See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225359859

Sexual Self-Esteem in American and British College Women: Relations with

Self-Objectification and Eating Problems

Article in Sex Roles · February 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-008-9517-0

CITATIONS READS

74 1,410

2 authors:

Rachel M Calogero Joel Kevin Thompson

Western University University of South Florida
103 PUBLICATIONS 6,132 CITATIONS 311 PUBLICATIONS 29,502 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel M Calogero on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
DOI 10.1007/s11199-008-9517-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sexual Self-Esteem in American and British College Women:
Relations with Self-Objectification and Eating Problems
Rachel M. Calogero & J. Kevin Thompson
Published online: 3 August 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract The present study extended Objectification
Theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, Psychol Women Q
21:173–206, 1997) to test the role of sexual self-esteem in
models of disordered eating. Measures of self-objectification,
sexual well-being, and disordered eating were completed by
American (N=104) and British (N=111) college women. In
Study 1, higher self-objectification was associated with
lower sexual self-esteem, which, in turn, mediated the
relationship between self-objectification and disordered
eating in American women. In Study 2, path analyses
indicated that self-objectification led to sexual self-esteem
and body shame, which led to disordered eating in British
women. This pattern of results was replicated, albeit
weaker, when sexual self-competence replaced sexual self-
esteem in the model. Discussion considers the significance
of self-objectification and sexual self-esteem for women’s
well-being.
Keywords Self-objectification . Sexual self-esteem .
Sexual self-competence . Disordered eating
Parts of this manuscript were presented at the International Conference
of Eating Disorders in Barcelona, Spain, June 2006.
R. M. Calogero (*)
Department of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent,
CT2 7NP Canterbury, UK
e-mail: R.M.Calogero@kent.ac.uk
J. K. Thompson
Department of Psychology, PCD 4118, University of South Florida,
Tampa, FL 33620-8200, USA
Introduction
According to Objectification Theory (Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997), women’s exposure to chronic sexual
objectification can lead to chronic self-objectification,
which, in turn, has been associated with a variety of
negative consequences for women’s physical and mental
well-being. The present research tests an understudied
proposition of Objectification Theory which states that
self-objectification may be associated with a variety of
negative consequences for women’s sexual well-being. The
central purpose of the present research was to provide
preliminary, cross-sectional investigations of the relation-
ship between self-objectification and women’s sexual well-
being, and, in turn, to examine if this relationship predicts
disordered eating among women from two different highly
developed Westernized societies. This research aims to
build on the extant literature by presenting two studies that
conducted a new test of Objectification Theory as it relates
to women’s sexual well-being and disordered eating.
Being sexually objectified is a pervasive aspect of girls’
and women’s social lives in Westernized societies (Bartky
1990; Calogero et al. 2007; Huebner and Fredrickson 1999;
Swim et al. 2001; Thompson et al. 1999). Indeed, despite
the heterogeneity among women with regard to societal
background, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and age, “having a
reproductively mature body may create a shared social
experience, a vulnerability to sexual objectification, which
in turn may create a shared set of psychological experi-
ences” (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997, p. 3). Experiences
of sexual objectification occur at a very young age, with a
disturbing 75% of American elementary school girls
reporting experiences of sexual harassment (Murnen and
Smolak 2000). Particularly insidious is the exposure to
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
sexualized media environments that objectify women,
which has been linked to the development of adolescent
girls’ and boys’ notions of women as sex objects (American
Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization
of Girls 2007; Grogan and Wainwright 1996; Harper and
Tiggemann 2008; Peter and Valkenberg 2007; Ward and
Friedman 2006). Moreover, these experiences of objectifi-
cation endure in the lives of women, with research from a
nationally representative cohort of middle-aged women in
Britain demonstrating that body-related comments received
in childhood continue to be associated with low body
esteem across the life span (McLaren et al. 2004).
Over a decade ago, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997)
offered Objectification Theory as a framework for system-
atically testing how exposure to this chronic sexual
objectification negatively and disproportionately affects
multiple dimensions of women’s lives. According to
Objectification Theory, encounters with sexual objectifica-
tion socialize girls and women to internalize an objectifying
gaze such that they come to view their bodies from an
objectifying observers’ or third-person perspective instead of
a first-person perspective, referred to as self-objectification.
Importantly, this self-perspective does not merely reflect
social comparison with others, or the fact that women
simply do not like the size or shape of their bodies, but
actually reflects a view of the body as belonging “less to
them and more to others” (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997,
p. 193) because women learn that it is normative for their
bodies to be looked at, commented on, evaluated, and
sexually harassed by others. This particular self-perspective
is considered to be the primary psychological consequence
for girls and women living in a culture that sexually
objectifies women’s bodies. Women’s habitual monitoring
of the body’s external appearance (i.e., body surveillance)
is the primary manifestation of self-objectification and it is
the proposed mechanism by which self-objectification
exerts its negative effects on women’s mental and physical
health (e.g., Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; Slater and
Tiggemann 2002).
Trait and state levels of self-objectification have been
associated with a variety of negative emotional and
cognitive consequences (i.e., body shame, appearance
anxiety, diminished internal bodily awareness, and de-
creased opportunities for attaining peak motivational states)
and increased mental health risks (i.e., depression, sexual
dysfunction, and disordered eating). In particular, the
pervasive sexual objectification of women, and resultant
self-objectification, is one explanation for the disproportion-
ate rate of eating disorders among women from Westernized
societies (Calogero et al. 2005; Fredrickson and Roberts
1997; McKinley and Hyde 1996; Striegel-Moore and
Smolak 2001; Thompson et al. 1999). Considerable empir-
ical research has accumulated from North American and
161
Australian samples of women to demonstrate that (a) self-
objectification directly contributes to particular subjective
experiences among women, including body shame, appear-
ance anxiety, and lower interoceptive awareness (e.g.,
Calogero 2004; Noll and Fredrickson 1998; Tiggemann
and Slater 2001; Tylka and Hill 2004), and (b) self-
objectification directly and indirectly (via these subjective
experiences) contributes to women’s disordered eating (e.g.,
Calogero et al. 2005; Fredrickson et al. 1998; Slater and
Tiggemann 2002; Tiggemann and Slater 2001), thereby
supporting several tenets of Objectification Theory.
While this evidence highlights self-objectification and
several of its related consequences as the critical psycho-
logical links between experiences of sexual objectification
and eating disturbances (e.g., Fredrickson et al. 1998;
Kozee et al. 2007; Moradi et al. 2005; Tiggemann and
Slater 2001; Tylka and Hill 2004), there remains significant
