Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

http://psp.sagepub.com Self-Objectification and Well-Being in Women's Daily Lives

Juliana G. Breines, Jennifer Crocker and Julie A. Garcia Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008; 34; 583 originally published online Feb 15, 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0146167207313727 The online version of this article can be found at: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/5/583

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at: Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/5/583

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Self-Objectification and Well-Being in Womens Daily Lives

Juliana G. Breines University of California, Berkeley Jennifer Crocker University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Julie A. Garcia Stanford University

Laboratory experiments and surveys show that selfobjectification increases body shame, disrupts attention, and negatively predicts well-being. Using experience sampling methodology, the authors investigated selfobjectification in the daily lives of 49 female college students. Building on the predictions of objectification theory, they examined associations between internalizing an observers perspective on the self and psychological well-being, and examined the moderating roles of trait selfesteem and appearance-contingent self-worth. Withinperson increases in self-objectification predicted decreased well-being, but this association was moderated by trait selfesteem and trait appearance-contingent self-worth; high self-esteem, highly appearance-contingent participants reported increased well-being when they self-objectified. Furthermore, perceived unattractiveness partially mediated the main effect and the three-way interaction: high self-esteem, highly contingent participants experienced smaller drops in well-being when they self-objectified, in part because they felt less unattractive. These results suggest that in daily life, some women receive a boost from self-objectification, although most women experience decreases in well-being when self-objectifying.
Keywords: self-objectification; well-being; contingencies of self-worth; self-esteem; appearance

decreased opportunities for peak motivational states, and diminished awareness of internal body states. Over time, self-objectification may compromise mental health: Selfobjectification has been linked to symptoms of depression (Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004) and disordered eating (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; Harrison & Fredrickson, 2003; McKinley, 1998; Miner-Rubino, Twenge, & Fredrickson, 2002; Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). Objectification theory posits that these negative consequences arise from the self-conscious body monitoring associated with self-objectification, which usurps limited attentional resources and disrupts the focus required to engage fully and effectively in an activity. In a laboratory experiment (Fredrickson et al., 1998), women (but not men) who tried on a swimsuit rather than a sweater showed a range of negative outcomes:

n a culture that treats the female body as a sexual object, girls and women learn to view their own bodies as objects, focusing on how the body appears rather than how it feels. According to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), this internalization of an observers perspective on the physical self results in shame and anxiety,

Authors Note: The research reported in this article was conducted as Juliana Breiness senior honors thesis at the University of Michigan and was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grants R01 MH58869 and K02 MH01747 to Jennifer Crocker. Julie A. Garcia was supported by a Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship and a National Science Foundation Minority Postdoctoral Fellowship during the preparation of this manuscript. We are grateful to Amy Canevello for her assistance with data analyses and helpful comments on the manuscript, and to Diane Quinn for comments on a previous draft. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juliana Breines, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Psychology, 3210 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1650; e-mail: jbreines@berkeley.edu or jcrocker@ umich.edu. PSPB, Vol. 34 No. 5, May 2008 583-598 DOI: 10.1177/0146167207313727 2008 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

583

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

584

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

they reported more body shame, showed signs of disordered eating, and performed poorly on a math test. Providing further support for the hypothesis that selfobjectification diminishes cognitive performance by usurping attentional resources, a recent study showed that women in a state of self-objectification were slower to respond to a Stroop color-naming task (Quinn, Kallen, Twenge, & Fredrickson, 2006). Self-objectification is similar to public self-consciousness and objective self-awareness (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1983; Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), which have also been linked to eating disorders and body-image concerns (Miller & Cox, 1982; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1993). Self-consciousness and objective selfawareness are more general constructs referring to awareness of the self as perceived by others. Self-objectification more specifically refers to awareness of how the body appears to others, often to the exclusion of awareness of internal body states (e.g., I am thinking more about how my body looks than how it feels). Thus, self-objectification overlaps with, but is distinct from, measures of public self-awareness. The present study extends previous research on the consequences of self-objectification in four ways. First, it examines the lived experience of self-objectification: What happens when women self-objectify in their daily lives? Second, it examines whether fluctuations in selfobjectification predict corresponding changes in multiple aspects of well-being, as well as appearance-focused goals and beliefs. Third, it examines whether individual differences in trait self-esteem and trait appearancecontingent self-worth moderate the within-person association between self-objectification and well-being. Finally, it examines the mediating roles of perceived attractiveness and perceived unattractiveness.

Well-Being
Previous research focuses mainly on the link between self-objectification and self-relevant negative affect (e.g., anxiety, body shame, and low self-esteem); we extend these findings to include both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Hedonic well-being refers to the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect, or feeling good and not feeling bad (Diener, Sapyta, & Suh, 1998; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Eudaimonic well-being refers to feelings of vitality and authenticity that result from the expression of ones daimon, or true self (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993). Eudaimonic well-being goes beyond happiness (defined as feeling good) to the more holistic wellness experienced when people act in accordance with deeply held values and engage fully in activities (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Self-objectification in daily life may decrease hedonic well-being. Previous research showed that people who self-objectify experience self-relevant negative affect, such as low body esteem and low global self-esteem (McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Strelan, Mehaffey, & Tiggemann, 2003; Tolman, Impett, Tracy, & Michael, 2006). Even when evaluation is positive, the feeling of being looked at and judged based on ones appearance may interfere with positive emotions and selfesteem and produce feelings of anxiety (Calogero, 2004). Thus, we predicted that when self-objectifying, women experience decreased hedonic well-being. In addition, self-objectification in daily life may diminish eudaimonic well-being by muting a womans experience of her body as a source of energy and vitality, and by orienting attention toward the perspective of the observer and away from intrinsic needs and desires. Gapinski, Brownell, and LaFrance (2003) found that body objectification, induced by trying on a swimsuit, reduced intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. When people view the body as an observable object, they can become less attuned to inner feelings of hunger and fullness, sexual pleasure, and emotional states (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Furthermore, self-objectification may motivate women to seek positive (or avoid negative) appearance-related feedback, focusing energy on selfvalidation at the expense of self-determination. Thus, we hypothesized that when women self-objectify, they experience reduced vitality, autonomy, and engagement in the present moment.

