’t think I would feel sexually connected to my partner if we had sex right now
5. I definitely would not feel sexually connected to my partner if we had sex right now.
*reverse scored such that 5 = 1; 1 = 5. High scores are indicative of high sexual
connectedness.
Item 2: Self-consciousness about appearance
60
People feel self-conscious about their body and how they look to their partner during sex,
especially as their romantic partner repeatedly looks at different parts of their body during sex.
How self-conscious would be if you were to have sex with your partner right now?
1. I would likely feel self-conscious if I had sex with my romantic partner right now
2. I might feel self-conscious if I had sex with my romantic partner right now
3. I don’t think I would feel self-conscious if I had sex with my romantic partner right
now
4. I definitely would not feel self-conscious if I had sex with my romantic partner right
now
Relationship Length
1. How long have you been with your current romantic partner?
a. Less than one month
b. Six months or less
c. Less than one year
d. One year
e. Five years
f. Ten years
g. Greater than ten years
Relationship Label
2. How would you define your current relationship with your romantic partner?
a. Friends with benefits

b. Newly dating, taking the relationship casually and seeing where it goes
c. Seriously dating, taking the relationship with the intent of making long-term
commitments
d. Engaged
e. Married
61
Demographics
1. Please select the option that best describes your gender.

a. Man
b. Woman
c. Gender neutral
2. What is your age?
3. How would you describe your race/ethnicity? Please select the one best descriptor, or use
the “Biracial/Multiracial” option to specify further.
a. African. African American/Black

b. American Indian/Native American
c. Arab American/Middle Eastern
d. Asian/Asian American
e. Hispanic/Latina/o American
f. Pacific Islander
g. White/European American/ Caucasian
h. Biracial/Multiracial (please specify)
i. Other (please specify)
4. What is your academic year?
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
62
SNS use
1. Which of the following social media apps do you have an account on?
a. Instagram
b. Snapchat
c. TikTok
d. Facebook
e. Twitter
f. Reddit
g. Other
2. How frequently do you use social media?
a. Never
b. Yearly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Multiple times a week
f. Daily
g. Multiple times a day
3. On average, each time you visit a social media application how long do you spend on it?
a. 15 minutes or less
b. 15-30 minutes
c. 0.5-1 hour
d. 1 to 2 hours
e. 2 to 3 hours
63
f. 3 to 4 hours
g. More than 4 hours
4. How frequently do you send private or direct messages (DM) to other users on social
media?
a. Never
b. Yearly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
f. Daily
5. How frequently do you update your status/story on social media?
a. Never
b. Yearly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
f. Daily
6. How frequently do you post on social media?
a. Never
b. Yearly
c. Monthly
64
d. Weekly
f. Daily
7. Is the content you viewed today typical of what you view on social media?
a. Yes
b. Somewhat
c. No
Attention check
1. What social media site did the videos you watched today come from?
a. Instagram
b. TikTok
c. Snapchat
d. YouTube
65

An Object For Sexual Pleasure - Does Viewing Sexualized Media Pred

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Object For Sexual Pleasure - Does Viewing Sexualized Media Pred

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of South Florida

Digital Commons @ University of

An Object for Sexual Pleasure: Does Viewing Sexualized Media

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the Social Psychology Commons

Scholar Commons Citation

Partner Objectification Impacting Feelings of Sexual and Romantic Closeness?

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

Major Professor: Jamie Goldenberg, Ph.D.

Keywords: Relationships, Couples, Intimacy, Social media

Copyright © 2022, Kaitlyn Ligman

Supplemental Analyses ..................................................................................................................35

Appendix B: Measures ...................................................................................................................60

Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Self-Objectification. ......................................28

Table 2: Linear Regression Analysis Assessing Partner-Objectification. .................................28

Table 3: Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification ................................................29

Table 4: Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification ...........................................29

Table 5: Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ......................................................30

Table 6: Mediation Analysis Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Closeness ..................31

Table 7: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ...................................32

Table 8: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and

Table 9: Moderation Analysis Examining Self-Objectification ................................................36

Table 10: Moderation Analysis Examining Partner-Objectification ...........................................37

Table 11: Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ......................................................38

Table 13: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Sexual Closeness ...................................40

Table 14: Moderated Mediation Analyses Examining Relationship Satisfaction and

and relationship satisfaction and closeness. As hypothesized, greater self-objectification was

objectification was related to decreases in feelings of relationship satisfaction and closeness to

role exposure to media may play in this dynamic.

serving as a proponent of objectification by publicly propagating the message to audiences that a

these apps, which is sexualized young women.

characterized by heterosexual performances of feminine desirability in which females engage in

sexy poses to seduce the audience (Khattab, 2019).

exposure to sexually objectifying media leads women to develop an objectified self-concept

Dakanalis & Riva, 2013; Ward et al., 2016).

Implications for Media and Objectification in Relationships

Self-Objectification and Sexual Intimacy.

their internal experiences. Frequent appearance monitoring results in increases in appearance

2015). Further, females in romantic relationships report greater instances of self-objectification

establish feelings of sexual connectedness.

of social media by individuals in romantic relationships. As discussed previously, social media’s

closeness in one’s romantic relationship for females.

media on objectification as it relates to romantic couples and relationship outcomes. However,

understand objectification of the female body as it relates to the consumption of sexually

objectifying media and relationship and sexual satisfaction. To examine self-objectification in

viewing objectifying magazines. In addition, a statistically reliable negative correlation between

Partner-Objectification and Relationship Satisfaction.

couples to develop an intimate emotional closeness that comprises relationship satisfaction.

encompasses physical and emotional feelings of connectedness, closeness, and bondedness

intimate emotional connections; as partner-objectification increases, feelings of relational

objectification. However, it can be observed that consistent exposure to objectifying mass-media

in a similar manner. Romantic relationships classified by instances of partner-objectification

Zurbriggen et al. (2011) theorized that objectification would impede relationship

to lower relationship satisfaction through partner-objectification, for men only.

The Current Study

current implications. Further, individuating information such as levels of relationship length

(Mahar et al., 2020).

following hypotheses have been devised to independently evaluate individuals in romantic

social media content.

social media content.

objectification to a greater extent than males.

objectification to a greater extent than females.

will reduce feelings of sexual closeness through increases in self-objectification.