variance unaccounted for in these models of disordered
eating. It is clear that other psychological mechanisms must
be operating on the relationship between self-objectification
and disordered eating. Given that Objectification Theory
predicts that self-objectification triggers both poor sexual
functioning and disordered eating (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997), the present research offers a preliminary exploration
of the sexual consequences of self-objectification as an
additional psychological mechanism related to women’s
disordered eating.
North American and British researchers have documented
that women’s sexuality and sexual lives are intertwined with
their identities as women, suggesting that sociocultural
factors contribute to the development of women’s sexual
self-image (Althof et al. 2005; Andersen and Cyranowski
1994; Lavie and Willig 2005; Oliver and Hyde 1993; Tiefer
2001). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) proposed that self-
objectification may trigger a variety of negative consequen-
ces for women’s sexual well-being, including negative
feelings about the sexual aspects of the self, sexual
dissatisfaction, and/or sexual dysfunction. Indeed, because
the sexual self almost invariably involves the body, self-
objectification may be particularly relevant to women’s
sexual well-being. This proposal raises the possibility that
the degree to which women like themselves as sexual
beings, value their own sexuality, and accept their sexuality
as part of their self-concept is another direct consequence of
self-objectification. Recent empirical evidence from a
sample of Australian women suggests that objectification
theory is a valid framework for the study of women’s sexual
functioning (Steer and Tiggemann 2008). Thus, it is possible
that the more that women view themselves as sexual objects
for men’s pleasure, the more likely they are to hold negative
views of their sexual selves and sexual worth.
Moreover, considerable empirical evidence supports a
link between sexuality and eating disorder symptomatology
162
among women in Western cultures (e.g., Evans and
Wertheim 1998; Rodriguez et al. 2007; Wiederman 1996;
Wiederman et al. 1996). In particular, there is evidence
indicating that women who report higher body dissatisfac-
tion and other eating disorder symptoms also report less
comfort with their sexual selves. For example, several
researchers have demonstrated that greater dissatisfaction
with sexual performance, sexual encounters, and the body’s
sexual parts is associated with more eating disorder
symptomatology in samples of American women (Ackard
et al. 2000; Cash 2002; Raciti and Hendrick 1992;
Wiederman et al. 1996). Moreover, a positive relationship
has been demonstrated between body satisfaction and the
frequency of masturbation, at least among European
American women, suggesting that more positive feelings
about the body may be linked with more comfort with their
sexual selves (Ellison 2000; Shulman and Horne 2003).
More focused research examining both general and
sexual components of self-esteem raises the possibility that
sexual self-esteem is uniquely associated with body image
and eating problems. The concept of sexual self-esteem,
elaborated largely from models of global self-esteem
(Gaynor and Underwood 1995; Rosenthal et al. 1991;
Zeanah and Schwarz 1996), has been described as an
individual’s sense of self as a sexual being, and includes the
value that individuals’ place on their sexual identity and
sexual acceptability (Hendrick and Hendrick 1983; Mayers
et al. 2003; Snell and Papini 1989; Zeanah and Schwarz
1996). Beyond the fact that low general self-esteem is an
established risk factor for eating disorders (Fairburn et al.
1999), researchers have shown that low general self-esteem
mediates the relationship between sexually-objectifying
experiences and eating disorder symptoms (Harned and
Fitzgerald 2002; Mayers et al. 2003; Pitts and Waller 1993).
More specifically, Raciti and Hendrick (1992) demonstrated
a significant negative relationship between sexual self-
esteem and disordered eating among American female
undergraduates, such that women with lower sexual self-
esteem also reported more disordered eating attitudes and
behaviors. More than a decade later, Weaver and Byers
(2006) demonstrated similar patterns in a large sample of
Canadian college women, such that high body dissatisfac-
tion and high situational body image dysphoria was
associated with lower sexual self-esteem across a variety
of social and non-social situations. In sum, this research
raises the possibility that sexual self-esteem is uniquely
related to eating problems.
Like many psychological constructs, the construct of
sexual self-esteem has been measured in a variety of ways.
Several adapted versions of sexual self-esteem scales have
been utilized in the literature, with many of them explicitly
elaborated from models and measures of global self-esteem
(Fortenberry et al. 2005; Gaynor and Underwood 1995;
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Katz and Farrow 2000; O’Sullivan et al. 2006; Rosenthal et
al. 1991; Snell and Papini 1989; Wiederman and Allgeier
1993; Zeanah and Schwarz 1996). For example, O’Sullivan
et al. (2006) created and utilized a modified version of
Rosenthal et al.’s measure of sexual self-esteem, which was
previously adapted from Offer (1969) and Marsh’s (1986)
research on global self-esteem. O’Sullivan et al. indicated
that they used seven of the original 18 items from
Rosenthal et al.’s measure to assess girls’ esteem regarding
their ability to attract a sexual partner. However, some of
the sample items provided for this measure could be
considered as representing a more general conception of
sexual self-esteem (“I feel comfortable with my sexuality”)
or even a different construct such as body satisfaction (“I
am proud of my body”) instead of esteem related to the
ability to attract a sexual partner. The point here is not to
critique this particular measure per se, but rather to
highlight a broader issue which is that the distinctions
between different components of sexual self-esteem (and
sometimes between different constructs) are often blurred
across studies. Despite the obvious agreement that sexual
self-esteem is an important aspect of women’s well-being,
the research on sexual self-esteem is difficult to consolidate
because of the variability and inconsistency in the mea-
surement of the concept.
The present research cannot circumvent these more
systemic problems entirely. However, one clear intention
of the present research was to assess self-evaluations about
one’s sexuality generally without an emphasis on either
sexual competence or in relation to a sexual partner. For
example, many of the items in Snell and Papini’s (1989)
sexual self-esteem subscale refer to one’s self-evaluation as
a sexual partner. According to Wiederman and Allgeier
(1993), “It may be argued that the definition of sexual
esteem given by Snell and Papini (1989) is too narrow to
allow for wide applicability (e.g., individuals who have not
had a sexual partner)” (p. 99). Indeed, while these items
may represent some aspects of the sexual self-concept,
these items also assume some degree of interpersonal
sexual experience to provide a basis for people’s evalua-
tions of themselves on these dimensions. Moreover, a
woman’s sexual self-esteem is arguably more complex and
broader than her perception of her ability to sexually attract
a partner. Thus, an important focus of the present effort was
to measure sexual self-esteem as general feelings about the
sexual self independent of actual interpersonal sexual
experiences or sexual performance. Yet, it could be argued
that feeling competent as a sexual partner may also be
important in the relationship between self-objectification
and disordered eating. That is, self-objectification may also
be linked to individuals’ beliefs about one’s competency
and skill as a sexual partner, which in turn, may trigger
disordered eating. Since this is a new area of inquiry, it
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
would be important also to test these relations using a more
specific and well-validated measure of sexual competence
in addition to the measure of sexual self-esteem.