Self-Objectification in Womens Daily Lives

Most research on self-objectification has been conducted in laboratory settings or has used cross-sectional correlational methods. Although each of these methods has strengths, previous research has not explored womens experiences of self-objectification in their daily lives. Furthermore, although cross-sectional correlational studies have revealed some of the psychological problems experienced by women who tend to objectify themselves, these studies cannot rule out many alternative explanations. For example, women who tend to self-objectify may also be high in neuroticism, or other unmeasured characteristics that could account for the association between self-objectification and negative outcomes. Experience sampling methodology examines within-person associations, eliminating unmeasured individual differences as rival hypotheses.

Ego Involvement in Appearance

Consistent with the hypothesis that self-objectification reduces eudaimonic well-being, we propose that selfobjectification triggers an ego-involved motivational state. Ego involvement refers to a preoccupation with validating self-worth or self-image (Nicholls, 1984). Research on

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING related constructs (i.e., public self-consciousness, objective self-awareness, and introjected self-regulation) has also linked taking a third-person perspective on the self to ego involvement (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Plant & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 1989). When women self-objectify, we suggest that they define their self-worth in terms of their appearance and become motivated to appear attractive. As appearance engulfs the self, it may also engulf selfesteem, activating the belief that ones worth is determined by the appearance of ones body, and triggering the goal to validate that one is attractive, and not unattractive. Thus, we hypothesized that when women self-objectify, their state appearance-contingent self-worth and appearance-validation goals increase.

585

Perceived Attractiveness and Unattractiveness as Mediators

Perceptions of attractiveness may explain the link between self-objectification and well-being. Laboratory experiments show that self-objectification produces body dissatisfaction and body shame (McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Strelan et al., 2003; Tolman et al., 2006). Consequently, we expected that most women would feel unattractive when self-objectifying. However, in contrast to controlled laboratory experiments, in their daily lives some women take pains to improve their appearance, particularly when they anticipate being in a self-objectifying context (Wolf, 1991). Consequently, we hypothesized that some women feel more attractive when self-objectifying, and this might lead some women to experience a boost to well-being, whereas most women experience a drop in well-being when self-objectifying. We assessed perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness separately, rather than using a single scale ranging from one extreme to the other, because we expected that, like other dimensions such as positive and negative affect (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999), perceived attractiveness and perceived unattractiveness might not represent opposite ends of a continuum but rather orthogonal dimensions. Consequently, perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness might have distinct associations with self-objectification.

Individual Differences in Trait Self-Esteem and Appearance-Contingent Self-Worth as Moderators

The experience of self-objectification is likely not the same for all women. Although feeling that ones body is on display may produce shame or disgust in some women, others may be unfazed or excited by the attention. In the present study, we focus on trait self-esteem and trait appearance-contingent self-worth as moderators of the relationship between self-objectification and well-being. We predicted that self-objectification would be a relatively

positive experience for women who base their self-worth on their appearance and have high self-esteem. For all other women, increased self-objectification should have neutral or negative associations with well-being. Contingencies of self-worth represent the domains in which self-esteem is invested (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Appearance-contingent self-worth (appearance CSW) refers to the extent to which self-esteem is influenced by perceived attractiveness (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Previous research has linked external contingencies of self-worth, including appearance CSW, to depression, low self-esteem, and symptoms of eating disorders (Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). Appearance CSW, in particular, predicts increases in symptoms of depression in the first semester of college (Sargent, Crocker, & Luhtanen, 2006). To date, research has not investigated how appearance CSW interacts with self-objectification to predict well-being. We propose that the association between self-objectification and well-being depends jointly on appearance CSW and self-esteem. When people base their self-worth on a particular domain, such as academics, evaluative feedback about success and failure in that domain is associated with corresponding increases and decreases in well-being (Crocker, Sommers, & Luhtanen, 2002; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Thus, when self-objectification makes women feel successful (i.e., attractive), well-being should increase among women high in appearance CSW; when self-objectification makes women feel unsuccessful (i.e., unattractive), high appearance CSW women should experience a decrease in well-being. High self-esteem women tend to be more satisfied with their appearance than low self-esteem women (Cook-Cottone & Phelps, 2003; Fingeret & Gleaves, 2004; Forbes, Adams-Curtis, Rade, & Jaberg, 2001; Miller & Downey, 1999); this may be especially true of high self-esteem women who base their self-esteem on their appearance. Consequently, when self-objectification draws their attention to their appearance, high selfesteem, high appearance CSW women should feel attractive and experience a boost to well-being. High self-esteem women who do not base their self-esteem on appearance likely derive self-worth from other aspects of the self, such as academic accomplishments; when selfobjectification draws their attention to their appearance, they may not feel particularly attractive. Even if they do feel attractive when self-objectifying, because their selfworth is not invested in their appearance, they should not experience the same boost to well-being as high selfesteem, high appearance CSW women. Low self-esteem women tend to be especially dissatisfied with their appearance. Consequently, when selfobjectification focuses their attention on their appearance, they may feel unattractive and experience a drop in well-being;

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

586

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN & Gable, 2000). The present study used an event-contingent sampling method to sample activities that objectify to varying degrees. Participants were instructed to complete a questionnaire three to four times a day when they were engaged in one of the following activities: studying, eating, working, socializing, grooming, exercising (includes athletics), and religious or spiritual activities. Participants were encouraged to complete questionnaires in a variety of contexts throughout the day. Thus, participants could choose when to fill out reports; they were not given any additional instruction about when to fill out reports (i.e., they were not told to complete reports when they felt objectified or did not feel objectified). If participants were unable to complete a questionnaire on the handheld computer while doing an activity (e.g., while jogging), they were instructed to complete the questionnaire immediately after the activity. Each of the reports took approximately 5 min to complete. Participants checked in with the experimenter at least once a week to transfer data from the handheld computer. At the end of 2 weeks, participants completed posttest measures and were compensated and debriefed.

this drop may be particularly pronounced if their self-worth is highly contingent on their appearance.

The Present Study

The present study employs an experience sampling methodology to examine how state well-being, appearancevalidation goals, appearance CSW, and perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness change when women self-objectify. Building on the predictions of objectification theory, we hypothesized that within-person increases in self-objectification would predict decreased well-being and increased ego involvement in appearance relative to individual baseline levels. Furthermore, we hypothesized that trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW would moderate this relationship such that high self-esteem, highly contingent participants would experience increased well-being when they self-objectified. We also examined two potential mediators of this association: state perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness.

METHOD

Participants
Forty-nine undergraduate women attending a large midwestern university participated in the study in exchange for $50. Participants mean age was 19.69 years, with a standard deviation of 1.39 years. The majority of participants were Caucasian (61.5%), 25% were Asian American, 5.8% were African American, and 7.7% were of other ethnic backgrounds.

Pretest Measures
During the pretest session, participants read and signed a consent form and completed a series of questionnaires assessing demographic information (i.e., ethnicity, age), global self-esteem, and contingencies of self-worth. Global self-esteem was assessed with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) with a response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The RSE has demonstrated reliability and validity (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991) and had high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .91). Appearance CSW (e.g., When I think I look attractive, I feel good about myself) was assessed using the six-item Appearance subscale of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS; Crocker et al., 2003). The subscales of the CSWS have good test-retest reliability, high internal consistency, and discriminant and convergent validity (Crocker et al., 2003). The measure had high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .81).

Procedure
Participants were recruited through an advertisement placed in the university newspaper for female participants in a study of daily experiences. Female undergraduate students who replied to the ad were informed that the goal of the study was to better understand womens everyday experiences in various contexts. Participants were informed that in order to receive full compensation, they would be expected to attend a 2-hr pretest session, complete questionnaires on a PalmPilot handheld computer three to four times per day for 14 days, and attend a 1-hr posttest session. Participants met in groups of 15 to 20 for the pretest session, during which time they completed a series of questionnaires, received handheld computers, and were given instructions on how to fill out reports on the handheld computers. Each participant completed a trial run to ensure that the handheld computer functioned properly and the questionnaires were clear. Experiences can be sampled at random, on an intervalcontingent basis, or on an event-contingent basis (Reis

Daily Report Measures

The handheld computer questionnaires were programmed using the Experience-Sampling Program (Barrett & Feldman-Barrett, 2000). Only the questionnaire software was enabled on each handheld computer so that participants were not able to use any other program. We counterbalanced the order of the measures between-subjects: For half the participants, context questions were presented first, and for the other

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING half they were presented last. In addition, items from each measure (i.e., self-objectification and well-being variables) were mixed together and presented in a random order.1 Participants were asked to indicate what they were doing (i.e., exercising, eating, working, grooming, studying, social activity, or religious/spiritual activity). With the exception of context questions, all responses were made on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Detailed instructions preceded each questionnaire. Alphas were computed across participants and across activities. State self-objectification was assessed using a sevenitem state version of the Body Surveillance subscale of McKinley and Hydes (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Examples of items include Right now I am thinking about how I look and (reverse scored) Right now I am more concerned about how my body feels than how it looks. The scale has high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .95). State self-esteem was assessed using an abbreviated (four-item) version of the RSE and rephrased to reflect the current moment (e.g., Right now I feel that I am a person of worth . . .). The abbreviated state RSE had high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .96). State positive affect was assessed with three items asking participants to rate how much they felt joyful, relaxed, and satisfied. The scale had high internal consistency ( = .90). State anxiety was assessed with three items asking participants to rate how much they felt tense, anxious, and nervous. The scale had high internal consistency ( = .95). State vitality was assessed using a revised version of the Vitality Scale developed by Ryan and Frederick (1997). The phrase right now was added to each of the seven items to reflect the current moment (e.g., Right now I feel alive and vital; Right now I have energy and spirit). The original scale was validated as a measure of both trait and state vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). The Vitality Scale had high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .90). State autonomy was assessed using a six-item scale loosely based on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). Participants were asked to indicate how much they felt each of the following during the activity: free, a sense of choice, no choice (reverse scored), obligated (reverse scored), pressured (reverse scored), and compelled (reverse scored). The Autonomy scale had high internal consistency in the present sample ( = .89). State engagement in the present moment was assessed using a five-item scale based on Csikszentmihalyis (1997) concept of flow (e.g., I am so absorbed in what I am doing I have lost track of time, I am having trouble staying focused on what I am doing [reverse scored]). The scale had high internal consistency ( = .93).

587

State appearance CSW was assessed using an abbreviated (three-item) version of the Appearance subscale of the CSWS (Crocker et al., 2003). The items were rephrased to reflect the current moment (i.e., Right now . . .). The measure had high internal consistency ( = .96). State appearance validation goals were measured using four items adapted from Grant and Dwecks (2003) measure of ability validation goals. The state version of the Appearance Validation Goals measure includes items such as Right now I am focused on demonstrating that I am attractive. In the present sample, Appearance Validation Goals had high internal consistency ( = .95). Perceived attractiveness was assessed with the item This activity makes me feel attractive. Perceived unattractiveness was assessed with the item This activity makes me feel ugly. Perceived attractiveness and perceived unattractiveness were uncorrelated across reports (r = .03, n.s.).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
Participants completed a total of 1,802 reports;2 activities reported on included eating (27%), studying (22%), socializing (19%), grooming (17%), exercising (6%), working (6%), and religious or spiritual activities (3%). Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and alphas for the pretest and momentary reports.