In the present research, two studies were conducted to
test the relations between women’s self-objectification and
sexual well-being as they relate to disordered eating. The
goal of the first study was to extend existing research on
Objectification Theory by testing the relationship between
self-objectification and sexual self-esteem, and, in turn, the
potential mediating role of sexual self-esteem in the
relationship between self-objectification and disordered
eating in a sample of American college women. That is,
similar to the patterns observed among self-objectification,
body shame, and disordered eating in prior research with
American and Australian women (e.g., Noll and Fredrickson
1998; Tiggemann and Slater 2001), it was expected that
sexual self-esteem would mediate the relationship between
self-objectification and disordered eating, thereby providing
an indirect link between these phenomena. That is, some
individuals may come to feel that the sexual aspects of the
self are undesirable and/or worthless in response to self-
objectification (i.e., lower sexual self-esteem), and thus
come to feel that they want to change their size and shape
more directly to improve their sexual self-image and/or be
viewed as more sexually desirable. This idea that feelings of
low sexual self-esteem and high sexual dissatisfaction may
evoke control behaviors in the form of eating disorder
symptoms to alleviate the negative feelings is not new (e.g.,
Polivy and Herman 2002; Troop 1998); however, to date,
the role of sexual self-esteem in the context of Objectifica-
tion Theory has not been examined.
The goal of the second study was to extend Objectifi-
cation Theory by testing a causal path model of self-
objectification, sexual self-esteem, and disordered eating (a)
in a sample of women from a different Westernized society
(Britain), (b) when the robust relations between self-
objectification and body shame with disordered eating have
been accounted for in the model (e.g., Noll and Fredrickson
1998; Tiggemann and Kuring 2004; Tiggemann and Lynch
2001; Tiggemann and Slater 2001; Tylka and Hill 2004),
and (c) when a different measure of women’s sexual well-
being is included in the model instead of sexual self-
esteem, which we refer to as sexual self-competence (Snell
and Papini 1989; Wiederman and Allgeier 1993).
It is important to highlight that while numerous studies
have supported many of the propositions of Objectification
Theory in samples of American and Australian women,
there is a dearth of research available examining specific
propositions of Objectification Theory in British women,
despite the high levels of body dissatisfaction and disor-
dered eating in response to sociocultural pressures that have
been documented consistently in samples of British women
(e.g., Charles and Kerr 1986; Dittmar 2005; Dittmar and
163
Howard 2004; Grogan 2006; Ussher 1989), even in girls as
young as 8 years old (Grogan and Wainwright 1996). One
recent study has provided some preliminary evidence
suggesting that British women do report comparable levels
of self-objectification to American and Australian women
and comparable relations between self-objectification and
disordered eating with body shame as a significant mediator
of these relations (Calogero, manuscript submitted for
publication). Moreover, the British Medical Association
has identified women’s exposure to objectified and ultra
thin images of women in the British media as playing a
significant role in the promotion of eating disorders (British
Medical Association 2000). Despite these apparent similar-
ities in exposure to sociocultural appearance pressures
among women representing different highly developed
Westernized societies (Calogero et al. 2007; Orbach 1993;
Thompson et al. 1999), the research findings from
American and/or Australian samples of women, which
have dominated the objectification literature, cannot neces-
sarily be generalized to women in other Westernized
societies for which these objectification processes may
apply. Such tests of the proposed pathways in women
representing two different Westernized societies are impor-
tant for increasing our theoretical understanding of objec-
tification processes and consequences. Therefore, the tests
of the proposed relations in the second study were
conducted with a sample of British college women.
Study 1
The first study attempted to combine research in women’s
self-objectification, sexual well-being, and disordered eat-
ing to provide a novel test of the relationship between self-
objectification and sexual well-being. There were two aims
of this study. The first aim was to test the zero-order
correlations between sexual self-esteem, self-objectifica-
tion, and disordered eating in a sample of American college
women. The second aim was to test a mediational model of
self-objectification, sexual self-esteem, and disordered
eating in a sample of American college women in
accordance with the steps outlined by Baron and Kenny
(1986) for testing mediational models using a series of
multiple regression analyses (see Fig. 1). Five hypotheses
were tested in the present study:
Hypothesis 1: Sexual self-esteem will be negatively
correlated with self-objectification and dis-
ordered eating whereas self-objectification
will be positively correlated with disor-
dered eating.
Hypothesis 2: Self-objectification (the initial variable)
will predict disordered eating (the out-
come variable).
164
Sexual
Self-Esteem
Self- Disordered
Objectification Eating
Fig. 1 Proposed pathways for the mediational model with self-
objectification, general sexual self-esteem, and disordered eating in
Study 1. Solid lines indicate direct links between variables whereas
dashed lines indicate indirect links between variables.
Hypothesis 3: Self-objectification will predict sexual self-
esteem (the mediator).
Hypothesis 4: Self-objectification will predict disordered
eating when sexual self-esteem is controlled.
Hypothesis 5: Sexual self-esteem will partially mediate the
relationship between self-objectification and
disordered eating.
Method
Participants
One hundred four undergraduate women from a north
eastern American university were recruited from under-
graduate psychology courses and given course credit for
their participation. The power to detect a large effect
(R2 =.40) at an alpha level of .01 with a sample size of
104 is approximately 1.00 (Cohen 1988, 1992). Therefore,
this sample size was considered to have sufficient power to
detect actual effects of the variables tested in this research.
Mean age was 18.63 years (SD=1.14), ranging from 17 to
27. Mean self-reported weight was 59.51 kg (SD=9.44) or
131.20 lbs (SD=20.81), ranging from 45.36 to 90.72 kg
(100 to 200 lbs). Mean self-reported height was 1.66 m
(SD=.07) or 65 in. (SD=2.76), ranging from 1.50 to
1.88 m (59 to 74 in.). Mean body mass index (BMI) was
21.71 (SD=3.53). The ethnic composition of the sample
included 87% European American (n=91), 10% African
American (n=10), and 3% Asian American (n=3) women.
Measure
Background information Participants provided information
about age, ethnicity, year in school, weight, and height.
Body mass index (BMI) was calculated for each participant
with the formula kilogram/square meters (Garrow and
Webster 1985).
Disordered eating The Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, and
Body Dissatisfaction subscales of the Eating Disorder
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Inventory-2 (Garner 1991) were used, in combination, to
tap a general construct that focuses on attitudes that are
associated with a greater risk for eating disorders. The
Drive for Thinness subscale contains seven items that
assess fear of weight gain and weight preoccupation (e.g.,
“I am terrified of gaining weight”). The Bulimia subscale
contains seven items that assess the tendency to engage in
and/or think about engaging in uncontrollable episodes of
overeating (e.g., “I stuff myself with food”). The Body
Dissatisfaction subscale contains nine items that assess
dissatisfaction with specific body parts and overall weight
(e.g., “I think that my hips are too big”). Participants were
asked to rate each item from 1 (never) to 6 (always). All 23
items were summed to create a composite measure of