Analysis Plan
Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), we examined the two levels of our data simultaneously. In our data, weekly reports are the lower level (or level 1) units, which are nested within persons, the level 2 units. Multilevel modeling is particularly suited for analyzing these data because it can effectively manage missing data on the repeated measure and adjusts for any bias in standard errors and statistical tests resulting from the nonindependence of observations (Kenny, Korchmaros, & Bolger, 2003; Krull & MacKinnon, 2001). In multilevel modeling, the within-person effects can vary randomly across persons, and person-level (level 2) variables may explain variance in the within-person effects. All HLM analyses reported were conducted using restricted maximum likelihood models. Prior to conducting the HLM analyses, all between-person pretest measures were z scored. Within-person variables were

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

588

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Means, Standard Deviations, and Alphas of Pretest and State Variables M 5.45 5.24 4.04 4.08 3.26 2.19 3.41 3.51 3.51 2.53 2.48 2.44 1.78 SD 0.99 0.91 1.49 0.77 0.95 0.93 0.84 0.93 0.69 1.62 1.09 1.01 0.99 .91 .81 .95 .96 .90 .95 .90 .89 .93 .96 .95 n 49 49 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802 1,802

TABLE 1: Variable

Pretest measure: Trait self-esteem Trait appearance CSW State measures: Self-objectification Self-esteem Positive affect Anxiety Vitality Autonomy Engagement in present moment Appearance CSW Appearance validation goals Perceived attractiveness Perceived unattractiveness

NOTE: CSW = contingent self-worth. Responses for all trait measures were made on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Responses for all state measures were made on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

group mean centered in HLM; significant within-person effects indicate departures from participants own baseline levels of these measures. We first examined how much of the variance in state self-objectification occurred between participants and how much occurred within participants to assess the degree to which self-objectification varies in womens daily lives. We next examined the within-person (level 1) effects of self-objectification on well-being, then tested cross-level interactions, examining whether the within-person (level 1) effects of self-objectification depended on between-person (level 2) differences in trait self-esteem, trait appearance CSW, and their interaction. Finally, we examined mediation of the crosslevel three-way interaction (Trait Self-Esteem Trait Appearance CSW Self-Objectification) on well-being.

To examine whether trait levels of self-esteem and appearance CSW influenced self-objectification across reports, we entered trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW (separately) as level 2 predictors of the intercept for self-objectification. Trait self-esteem predicted lower levels of self-objectification, B = .17, t(47) = 3.11, p < .01, across reports, and trait appearance CSW predicted higher levels of self-objectification, B = .21, t(47) = 4.25, p < .001.

State Self-Objectification and Well-Being

To test the hypothesis that women experience decreased well-being when self-objectification increases (relative to each participants own average level of self-objectification), we created an HLM model using the following equation at level 1: Y = P0 + P1*(selfobjectification) + E, where P0 is the intercept (baseline), P1 is the slope for the within-person effect of selfobjectification for the average participant, E is the error, and Y is the predicted value of the dependent variable, well-being. Consistent with predictions, within-person increases in self-objectification were associated with decreased vitality, B = .18, t(1800) = 5.11, p < .001; self-esteem, B = .17, t(1800) = 6.11, p < .001; positive affect, B = .11, t(1800) = 2.68, p < .01; and engagement in the present moment, B = .07, t(1800) = 2.51, p < .05. Thus, when participants self-objectified, they also experienced low levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being, relative to their own average level of well-being across all of the reports. In other words, when participants were more aware of their appearance than usual, they were likely to also be feeling worse than usual. Autonomy, B = .05, t(1800) = 1.22, p = .22, and anxiety, B = .05, t(1800) = 1.40, p = .16, were not

Between-Person and Within-Person Variability in Self-Objectification

To determine how much of the variance in self-objectification occurred within- and between-persons, an HLM analysis was conducted without any predictors at level 1 or level 2. Using this HLM output, we computed the interclass correlation (ICC) to determine the amount of between-person variance. The ICC is computed as tau / (tau + sigma2), where tau is the variance component for the intercept and sigma2 is the within-person variance. For self-objectification, = 0.16 and 2 = 0.25, indicating that the between-person variance accounted for 38% of the total variance in self-objectification, and the remaining variance (62%) occurred within-persons. The high proportion of within-person variance in self-objectification suggests that self-objectification may explain variation in other aspects of womens experiences.

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING

TABLE 2:

589

Final Estimation of Fixed Effects From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses Predicting State Well-Being With Self-Objectification (SO) as a Predictor at Level 1 and Trait Self-Esteem (SE) and Trait Appearance-Contingent Self-Worth (ACSW) as Predictors at Level 2 Coefficient 0.03 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.11 SE 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 t 0.61 1.43 3.75 1.78 3.76 3.72 2.73 4.34 df 45 45 45 45 1794 1794 1794 1794 p .547 .159 .001 .082 .000 .000 .007 .000

Fixed Effect For INTERCEPT, P0 INTERCEPT, B00 ACSW, B01 SE, B02 SE ACSW, B03 For SO slope, P1 INTRCEPT, B10 ACSW, B11 SE, B12 SE ACSW, B13

significantly associated with within-person changes in self-objectification, although the relationships were in the predicted direction. To simplify subsequent analyses, we z scored each well-being scale and then created an aggregate well-being variable (M = 3.55; = .85). To test the hypothesis that the within-person (level 1) effect of self-objectification on well-being depends on between-person (level 2) differences in trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW and their interaction, we created a multilevel HLM model using the following equations: P0 = B00 + B01*(appearance CSW) + B02*(selfesteem) + B03*(appearance CSW self-esteem) + R0. P1 = B10 + B11*(appearance CSW) + B12*(selfesteem) + B13*(appearance CSW self-esteem). P0 refers to the effect of the between-person (level 2) variables and their interaction on the level 1 intercept; that is, main effects of the level 2 variables on well-being across reports. P1 refers to the effect of the level 2 variables and their interaction on the within-person (level 1) slope, that is, moderation of the within-person self-objectification effect by the level 2 variables. R0 refers to the error variance. The level 1 equation was the same as that used for the within-person effect in previous analyses. Table 2 shows the final estimation of effects from the HLM analysis of well-being. The top half of Table 2 shows the intercept and the effects of trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW across all reports. Not surprisingly, participants with high trait self-esteem were higher in wellbeing across reports; this effect was qualified by a marginally significant Appearance CSW Self-Esteem interaction across reports, indicating that the positive effect of trait self-esteem on well-being was attenuated for participants who were high in appearance CSW. More relevant to the goals of the present study, the bottom half of Table 2 presents the effect of within-person changes in state self-objectification on the well-being

composite, and cross-level moderation of this effect. Consistent with the analysis of the individual well-being measures, when women were high in self-objectification, their well-being was low. As expected, individual differences in self-esteem and appearance CSW both moderated the effect of self-objectification on well-being, as did the interaction between self-esteem and appearance CSW. Figure 1 depicts the cross-level three-way interaction for participants at one standard deviation above and below the mean on self-esteem and appearance CSW. Among highly contingent participants, those high in self-esteem experienced an increase in well-being while self-objectifying (B for the simple slope = .21), whereas those low in self-esteem experienced a decrease in well-being (B = .20). Among participants who were lower in trait appearance CSW, both high (B = .25) and low (B = .21) self-esteem participants experienced a decrease in well-being when self-objectification increased. In other words, high self-esteem, highly contingent participants experienced a boost in well-being, relative to their own baseline, when they self-objectified; all other participants experienced decreased well-being.

Ego Involvement in Appearance

We next examined the effects of state self-objectification on ego involvement in appearance. We used the same equation as we did when predicting well-being. State appearance CSW. As expected, high trait appearance CSW participants were higher in state appearance CSW across reports, B = .30, t(45) = 5.39, p < .001. Neither trait self-esteem (p = .158) nor the Self-Esteem Appearance CSW interaction (p = .128) significantly predicted the intercept for appearance CSW. More relevant to the goals of the present study, state self-objectification was associated with increased appearance CSW, B = .68, t(1800) = 24.75, p < .001. The within-person effect of self-objectification on state appearance CSW was not moderated by trait self-esteem, trait appearance CSW, or their interaction (p > .25 for all effects).

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

590

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

High Appearance CSW

Low Appearance CSW

0.4

0.4

Well-Being

0.1

0.6 Low High Self-Objectification

Well-Being

0.1

0.6 Low High Self-Objectification

Low Trait Self-Esteem Figure 1

High Trait Self-Esteem

Cross-Level Interaction (Trait Self-Esteem Trait Appearance-Contingent Self-Worth [CSW] State Self-Objectification) Predicting State Well-Being

State appearance validation goals. Trait self-esteem was negatively related to state appearance-validation goals across reports, B = .22, t(45)= 2.15, p < .05, and trait appearance CSW marginally predicted higher appearance-validation goals across reports, B = .17, t(45) = 1.91, p < .1. The interaction between trait self-esteem and appearance CSW was not significant, B = .01, t(45) = .18, p = .859. More relevant to the goals of the present study, state self-objectification was associated with increased appearance validation goals, B = .78, t(1800) = 20.64, p < .001. Furthermore, the within-person effect of state self-objectification on state appearance validation goals was moderated by cross-level interactions with trait selfesteem, B = .13, t(1794) = 2.90, p <.01, and trait appearance CSW, B = .08, t(1794) = 2.00, p < .05; computing the simple slopes showed that the effect was stronger for participants high in trait self-esteem (B = .90) than for those low in trait self-esteem (B = .66) and stronger for participants high in trait appearance CSW (B = .86) than low (B = .70). The three-way cross-level interaction was not significant, B = .00, t(1974) = .06, p = .95.

that similar to dimensions such as positive and negative affect (Cacioppo et al., 1999), feeling attractive is not the opposite of feeling unattractive; these are orthogonal dimensions. Because the two items were uncorrelated, we analyzed their within-person association with self-objectification in separate analyses. Tables 3 and 4 present the final estimation of effects from the HLM analysis of perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness, respectively. Perceived attractiveness. The top half of Table 3 shows that neither trait self-esteem nor trait appearance CSW predicted perceived attractiveness across reports, nor did their interaction. The bottom half of Table 3 shows that at those times when women were higher in self-objectification, they also reported feeling more attractive; this effect was moderated by cross-level interactions with trait self-esteem and with trait appearance CSW. Computing the simple effects of self-objectification at one standard deviation above and below the mean for trait appearance CSW revealed that the effect of selfobjectification was stronger for women high (B = .87) rather than low (B = .61) in appearance CSW. Similarly, the effect of self-objectification was stronger for women high (B = .97) rather than low (B = .51) in trait selfesteem. The three-way cross-level interaction was not significant.

Perceived Attractiveness and Unattractiveness

Perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness were uncorrelated across reports (r = .03, n.s.). This finding suggests

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING

TABLE 3: Fixed Effect For INTERCEPT, P0 INTRCEPT, B00 ACSW, B01 SE, B02 SE ACSW, B03 For SO slope, P1 INTRCEPT, B10 ACSW, B11 SE, B12 SE ACSW, B13 Final Estimation of Fixed Effects From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses Predicting State Perceived Attractiveness Coefficient 2.48 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.74 0.13 0.23 0.03 SE 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 t 31.41 0.02 0.74 0.95 14.92 2.53 3.97 0.78 df 45 45 45 45 1794 1794 1794 1794 p .000 .984 .466 .345 .000 .012 .000 .437

591

NOTE: ACSW = trait appearance-contingent self-worth; SE = trait self-esteem; SO = self-objectification.

TABLE 4: Fixed Effect

Final Estimation of Fixed Effects From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses Predicting State Perceived Unattractiveness Coefficient 1.80 0.07 0.31 0.12 0.30 0.01 0.02 0.14 SE 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 t 23.94 0.94 3.47 1.61 7.78 0.28 0.42 4.05 df 45 45 45 45 1794 1794 1794 1794 p .000 .355 .001 .114 .000 .783 .671 .000

For INTERCEPT, P0 INTERCEPT, B00 ACSW, B01 SE, B02 SE ACSW, B03 For SO slope, P1 INTRCEPT, B10 ACSW, B11 SE, B12 SE ACSW, B13

NOTE: ACSW = trait appearance-contingent self-worth; SE = trait self-esteem; SO = self-objectification.

Perceived unattractiveness. Table 4 presents the final estimation of effects from the HLM analysis of perceived unattractiveness. As the top half of Table 4 shows, trait self-esteem predicted perceived unattractiveness across reports; high self-esteem women were less likely to report feeling unattractive. As the bottom half of Table 4 shows, when women self-objectified, they also reported feeling more unattractive. Neither trait self-esteem nor trait appearance CSW alone moderated the within-person effect of self-objectification on perceived unattractiveness. However, the three-way cross-level interaction was highly significant. Figure 2 depicts the predicted values for this interaction at one standard deviation above and below the mean for trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW. Among highly contingent participants, those low in trait self-esteem experienced a greater increase in perceived unattractiveness while self-objectifying (B = .66) than those high in self-esteem (B = .28.). Among participants who were lower in trait appearance CSW, however, high selfesteem participants experienced a greater increase in perceived unattractiveness (B = .98) than low self-esteem participants (B = .31).