disordered eating, with higher scores indicating more
disordered eating. In this study, the entire range of possible
scores was used as recommended for non-clinical samples
(Schoemaker et al. 1994). This composite measure of eating
disorder symptomatology is a well-known method for
assessing disordered eating in non-clinical samples, dem-
onstrating good psychometric properties (Adkins and Keel
2005; Tiggemann and Lynch 2001; Welch et al. 1988).
High internal reliability was demonstrated in the present
study (α=.95).
Self-objectification The Body Surveillance subscale of the
Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley and
Hyde 1996) was used to measure the degree to which
individuals view their bodies as an outside observer, thus
focusing more on how their bodies look than on how their
bodies feel. Participants were asked to rate 8 items from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), such as “I rarely
worry about how I look to other people” (reverse scored), “I
am more concerned with what my body can do than how it
looks” (reverse scored), “During the day, I think about how
I look many times”. Higher scores indicate frequent
monitoring of one’s appearance and thoughts about how
the body looks. High internal reliability (α=.89) and good
construct validity have been demonstrated (McKinley and
Hyde 1996). High internal reliability was demonstrated in
the present study (α=.88). Based on findings that incorpo-
rated two different measures of self-objectification as
predictors of disordered eating, Tiggemann and Slater
(2001) have recommended using McKinley and Hyde’s
specific measure of body surveillance as the manifestation
of self-objectification opposed to the general measure of
self-objectification (see Noll and Fredrickson 1998) when
testing for unique relations with eating disorder constructs.
Sexual self-esteem A modified version of Rosenberg’s
Global Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1986) was used to
measure the degree to which individuals feel positively or
negatively about the sexual aspects of their self-concept.
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Table 1 Zero-order correlations among Study 1 variables.
BMI SSE SO DE
BMI – −.20* .17 .36**
SSE – – −.56** −.50**
SO – – – .67**
M (SD) 21.71 (3.53) 2.09 (.46) 3.95 (1.02) 3.03 (.87)
Higher scores indicate higher levels of each construct.
SSE sexual self-esteem (1–4); SO self-objectification (1–7); DE
disordered eating (1–6); BMI body mass index
*p<.05; **p<.01
Sexual self-esteem was defined as people’s self-evaluations
of their sexual qualities and value as a sexual person in
general. Ten items were adapted to focus on general sexual
aspects of the self-concept: (a) “My sexual self makes me
feel like a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with
others,” (b) “I feel that I have a number of good sexual
qualities,” (c) “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a
failure sexually,” (d) “I am able to be as sexual as most
other people,” (e) “I am not proud of my sexual self,” (f) “I
take a positive attitude toward my self as a sexual being,”
(g) “On the whole, I am satisfied with the sexual aspects of
myself,” (h) “I wish I could have more respect for myself as
a sexual person,” (i) “I certainly feel useless at times
sexually,” (j) “At times I think my sexual self is no good at
all.” Participants were asked to rate these 10 items from 1
(strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), with higher scores
indicating more positive sexual self-esteem. An exploratory
factor analysis on this adapted sexual self-esteem scale
revealed that one factor was the best solution, with no
individual factor loading lower than .43. High internal
reliability was demonstrated in the present study (α=.85).
Procedure
Study sessions were facilitated by a female experimenter in
groups of five to ten women. Upon arrival participants read
a brief description of the study and then provided informed
consent to participate. Participants completed the self-report
measures described above in counterbalanced order, pro-
viding background information (i.e., age, ethnicity, weight,
and height) at the end of the study. Upon completion of the
measures, participants were fully debriefed.
Results and Discussion
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are
presented in Table 1. Consistent with predictions, sexual self-
esteem was negatively correlated with self-objectification
and disordered eating whereas self-objectification was
positively correlated with disordered eating (Hypothesis 1).
165
To test the mediational model, a series of multiple
regression analyses were conducted to estimate the paths
among self-objectification, sexual self-esteem, and disor-
dered eating. Following the steps outlined by Baron and
Kenny (1986), it was tested whether (1) self-objectification
(the initial variable) predicts disordered eating (the outcome
variable), (2) self-objectification predicts sexual self-esteem
(the mediator), (3) self-objectification predicts disordered
eating when sexual self-esteem is controlled, and (4) sexual
self-esteem partially mediates the relation between self-
objectification and disordered eating. According to Baron
and Kenny, to establish significant mediation, the effect of
self-objectification on disordered eating must be less in the
third equation compared to the first equation. Sobel’s
formula provided a conservative and more formal media-
tion test to determine whether the indirect effect was
significantly different from zero (Baron and Kenny 1986;
MacKinnon et al. 2002; Preacher and Hayes 2004; Preacher
and Leonardelli 2007).
As shown in Fig. 2, all of the steps in the mediational
analysis indicated nonzero beta coefficients. In the first step,
self-objectification predicted disordered eating, F(1,102)=
84.07, p<.001 (Hypothesis 2), accounting for 45% of the
variance. In the second step, self-objectification predicted
sexual self-esteem, F(1,102)=47.51, p<.001 (Hypothesis 3),
accounting for 32% of the variance. In the third and fourth
step, the relationship between self-objectification and
disordered eating was partially mediated by sexual self-
esteem (indirect effect=.10, z=2.04, p<.05) (Hypothesis 3),
and self-objectification remained a significant predictor
of disordered eating after controlling sexual self-esteem
(sr2 =.11) (Hypothesis 4). The overall mediational model
accounting for 47% of the variance in disordered eating,
R2 =.47, F(2,101)=45.57, p<.001, power=1.00.
Consistent with Objectification Theory and the predictions
for the present study, higher self-objectification was associ-
ated with lower sexual self-esteem. In addition, lower sexual
self-esteem was also associated with more eating disorder
symptomatology, which is consistent with prior research
linking low sexual self-esteem to body image and eating
Sexual
ß = -.56** Self-Esteem ß = -.18*
Self- Disordered
Objectification Eating
ß = .67**
ß = .57**
Fig. 2 Beta coefficients for the pathways among self-objectification,
general sexual self-esteem, and disordered eating in Study 1. *p<.05;
**p<.001.
166
problems (Raciti and Hendrick 1992; Weaver and Byers
2006). The mediational analysis further delineated these
relationships, such that sexual self-esteem partially mediated
the relationship between self-objectification and disordered
eating; thereby demonstrating that self-objectification may
exert its effects on eating problems directly or indirectly via
lower sexual self-esteem. Thus, it appears that for some
women who self-objectify, the sexual components of the self
may be emphasized, and for these women it is their feelings
about the sexual self that become associated with negative
evaluations of one’s body and eating problems. These
findings offer the first evidence for a relationship between
self-objectification and women’s sexual self-esteem, and for
their joint effects on disordered eating.
Study 2
The second study attempted to provide further evidence of
the relations between self-objectification and women’s
sexual well-being in a different Westernized sample of
women, that of British college women. In this study, two
path diagrams were constructed as a descriptive and
analytical tool to test the proposed causal models. Path