Mediation
We hypothesized that the effect of self-objectification on well-being would be mediated by feeling unattractive.3 Specifically, we predicted that both the main effect of self-objectification on well-being and the cross-level Self-Esteem Appearance CSW SelfObjectification interaction would be attenuated when we controlled for perceived unattractiveness. To test mediation of the main effect of self-objectification and the interaction (i.e., mediated moderation), we followed the procedure recommended by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005). We have already established that self-objectification predicts both wellbeing and perceived unattractiveness, and that the interaction between trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW moderates the effect of self-objectification on both well-being and perceived unattractiveness. The third step requires entering both the cross-level Self-Esteem Appearance CSW Self-Objectification interaction (and the associated main effects and twoway interactions) and perceived unattractiveness as predictors of well-being.

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

592

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

High Appearance CSW 2.5 2.5

Low Appearance CSW

Perceived Unattractiveness

1.5

Perceived Unattractiveness Low High

1.5

0.5

0.5

0 Low High

Self-Objectification

Self-Objectification

Low Trait Self-Esteem

High Trait Self-Esteem

Figure 2

Cross-Level Interaction (Trait Self-Esteem Trait Appearance-Contingent Self-Worth [CSW] State Self-Objectification) Predicting State Perceived Unattractiveness

We created an HLM model using the following equation at level 1: Y = P0 + P1*(self-objectification) + P2*(perceived unattractiveness) + E, where P0 is the intercept (baseline), P1 is the slope for the within-person effect of self-objectification for the average participant, E is the error, and Y is the predicted value of the dependent variable (well-being). At level 2, we used the same equations as in previous analyses: P0 = B00 + B01*(appearance CSW) + B02*(selfesteem) + B03*(appearance CSW self-esteem) + R0. P1 = B10 + B11*(appearance CSW) + B12*(selfesteem) + B13*(appearance CSW self-esteem). P0 refers to the effect of the between-person (level 2) variables and their interaction on the within-person (level 1) intercept. P1 refers to the effect of the level 2 variables and their interaction on the level 1 slope. R0 refers to the error variance. The within-person effect of perceived unattractiveness on well-being was significant, B = .19, t(1790) = 10.14,

p < .001. Controlling for perceived unattractiveness, the main effect of self-objectification on well-being was reduced to marginal significance, B = .05, t(1790) = 1.73, p = .08, and the cross-level Self-Esteem Appearance CSW Self-Objectification interaction was reduced from B = .11 to B = .06, t(1790) = 2.19, p < .05, indicating partial mediation (refer to Table 5 for the HLM output and to Figure 3 for the mediation model). These analyses suggest that self-objectification is less harmful to the well-being of high self-esteem, high appearance CSW women than other women in part because they are less likely to feel unattractive when they self-objectify.

DISCUSSION Building on previous research exploring the consequences of self-objectification for womens mental health and well-being, the present study examined the effects of self-objectification in college-aged womens daily life. Assessing womens experiences while they

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING

TABLE 5:

593

Final Estimation of Fixed Effects From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses Predicting State Well-Being With Self-Objectification (SO) and State Perceived Unattractiveness (UNATT) as Predictor at Level 1 and Trait Self-Esteem (SE) and Trait AppearanceContingent Self-Worth (ACSW) as Predictors at Level 2 Coefficient 0.03 0.07 0.22 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.06 0.01 SE 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 t 0.61 1.43 3.75 1.77 1.73 3.36 2.24 2.19 10.14 2.35 2.85 0.88 df 45 45 45 45 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 p .546 0.161 .001 .083 .083 .001 .025 .028 .000 .019 .005 .377

Fixed Effect For INTERCEPT, P0 INTERCEPT, B00 ACSW, B01 SE, B02 SE ACSW, B03 For SO slope, P1 INTRCEPT, B10 ACSW, B11 SE, B12 SE ACSW, B13 For UNATT slope, P2 INTRCEPT, B20 ACSW, B21 SE, B22 SE ACSW, B23

were engaged in a variety of activities, we found that increases in self-objectification, relative to individual mean levels, were associated with decreased well-being, increased ego involvement in appearance, and increases in feeling both attractive and unattractive. Furthermore, some women were more likely than others to experience negative outcomes associated with self-objectification, and these individual differences were partially mediated by how unattractive women felt while self-objectifying. We address each of these main findings in turn.

Consequences for Well-Being

As predicted, the experience of objectifying ones own body was accompanied by a decrease in both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. State self-objectification predicted decreased vitality and engagement in the present moment, two constructs that have not previously been empirically linked to self-objectification. Self-objectification also predicted decreased positive affect and self-esteem, supporting the idea that selfobjectification undermines hedonic well-being. Although self-objectification has the potential to boost self-esteem (i.e., if a woman feels attractive), self-objectification tended to be a negative experience for most women in the present study. These results support and extend laboratory and correlational studies showing that self-objectification has negative effects on womens psychological experience. Specifically, these results show that in the normal course of daily life, circumstances that increase womens self-objectification relative to their own baseline affect several aspects of well-being. These withinperson changes cannot be explained by individual differences such as neuroticism.

Contrary to our predictions, within-person changes in self-objectification were not significantly related to changes in perceived autonomy. That is, women experienced themselves as having as much choice when they self-objectified as when they did not. Women in our study may have felt obligated and compelled to do many activities in their daily lives, even nonobjectifying activities such as studying. Thus, feelings of autonomy, choice, and pressure may result more from why women engage in activities than how objectified they feel while doing the activity (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Similarly, changes in self-objectification were not significantly associated with changes in anxiety, suggesting that self-objectification has specific affective correlates. The absence of any association with anxiety suggests that self-objectification may differ from constructs such as social anxiety or evaluation apprehension. The association of self-objectification with self-esteem but not anxiety suggests that self-objectification may be linked to how women evaluate themselves, rather than fear of how they will be evaluated by others, reflecting the internalization of the cultural objectification of womens bodies.

The Moderating Role of Trait Self-Esteem and Appearance CSW

Not all women experienced self-objectification as negative. For highly appearance-contingent participants, the effect of self-objectification on well-being depended on level of trait self-esteem; high self-esteem women experienced a boost, whereas low self-esteem women experienced a sharp drop in well-being when they self-objectified. Thus, for participants who base

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

594

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

.14 SE x CSW x SO

Perceived Unattractiveness .06 (.11)

.19 Well-Being

Path Coefficients for Perceived Unattractiveness as a Mediator of the Relationship Between the Cross-Level Interaction of Trait SelfEsteem (SE) Trait Appearance Contingent Self-Worth (CSW) State Self-Objectification (SO) and State Well-Being *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Figure 3

their self-worth on appearance, self-objectification can be either validating or threatening to the self. These results add to previous research on contingencies of self-worth, particularly the effects of appearance CSW. Previous research has linked appearance CSW with low well-being and increases in depression (Sanchez & Crocker, 2006; Sargent et al., 2006). The present results extend this research by showing that appearance CSW interacts with trait self-esteem to predict changes in wellbeing associated with self-objectification. Furthermore, they show that appearance CSW does not always result in low well-being when women self-objectify; high selfesteem, high appearance CSW women experienced an increase in well-being when self-objectifying, consistent with previous research showing that contingencies of selfworth predict increases in well-being when people feel successful in the domain of contingency. Participants who were low in appearance CSW experienced decreased well-being regardless of their trait self-esteem level. This may seem surprising, because these women indicated that their self-worth did not depend on their appearance. Self-objectification might decrease well-being for women low in appearance CSW because these women typically pay less attention to and perhaps put less effort into their appearance. They may be less likely to seekand receivevalidation in the appearance domain, at least compared to domains where they have staked their self-esteem.

Self-Objectification and Perceptions of Attractiveness

Unlike laboratory studies emphasizing the association between self-objectification and body shame (e.g., Fredrickson et al., 1998), the present study captures the range of perceptions of attractiveness that women may feel when self-objectifying in their everyday lives. Our findings indicate that when women self-objectify in their daily lives, they tend to feel either more or less attractive than usual: In other words, self-objectification increases the salience of appearance. Surprising to note, all women reported feeling more attractive when self-objectifying,

although this relationship was weaker (but still highly significant) for women low in trait self-esteem or low in appearance CSW. The finding that women feel attractive when self-objectifying may explain why women selfobjectify in spite of the costs. Paradoxically, when women self-objectified, they also felt unattractive (i.e., ugly). Cross-level interactions indicated that this association was strongest for low selfesteem women with high appearance CSW, and high self-esteem women with low appearance CSW. High self-esteem women who do not base their self-worth on appearance may have other sources of self-esteem, leading some of them to put less effort into their appearance; when they do self-objectify, their attention is drawn to their appearance, and they may feel either attractive or unattractive, depending on the situation. In contrast to laboratory experiments in which a state of self-objectification is induced by having women try on swimsuits and sit in front of a mirror, in the present study women had some choice not only about being in objectifying situations but also how much time and effort they put into their appearance. The finding that perceived attractiveness was positively associated with self-objectification raises the possibility that laboratory manipulations such as those using the swimsuit/sweater paradigm may somewhat exaggerate the negative effects of self-objectification relative to what most women typically experience in daily life. Indeed, many women may avoid objectifying situations in daily life that make them feel ugly, such as trying on swimsuits.

The Mediating Role of Perceived Unattractiveness

We expected that perceived unattractiveness would mediate the main effect of self-objectification and the moderating effects of trait self-esteem and trait appearance CSW on well-being. That is, high self-esteem, highly contingent women may experience an increase in wellbeing when they self-objectify because they feel more satisfied with their appearance than other women do; for these women, self-objectification may be more likely to be ego boosting than ego threatening. We found support

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING for this hypothesis: Momentary perceived unattractiveness partially explained the cross-level Trait Self-Esteem Trait CSW Self-Objectification interaction on wellbeing. Whereas the cognitive effects of self-objectification may be due to effects on attention (Quinn et al., 2006), its affective consequences appear to be due, in part, to womens appraisals of their appearance. The item used to assess perceived unattractiveness in the present study (This activity makes me feel ugly) includes a particularly loaded word that for many women may connote shame and moral repugnance. The use of such a loaded word might help to explain the lack of correlation between perceived attractiveness and unattractiveness in our sample. Our data suggest that feeling ugly, rather than not feeling attractive, partially accounts for why selfobjectification can be such an unpleasant experience. The mediating role of feeling ugly is consistent with previous research indicating that body shame mediates the relationship between self-objectification and disordered eating (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001).

595

and well-being could be due to unmeasured third variables such as neuroticism or socially desirable responding. The present study demonstrates that within the same individuals, well-being is lower on those occasions when self-objectification is higher. Individual differences such as neuroticism or socially desirable responding cannot account for these effects. Furthermore, the results suggest that women who are high in self-esteem and base their self-esteem on their appearance may experience selfobjectification more positively than other women because they feel less unattractive. For these women, self-objectification may be validating, whereas for others it may be more threatening.

The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Objectification

These data may explain some seemingly paradoxical effects of self-objectification. If self-objectification is a negative experience, why dont women simply wear clothing that conceals their bodies and avoid objectifying situations? The results of the current study indicate that self-objectification is a double-edged sword, with both costs and benefits for well-being. In spite of many negative consequences of self-objectification, objectifying contexts may provide an opportunity for women to feel attractive and receive validation for their appearance. Thus, some women may seek the high of feeling great when they look great, and the positive attention that comes with it. According to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), women self-objectify as a survival tactic in response to sexually objectifying treatment and cultural pressure to be attractive in order to be successful. Self-objectification can have benefits, such as increased job opportunities and marriage proposals, if a woman is successful in her attempts to improve her appearance. Our data show that for some women, self-objectification is not a negative subjective experience; these women may seek out objectifying contexts and wear objectifying clothing not only as a survival tactic but also because they enjoy it or feel validated by it. Of course, high self-esteem, highly appearance-contingent women may experience negative effects not measured in this study. For example, the decrements in cognitive performance that result from being in objectifying contexts may apply to both high and low self-esteem women, because they are due to attentional processes rather than self-evaluative processes (Fredrickson et al., 1998; Quinn et al., 2006). In addition, some women may experience long-term consequences not measured in the present study. Even if women feel temporarily pleased with their appearance, self-objectification diverts attention away from tasks, experiences, and goals that may be more important in the long run for well-being and mental health. Ultimately, the costs of self-objectification may outweigh the potential benefits for all women.