analysis is a technique which uses a least-squares approach
to estimate path coefficients from regression equations.
Standardized partial regression coefficients for these path-
ways estimated the direct effects of these variables from
multiple regression analyses where each variable is
regressed on all variables assumed to be causally prior,
thereby controlling for all prior variables (Bryman and
Cramer 1990; Pedhazur 1997). A full saturated model,
described by multiple R2, was estimated with all possible
direct and indirect pathways to test the mediating effects.
Fig. 3 a Proposed path diagram a
of women’s disordered eating
with sexual self-esteem.
b Proposed path diagram of
women’s disordered eating with
sexual self-competence.
Self-
Objectification
b
Self-
Objectification
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
In this study, path analyses were planned to test two
causal models of disordered eating, with a weak causal
ordering of variables that was consistent with the assump-
tions of Objectification Theory (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997) and findings from previous research with other
samples (Raciti and Hendrick 1992; Sanchez and Kiefer
2007; Tiggemann and Kuring 2004; Tiggemann and Slater
2001). Although some of these relationships are likely
reciprocal (e.g., self-objectification affects sexual self-esteem
as much as sexual self-esteem affects self-objectification),
reciprocal causality cannot be statistically tested in correla-
tional designs. Thus, the present study tested and hypothe-
sized the direction of causality that was most consistently
discussed in the literature.
The first path diagram was constructed such that self-
objectification was theorized to lead to body shame (e.g.,
Tiggemann and Slater 2001) and sexual self-esteem, body
shame was theorized to lead to sexual self-esteem (e.g.,
Sanchez and Kiefer 2007), and in turn, both body shame
and sexual self-esteem were theorized to lead to eating
problems (e.g., Raciti and Hendrick 1992; Tiggemann and
Kuring 2004; Weaver and Byers 2006) (see Fig. 3a). In this
path model, sexual self-esteem was conceptualized as an
affective and experiential consequence of self-objectification
that may trigger disordered eating, which is consistent with
the Objectification Theory framework whereby subjective
experiences such as body shame and interoceptive aware-
ness are considered to be experiential consequences of self-
objectification which trigger disordered eating (Fredrickson
and Roberts 1997; Slater and Tiggemann 2002). Based
on this theoretical model, five specific hypotheses were
tested:
Hypothesis 6: Self-objectification will predict body shame.
Sexual Self-
Esteem
Body
Disordered
Shame Eating
Sexual Self-
Competence
Body Disordered
Shame Eating
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Hypothesis 7: Self-objectification will predict sexual
self-esteem.
Hypothesis 8: Body shame will predict sexual self-esteem.
Hypothesis 9: Body shame will predict disordered eating.
Hypothesis 10: Sexual self-esteem will predict disordered
eating.
The second path diagram was constructed such that self-
objectification was theorized to lead to body shame (e.g.,
Tiggemann and Slater 2001) and sexual self-competence,
body shame was theorized to lead to sexual self-competence
(e.g., Sanchez and Kiefer 2007), and in turn, both body
shame and sexual self-competence were theorized to lead
to eating problems (e.g., Raciti and Hendrick 1992;
Tiggemann and Kuring 2004; Weaver and Byers 2006)
(see Fig. 3b). In this path model, sexual self-competence
was conceptualized as beliefs about one’s competency and
skill as a sexual partner (Seal et al. 1997; Snell and Papini
1989), which does not contain the same affective compo-
nent as sexual self-esteem. It was expected that sexual self-
esteem would be more strongly related to disordered eating
than sexual self-competence because research has indicated
that eating disorder symptoms may be adpoted in order to
alleviate the negative feelings associated with low sexual
self-esteem. Women may be attempting to manage how
they feel about themselves as sexual beings (or as sexual
objects if high self-objectifiers) by engaging in more drastic
means to manipulate the body (e.g., starvation and/or binge-
purge practices) in order to attain the thin beauty ideal
(Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; McCarthy 1990). Based on
this theoretical model, five specific hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 11: Self-objectification will predict body shame.
Hypothesis 12: Self-objectification will predict sexual self-
competence.
Hypothesis 13: Body shame will predict disordered eating.
Hypothesis 14: Body shame will not predict sexual self-
competence.
Hypothesis 15: Sexual self-competence will predict disor-
dered eating.
To summarize, the hypotheses for both path analyses
were identical, except that (a) somewhat weaker relations
were expected between sexual self-competence and disor-
dered eating compared to sexual self-esteem and disordered
eating and (b) body shame was not expected to lead to
sexual self-competence. BMI was also included as a
covariate in these models to control the effects of variations
in body size on the study variables. In addition, it was
hypothesized that the measures of sexual self-esteem and
sexual self-competence would be positively correlated with
each other and negatively correlated with self-objectification,
body shame, and disordered eating (Hypothesis 16).
167
Method
Participants and Procedure
One hundred eleven undergraduate women from a south
eastern British university were recruited through advertise-
ments around campus and announcements via the psychol-
ogy department’s website. A total of 68 women completed
the measures in the Autumn term and 43 women completed
the measures in the Spring term. A series of independent
sample t-tests revealed no significant differences between
the two samples for any of the study variables: self-
objectification, t(109)=−1.04, p=.30, body shame, t(109)=
−.38, p=.70, sexual self-esteem, t(109)=.04, p=.97, sexual
self-competence, t(109)=.40, p=.67, disordered eating, t
(109)=−1.54, p=.18, and BMI, t(109)=.34, p=.74. All
participants were given course credit or received five
pounds for their participation. The power to detect a large
effect (R2 =.40) at an alpha level of .01 with a sample size
of 111 is approximately 1.00 (Cohen 1988, 1992).
Therefore, this sample size was considered to have
sufficient power to detect actual effects of the variables
tested in this research.
Mean age was 22.00 years (SD=3.81), ranging from 18
to 39. Mean self-reported weight was 69.04 kg (SD=
12.21), ranging from 42 to 90 kg. Mean self-reported height
was 1.72 m (SD=.13), ranging from 1.50 to 2.00 m. Mean
BMI was 21.89 (SD=1.11). The ethnic composition of the
sample was 64.9% White British (n=72), 4.5% Black
British (n=5), 14.4% Asian (n=16), 12.6% Southern
European (n=14), and 3.6% American (n=4).
The same procedure from Study 1 was followed in Study
2. Two exceptions were the inclusion of a measure of body
shame and a measure of sexual self-competence in the
packet of measures. The Body Shame subscale of the
Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley and
Hyde 1996) was used to measure the degree to which
individuals’ feel shame about their bodies when they
perceive themselves as not meeting cultural appearance
standards. Participants were asked to rate eight items from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores
indicating higher body shame (e.g., “When I’m not the size
I think I should be, I feel ashamed,” “I feel like I must be a
bad person when I don’t look as good as I could,” and “I
would be ashamed for people to know what I really
weigh”). High internal reliability (α = .89) and good
construct validity have been demonstrated previously
(McKinley and Hyde 1996). High internal reliability was
demonstrated in the present study (α=.82). A validated
short form of the Sexual Self-Esteem subscale of Snell and
Papini’s (1989) Sexuality Scale was used to measure the
degree to which individuals’ felt competent and skilled as a
sexual partner, referred to as sexual self-competence
168 Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173

Table 2 Zero-order correlations among Study 2 variables.

BMI SSC SSE SO BS DE

BMI – .07 −.05 −.14 −.07 −.07

SSC – – .57** −.36** −.12 −.33**
SSE – – – −.38** −.35** −.45**
SO – – – – .44** .50**
BS – – – – – .59**
M(SD) 21.87 (1.11) .38 (.66) 2.28 (.55) 4.17 (1.18) 3.23 (1.10) 2.82 (1.02)

Higher scores indicate higher levels of each construct.

SSC sexual self-competence (−2–2); SSE sexual self-esteem (1–4); SO self-objectification (1–7); BS body shame (1–7), DE disordered eating
(1–6); BMI body mass index
*p<.05; **p<.01

(Wiederman and Allgeier 1993). Participants rated five ing that the relationship between self-objectification and
items about how they feel and think about themselves as a disordered eating was only partially mediated by body
sexual partner from −2 (disagree) to 2 (agree), with higher shame and sexual self-esteem. The full model described
scores indicating higher sexual self-competence: (a) “I 56% of the variance in women’s disordered eating, R2 =.56,
think of myself as a good sexual partner,” (b) “I would F(3,110)=40.98, p<.001, power=1.00.
rate my sexual skill quite highly,” (c) “I think of myself as Figure 4b depicts the significant pathways for the model
a very good sexual partner,” (d) “I would rate myself low as with sexual self-competence. It can be seen from the path
a sexual partner,” and (e) “I am confident about myself as a diagram that similar non-zero pathways emerged. Specifi-
sexual partner.” High internal reliability (α=.94) and good cally, self-objectification led directly to body shame
construct validity have been demonstrated previously (Hypothesis 11), which in turn, was directly linked to
(Wiederman and Allgeier 1993). High internal reliability disordered eating (Hypothesis 13) but not to sexual self-
was demonstrated in the present study (α=.75). competence (Hypothesis 14). It can also be seen that self-
objectification led directly to sexual self-esteem (Hypothesis
Results and Discussion 12), which in turn, was directly linked to disordered eating
(Hypothesis 15). Again, self-objectification was directly
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are linked to disordered eating, although this was not predicted,
presented in Table 2. It can be seen that the mean levels of indicating that the relationship between self-objectification
sexual self-esteem, self-objectification, and disordered eat-
ing in this sample of British women were comparable to the
mean levels of these constructs in the sample of American
Table 3 Standardized partial regression coefficient for pathways in
women tested in Study 1, although the mean levels in the causal model of disordered eating.
British sample were slightly elevated relative to the
American sample. As predicted, sexual self-esteem and Pathway Beta values
sexual self-competence were positively correlated with each SSE
other and negatively correlated with self-objectification, SO-BS .42**
body shame (not significant for sexual self-competence), SO-SSE −.36**
and disordered eating (Hypothesis 16). SO-DE .23*
Table 3 displays the standardized partial regression BS-SSE .21*
coefficients for all pathways in the two models for BS-DE .52**
SSE-DE −.37**
disordered eating. Figure 4a depicts the significant pathways
SSC
for the model with sexual self-esteem. It can be seen from
SO-BS .42**
the path diagram that self-objectification led directly to body SO-SSC −.35**
shame (Hypothesis 6), which in turn, was directly linked to SO-DE .27*
sexual self-esteem (Hypothesis 8) and disordered eating BS-SSC .05
(Hypothesis 9). It can also be seen that self-objectification BS-DE .50**
led directly to sexual self-esteem (Hypothesis 7), which in SSC-DE −.23*
turn, was directly linked to disordered eating (Hypothesis
SSE general sexual self-esteem, SSC sexual self-competence, SO self-
10). Importantly, self-objectification was directly linked to objectification, BS body shame, DE disordered eating
disordered eating, although this was not predicted, indicat- *p<.05; **p<.001
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Fig. 4 a Beta coefficients a
(standardized partial regression
coefficients) in path diagram of
women’s disordered eating with
sexual self-esteem. *p<.05;
**p<.001. b Beta coefficients
(standardized partial regression Self-
Objectification
coefficients) in path diagram of
women’s disordered eating with
sexual self-competence. *p<.05;
**p<.001. b
Self-
Objectification
and disordered eating was only partially mediated by body
shame and sexual self-esteem. The full model described
46% of the variance in women’s disordered eating, R2 =.46,
F(3,110)=30.60, p<.001, power=1.00.
General Discussion
The purpose of the present research was to provide further
investigations of Objectification Theory by testing the
proposition that self-objectification would be negatively
related to women’s sexual well-being as well as to examine
how these variables may be jointly related to disordered
eating. Consistent with Objectification Theory and prior
research on women’s sexual well-being (Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997; Raciti and Hendrick 1992; Wiederman 2002),
the present research demonstrated that American and British
college women with higher self-objectification reported
lower sexual self-esteem and more disordered eating.
Extending Objectification Theory, the first study demon-
strated that sexual self-esteem partially mediated the
relationship between women’s self-objectification and dis-
ordered eating, thereby indicating that self-objectification
may directly and indirectly (via sexual self-esteem) predict
eating disorder symptomatology in American college
women. This pattern of relations with sexual self-esteem
positioned as a mediator between self-objectification and
disordered eating is similar to the pattern of relations among
self-objectification, experiences of body shame, and disor-
dered eating reported in prior research with North American
and Australian women (Calogero et al. 2005; Noll and
Fredrickson 1998; Tiggemann and Slater 2001; Tylka and
Hill 2004).
In a more rigorous test of the role of sexual self-esteem in
British college women, the second study demonstrated that
sexual self-esteem is independent from body shame in its
169
Sexual Self-
Esteem
-.37**
-.36** .21*
.42** Body .52**
Disordered
Shame Eating
.23*
Sexual Self-
Competence
-.23*
-.35** .05
.42** Body .50**
Disordered
Shame Eating
.27*
role as a mediator between self-objectification and disor-
dered eating. Importantly, in this sample of women who
represent a different Westernized society from those typical-
ly represented in the objectification literature (i.e., North
American, Australian), but for whom high levels of
sociocultural appearance pressures, body dissatisfaction,
and disordered eating have been reported (Charles and Kerr
1986; Dittmar 2005; Dittmar and Howard 2004; Grogan
2006; Grogan and Wainwright 1996), the path model
demonstrated a good fit to the theory, whereby self-
objectification led to body shame and sexual self-esteem,
and both, in turn, led to more disordered eating. In addition,
body shame also directly led to sexual self-esteem, provid-
ing more support for the notion that body image concerns
are associated with women’s feelings about the sexual self.
When sexual self-competence replaced sexual self-esteem
in the second path model, a similar pattern of relations
emerged, whereby self-objectification led to body shame and
sexual self-competence, and both, in turn, led to more
disordered eating. In the context of Objectification Theory, it
would be argued that socializing women to take a
perspective on the self whereby the body is felt to belong
less to the self and more to others (i.e., high self-
objectification) leads to more negative feelings about the
sexual aspects of the self as well as more negative
evaluations of one’s sexual competence, and, indeed, this
was demonstrated in the second study. However, in this
second path model body shame was unrelated to sexual self-
competence, and the relationship between self-objectification
and sexual self-competence was weaker than the relation-
ship between self-objectification and sexual self-esteem,
indicating that women’s body image concerns are not related
to all aspects of women’s sexual well-being. A plausible
explanation for these findings is that women’s sexuality is
often defined as being for the purpose of attracting a sexual
partner, and thus is heavily appearance focused vs.
170
competence or performance focused (i.e., women as sexual
objects vs. women as sexual subjects) (e.g., Busby and
Leichty 1993; Krassas et al. 2003; Linder 2004; Reichert
and Carpernter 2004; Ward et al. 2006; Ussher 1989). Thus,
the fact that women’s sexual self-esteem was predicted by
body shame, but not women’s sexual self-competence,
suggests that women’s global self-evaluations about the
value of their sexual selves may be more closely linked with
their sense of their sexual attractiveness rather than their
sexual competence or performance. Future research should
continue to examine the relations among women’s self-
objectification and sexual well-being, and their consequen-
ces for women’s body image and eating problems.
The major contribution of the present study is that it is
the first empirical demonstration of potential causal links
between self-objectification, sexual well-being (in the form
of general sexual self-esteem and sexual self-competence),
and disordered eating in American and British college
women. In particular, these findings add to the literature on
Objectification Theory by indicating that women’s sexual
self-esteem may stem from self-objectification and be
causally linked to body shame and disordered eating,
thereby providing an additional potential psychological
mechanism by which self-objectification may be linked to
disordered eating. It is also important to note that self-
objectification exerted direct and indirect effects on
disordered eating, which converges with prior research
demonstrating that women who self-objectify may bypass
negative feelings about the body by engaging in disordered
eating directly to control their appearance and maintain
satisfaction (e.g., Noll and Fredrickson 1998; Tiggemann
and Slater 2001): One pathway by which self-objectification
can influence disordered eating is by lowering women’s
sexual self-esteem; however, the experience of low sexual
self-esteem can be bypassed if women who self-objectify
directly engage in disordered eating behaviours to manipu-
late the body in an attempt to “conform to social norms
regarding physical attractiveness and what’s considered
‘sexy’” (Dove and Wiederman 2000, p. 74).
The weaker findings for sexual self-competence in the
full model of disordered eating provides some evidence to
indicate that general esteem and competence represent
different components of women’s sexual self-concept, and
may be differentially related to women’s eating disorder
symptomatology, especially affective components such as
body shame. However, while these findings indicated that
sexual self-esteem is more strongly associated with disor-
dered eating than sexual self-competence, it is plausible that
sexual self-competence might be more strongly related to
sexual behaviours (e.g., number of partners, use of
condoms). For example, research has shown that sexual
self-esteem is negatively associated with sexual risk-taking
whereas sexual self-efficacy is positively associated with
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
sexual risk-taking (Seal et al. 1997). In addition, it might be
expected that both types of sexual self-esteem would be
related to sexual functioning (e.g., arousal, inorgasmia).
Related research has indicated that American women
who engage in higher body-monitoring and body self-
consciousness during sex report lower sexual esteem, less
sexual assertiveness, less confidence in their sexual func-
tioning, and more emotional disengagement from sexual
experiences (Dove and Wiederman 2000; Wiederman 2000;
Yamamiya et al. 2006). In addition, recent research has
demonstrated that women’s body shame is significantly
associated with more sexual problems, and this relationship
was mediated by sexual self-consciousness during physical
intimacy with a partner (Sanchez and Kiefer 2007).
Interestingly, these findings demonstrated that self-
objectification was negatively related to sexual self-esteem
and sexual self-competence, which suggests that a woman’s
perception of herself as a sexual object, as a body that exists
for the use and pleasure of others, has consequences for the
value and worth she places on her own sexuality and sexual
qualities. Consonant with these findings is other research
indicating that women with high self-objectification hold
more negative attitudes toward women’s bodily functions,
such as menstruation (Roberts 2004) and breast feeding
(Johnston-Robledo et al. 2007). Thus, body image concerns
appear to be associated with both women’s sexual and
eating problems. Future research should continue to build
upon this preliminary work by exploring other sexual and
eating consequences of women’s self-objectification and
sexual self-esteem across intrapersonal and interpersonal
contexts.
As described earlier, the problems in the measurement of
sexual self-esteem make it difficult to consolidate the
literature on sexual self-esteem; however, sexual self-
esteem does appear to be a multi-dimensional construct
(e.g., Gaynor and Underwood 1995; Zeanah and Schwarz
1996), and therefore future research that incorporates these
multiple dimensions may begin to disentangle the relations
between evaluations of the sexual self and eating disorder
symptomatology. One consideration for research on the
sexual self-concept is to include a phenomenological
measure of sexual self-esteem that does not directly ask
about feelings related to the sexual self, but instead assesses
the motivational and behavioural components of sexual
self-esteem. A phenomenological measure of body shame
has been used in previous research to circumvent the
difficulty of assessing shame directly (Calogero 2004;
Fredrickson et al. 1998; Tangney et al. 1996), and includes
items such as “I wish I were invisible” or “I wish I could
disappear.” The same rationale for its use with body shame
may apply in the case of sexual self-esteem.
Several limitations of the present research should be
acknowledged. First, although samples of college women
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
from two different highly developed Westernized societies
were represented, the samples were restricted to predomi-
nantly White, undergraduate women. While young adult
women on college campuses represent an important
population to study with regard to experiences of sexual
objectification and eating disorder pathology, these results
cannot be generalized to other samples of women who may
differ in age, ethnicity, nationality, or social and economic
status. Moreover, the current hypotheses were tested in
American and British samples, and therefore should be
tested among women representing other societies and
cultural backgrounds to provide a more comprehensive
picture of objectification processes and consequences in
women’s lives. Second, the path analyses tested theoretical
assumptions for a causal model of objectification processes
and disordered eating in women. While the present findings
are generally consistent with the causal links reported in
other studies on objectification processes in North Ameri-
can and Australian women (e.g., Tiggemann and Kuring
2004; Tylka and Hill 2004), support for the causal
assumptions does not prove that the causal assumptions
are correct. In addition, the data were collected at a single
point in time, with further prevents drawing definitive
conclusions about the order of variables within the path
analyses. Prospective and experimental designs are needed
to provide convergent evidence for the pathways demon-
strated here. Third, as indicated above, different components
or qualities of the sexual self-concept as well as other sexual
consequences that may stem from self-objectification should
be assessed.
In conclusion, the present research supports the argu-
ments of objectification theorists which claim that cultural
practices of sexually objectifying the female body can have
profound negative effects on women’s perceptions and
evaluations of themselves, and place them at increased risk
for eating disorders (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; Kashak
1992; McKinley and Hyde 1996). Because women are
socialized to experience their efforts to monitor and
improve their physical appearance as self-chosen or
“natural” (Costanzo 1992; Fredrickson and Roberts 1997),
many women who are at risk for eating disorders or
undergoing eating disorders treatment are unlikely to
identify self-objectification as a problem because they are
unaware that it is a potentially harmful, socially constructed
form of self-perception that contributes to feelings of
powerlessness over one’s own body (Peterson et al. 2008)
and interferes with positive psychological functioning
(Mercurio and Landry 2008). This occurs in spite of
evidence demonstrating markedly high levels of self-
objectification among women in eating disorders treatment
programs (Calogero et al. 2005). Thus, this research provides
more direct evidence for including self-objectification, body
shame, and sexual self-esteem as targets in prevention
171
and intervention strategies aimed at reducing the risk for
eating disorders among girls’ and women in Westernized
societies.
References
Ackard, D. M., Kearney-Cooke, A., & Peterson, C. B. (2000). Effect
of body image and self-image on women’s sexual behaviours.
The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 422–429.
Adkins, E. C., & Keel, P. K. (2005). Does “excessive” or “compulsive”
best describe exercise as a symptom of bulmia nervosa. The
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 38, 24–29.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization
of Girls, (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the
sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/
pi/wpo/sexualization_report_summary.pdf
Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women’s sexual self-
schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
1079–1100.
Althof, S. E., Rosen, R. C., Derogatis, L., Corty, E., Quirk, F., &
Symonds, T. (2005). Outcome measurement in female sexual
dysfunction clinical trials: review and recommendations. Journal
of Sex & Marital Therapy, 31, 153–166.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bartky, S. (1990). Femininity and domination. New York: Routledge.
British Medical Association, (2000). Eating disorders, body image, and
the media. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.bma.org.uk/
ap.nsf/Content/Eatingdisorders?OpenDocument&Highlight = 2,
body,image
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative data analysis for
social scientists. London: Routledge.
Busby, L., & Leichty, G. (1993). Feminism and advertising in
traditional and nontraditional women’s magazines, 1950s–
1980s. The Journalism Quarterly, 70, 247–264.
Calogero, R. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: effect of the
male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 28, 16–21.
Calogero, R. M., Boroughs, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2007). The
impact of Western beauty ideals on the lives of women and men:
A sociocultural perspective. In V. Swami, & A. Furnham (Eds.),
Body beautiful: Evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives (pp.
259–298). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Calogero, R. M., Davis, W. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The role of
self-objectification in the experience of women with eating
disorders. Sex Roles, 52, 43–50.
Cash, T. F. (2002). Women’s body images. In G. M. Wingood, &
R. J. DiClemente (Eds.), Handbook of women’s sexual and
reproductive health: Issues in women health (pp. 175–194).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Charles, N., & Kerr, M. (1986). Food for feminist thought. The
Sociological Review, 34, 537–572 ah, NJ.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–
159.
Costanzo, P. R. (1992). External socialization and the development
of adaptive individuation and social connection. In D. N. Ruble,
P. R. Costanzo, & M. E. Oliveri (Eds.), The social psychology of
mental health (pp. 55–80). New York: Guilford.
172
Dittmar, H. (2005). Vulnerability factors and processes linking
sociocultural pressures and body dissatisfaction: introduction to
special issue: body image. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 1003–1009.
Dittmar, H., & Howard, S. (2004). Professional hazards?: the impact
of models’ body size on advertising effectiveness and women’s
body-focused anxiety in professions that do and do not
emphasize the cultural ideal of thinness. The British Journal of
Social Psychology, 43, 477–497.
Dove, N. L., & Wiederman, M. W. (2000). Cognitive distraction and
women’s sexual functioning. Sex Roles, 52, 463–475.
Ellison, C. R. (2000). Women’s sexualities: Generations of women
share intimate secrets of sexual self-acceptance. Oakland, CA:
New Harbinger.
Evans, L., & Wertheim, E. H. (1998). Intimacy patterns and
relationship satisfaction of women with eating problems and the
mediating effects of depression, trait anxiety, and social anxiety.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 44, 355–365.
Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., Doll, H. A., & Welch, S. L. (1999). Risk
factors for anorexia nervosa: three integrated case-control
comparisons. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 468–476.
Fortenberry, J. D., Sayegh, M. A., & Orr, D. P. (2005). The association
of sexual self-concept with oral–genital sex among adolescent
women. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 110.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory:
towards understanding women’s lived experience and mental
health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., &
Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences
in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.
Garner, D. M. (1991). EDI-2: Eating disorder inventory professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Garrow, J. S., & Webster, J. (1985). Quetelet’s index (w/h2) as a
measure of fatness. International Journal of Obesity, 9, 147–153.
Gaynor, P. A., & Underwood, J. K. (1995). Conceptualizing and
measuring sexual self-esteem. In S. T. Fiske, & P. E. Shrout
(Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory (pp. 333–347).
Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Grogan, S. (2006). Body image and health: contemporary perspec-
tives. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 523–530.
Grogan, S., & Wainwright, N. (1996). Growing up in the culture of
slenderness: girls’ experiences of body dissatisfaction. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 19, 665–673.
Harned, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding a link between
sexual harassment and eating disorder symptoms: a mediational
analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70,
1170–1181.
Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal images
on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex
Roles, 58, 649–657.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1983). Liking, loving, and relating.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Huebner, D. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1999). Gender differences in
memory perspectives: evidence for self-objectification in women.
Sex Roles, 41, 459–467.
Johnston-Robledo, I., Wares, S., Fricker, J., & Pasek, L. (2007).
Indecent exposure: self-objectification and young women’s
attitudes toward breastfeeding. Sex Roles, 56, 429–437.
Kashak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A new psychology of women’s
experience. New York: Basic Books.
Katz, J., & Farrow, S. (2000). Discrepant self-views and young
women’s sexual and emotional adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 781–
805.
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A.
(2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
interpersonal sexual objectification scale. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31, 176–189.
Krassas, N. R., Blauwkamp, J. M., & Wesselink, P. (2003). “Master
your Johnson”: sexual rhetoric in Maxim and stuff magazines.
Sexuality & Culture, 7, 98–119.
Lavie, M., & Willig, C. (2005). “I don’t feel like melting butter”: an
interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience if
‘inorgasmia’. Psychology & Health, 20, 115–128.
Linder, K. (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion
advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex Roles, 51, 409–421.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the
significance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7,
83–104.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: its relation to specific facets
of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1224–1236.
Mayers, K. S., Heller, D. K., & Heller, J. A. (2003). Damaged sexual
self-esteem: a kind of disability. Sexuality and Disability, 21,
269–282.
McCarthy, M. (1990). The thin ideal, depression and eating disorders
in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 205–215.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body
consciousness scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–
215.
McLaren, L., Kuh, D., Hardy, R., & Gauvin, L. (2004). Positive and
negative body-related comments and their relationship with body
dissatisfaction in middle-aged women. Psychology & Health, 19,
261–272.
Mercurio, A. E., & Landry, L. J. (2008). Self-objectification and well-
being: the impact of self-objectification on women’s overall sense
of self-worth and life satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58, 458–466.
Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual
objectification experiences and internalization of standards of
beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: a test and extension
of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
50–56.
Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2000). The experience of sexual
harassment among grade-school students: early socialization of
female subordination? Sex Roles, 43, 1–17.
Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking
self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.
Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teenager: A study of
normal adolescent boys. New York: Basic Books.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Orbach, S. (1993). Hunger strike: The anorectics struggle as a
metaphor for our age. London: Penguin.
O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & McKeague, I. W.
(2006). The development of the sexual self-concept inventory for
early adolescent girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 139–
149.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research
(3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Peter, J., & Valkenberg, P. M. (2007). Adolescents’ exposure to a
sexualized media environment and their notions of women as sex
objects. Sex Roles, 56, 381–395.
Peterson, R. D., Grippo, K. P., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2008).
Empowerment and powerlessness: a closer look at the relation-
ship between feminism, body image, and eating disturbance. Sex
Roles, 58, 639–648.
Pitts, C., & Waller, G. (1993). Self-denigratory beliefs following
sexual abuse: association with the symptomatology of bulimic
disorders. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 13,
407–410.
Sex Roles (2009) 60:160–173
Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). Causes of eating disorders. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 187–213.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2007). Calculation for the Sobel
test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved
October 24, 2007, from http://www.people.ku.edu/∼preacher/
sobel/sobel.htm
Raciti, M., & Hendrick, S. S. (1992). Relationships between eating
disorder characteristics and love and sex attitudes. Sex Roles, 27,
553–564.
Reichert, T., & Carpernter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine
advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 81, 823–837.
Roberts, T. A. (2004). Female trouble: the menstrual self-evaluation
scale and women’s self-objectification. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 28, 22–26.
Rodriguez, S., Mata, J. L., Lameiras, M., Fernandez, M. C., & Vila, J.
(2007). Dyscontrol evoked by erotic and food images in women with
bulimia nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review, 15, 231–239.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Rosenthal, D., Moore, S., & Flynn, I. (1991). Adolescent self-efficacy,
self-esteem and sexual risk-taking. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 1, 77–88.
Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). When the relationship
becomes her: revisiting women’s body consciousness from a
relationship contingency perspective. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31, 401–414.
Schoemaker, C., van Strien, T., & van der Staak, C. (1994). Validation
of the eating disorder inventory in a nonclinical population using
transformed and untransformed scores. The International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 15, 387–393.
Seal, A., Minichiello, V., & Omodei, M. (1997). Young women’s
sexual risk taking behaviour: re-visiting the influences of sexual
self-efficacy and sexual self-esteem. International Journal of
STD & AIDS, 8, 159–165.
Shulman, J. L., & Horne, S. G. (2003). The use of self-pleasure:
masturbation and body image among African American and European
American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 262–269.
Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in
adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 26, 343–349.
Snell, W. E., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The sexuality scale: an
instrument to measure sexual self-esteem, sexual depression,
and sexual preoccupation. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256–263.
Steer, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The role of self-objectification in
women’s sexual functioning. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 27, 205–225.
Striegel-Moore, R. H., & Smolak, L. (2001). Eating disorders:
Innovative directions in research and practice. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001).
Everyday sexism: evidence for its incidence, nature, and
psychological impact from three daily diary studies. The Journal
of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are
shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.
173
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M. N., & Tantleff-Dunn, S.
(1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment and treatment of
body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Tiefer, L. (2001). A new view of women’s sexual problems: why new?
Why now? Journal of Sex Research, 38, 89–96.
Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body
objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. The
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299–311.
Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life
span in adult women: the role of self-objectification. Develop-
mental Psychology, 37, 243–253.
Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in
former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
25, 57–64.
Troop, N. A. (1998). Eating disorders as coping strategies: a critique.
European Eating Disorders Review, 6, 229–237.
Tylka, T. L., & Hill, M. S. (2004). Objectification theory as it relates to
disordered eating among college women. Sex Roles, 51, 719–730.
Ussher, J. (1989). The psychology of the female body. Routledge:
London.
Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide:
associations between television viewing and adolescents’ sexual
attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16,
133–156.
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, 703–714.
Weaver, A. D., & Byers, S. (2006). The relationships among body
image, body mass index, exercise, and sexual functioning in
heterosexual women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 333–
339.
Welch, G., Hall, A., & Walkey, F. (1988). The factor structure of the
eating disorders inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44,
51–56.
Wiederman, M. W. (1996). Women, sex, and food: a review of
research on eating disorders and sexuality. Journal of Sex
Research, 33, 301–311.
Wiederman, M. W. (2000). Women’s body image self-consciousness
during physical intimacy with a partner. Journal of Sex Research,
37, 60–68.
Wiederman, M. W. (2002). Body image and sexual functioning. In
T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of
theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 287–294). New York:
Guilford.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). The measurement of
sexual esteem: investigation of Snell and Papini’s (1989)
sexuality scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 88–102.
Wiederman, M. W., Pryor, T., & Morgan, C. D. (1996). The sexual
experience of women diagnosed with anorexia nervosa or
bulimia nervosa. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
19, 109–118.
Yamamiya, Y., Cash, T. F., & Thompson, J. K. (2006). Sexual
experiences among college women: the differential effects of
general versus contextual body images on sexuality. Sex Roles,
55, 421–427.
Zeanah, P. D., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). Reliability and validity of the
sexual self-esteem inventory for women. Assessment, 3, 1–15.
 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Sexual Self-Esteem in American and British College

Women: Relations with Self-Objectification and Eating
Problems
SOURCE: Sex Roles 60 no3/4 F 2009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-2762/

View publication stats