Self-Objectification and Ego Involvement

Changes in self-objectification were strongly linked to changes in ego involvement in appearance (i.e., state appearance CSW and appearance validation goals). Although the relationship between self-objectification and self-validation goals was stronger for participants high in trait self-esteem or trait appearance CSW, all participants reported increases in both state appearance CSW and appearance validation goals. These results suggest a new approach for understanding the nature and consequences of self-objectification. Our results indicate that when women self-objectify in their daily lives, their self-worth is attached to their appearance, and they want to be seen as attractive. Thus, selfobjectification involves not only an external perspective on the physical self but also a self-esteem contingency and motivation to validate the self through appearance. Although further research is needed to clarify the direction of causality, the relationships among self-objectification, appearance CSW, and appearance validation goals are likely bidirectional; increases in self-objectification may cause increases in ego involvement in ones appearance, and increases in ego involvement in ones appearance may cause increases in self-objectification. In sum, the results of this study expand the range of well-being variables that are known to be diminished by self-objectification and suggest that for many women, self-objectification triggers an ego-involved state. In addition, they rule out one class of alternative explanations for previous research showing that self-objectification is related to low levels of well-being. Specifically, correlations between individual differences in self-objectification

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

596

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN might be less vulnerable to self-objectification. A study conducted by Hebl, King, and Lin (2004), however, suggests that self-objectification may have negative cognitive outcomes (e.g., math performance) for men and women regardless of racial or ethnic background. It is unclear whether any of the results of the present study generalize to men. We included only women in this study because previous research and theory suggests that women are much more likely than men to be objectified, to self-objectify, and to experience negative consequences of self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). For example, Fredrickson et al. (1998) found that when men were in an objectifying context (trying on a swimsuit instead of a large, bulky sweater), they felt silly but did not feel body shame, and they did not show decrements on cognitive tasks.

Future research should address not only the costs and benefits of self-objectification but also the factors or experiences that diminish womens vulnerability to selfobjectification. For example, in a recent study, Impett, Daubenmier, and Hirschman (2006) found that women who participated in a yoga immersion program experienced decreased self-objectification, increased embodiment (i.e, awareness of and responsiveness to bodily sensations), and increased well-being and health behaviors both within weeks and over the course of the yoga immersion.

Limitations
The present study has limitations. Despite the advantages of using an experience sampling methodology, the present study cannot establish causal associations among variables. Experimental research is needed to clarify the causal direction of the effect of self-objectification on negative psychological outcomes. Another potential limitation concerns the use of eventcontingent methodology. Because we did not randomly sample from participants daily lives, the effects obtained here may not represent all of womens experiences. However, participants ability to choose when and in what contexts they filled out reports should not affect the results; participants experienced a range of self-objectification and well-being, so selection of activities was not biased in any obvious way. Furthermore, participants were blind to the hypotheses of the present research, reducing the potential for demand characteristics. The present study also has a limited sample, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not examine differences in the experience of self-objectification in women of different ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations; it remains to be seen whether the results of the present study apply to members of these groups. Furthermore, the women in the present study were young, healthy, predominantly White, and on average socioeconomically advantaged, and it is unclear how the results of the present study would generalize beyond this sample. Women who are closer to the cultural ideal of feminine beauty may be more likely to feel attractive while self-objectifying and thus may experience less severe decrements to well-being. On the other hand, women who do not fit the dominant cultural ideal may be less likely to be affected by evaluations based on these standards and thus may be protected, to some degree, from self-objectification. African American women, for example, tend to be higher in body satisfaction than Caucasian women (Franko & StriegelMoore, 2002), perhaps because subcultural norms for thinness are less strict, and thus, members of this group

Conclusion
This study adds to the growing empirical literature on self-objectification in women. It extends the consequences of self-objectification beyond those studied previously: Self-objectification triggers an ego-involved state and undermines womens experience of being in the present moment and feeling alive and vital. Women who base their self-worth on appearance and have high self-esteem, however, experience greater well-being when self-objectifying, in part because they feel less unattractive than other women when self-objectifying. On average, however, self-objectification has negative effects on womens well-being. Whether or not they feel attractive, the energy women put into their appearance detracts from other pursuits that would be more likely to lead to sustainable well-being, such as making a contribution to society and finding meaning by making a difference for others. In conjunction with previous research, these findings suggest that research and education should continue to work toward providing girls and young women with the resources they need to experience their livestheir emotions, pleasures, desires, and vital energiesthrough their own bodies. It is perhaps only from this embodied perspective that a woman can know what she wants and possess the energy and motivation to create the life she wishes to live.

NOTES
1. Question order did not affect well-being, B = .03, t(47) = .26, p = .79, or self-objectification, B = .08, t(47) = .069, p = .49, nor did it moderate the effect of self-objectification on well-being, B = .06, t(1792) = 1.03, p = .30. 2. Due to handheld computer malfunction, 7 days of daily report data were lost for 11 participants. Because hierarchical linear modeling can accommodate unequal numbers of reports per person, giving greater weight to participants who provide more data (Bryk &

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

Breines et al. / SELF-OBJECTIFICATION AND WELL-BEING

Raudenbush, 1992), remaining data were included in the analyses. Thus, the average number of reports per day (2.63 reports per day per participant) reflects those participants whose data were lost due to the equipment malfunctions. Those participants who did not experience equipment malfunction completed an average of 3 reports per day. 3. The three-way cross-level interaction did not significantly predict state perceived attractiveness; thus, perceived attractiveness was not a candidate for mediation. We did not test state appearance-contingent self-worth (CSW) or appearance validation goals as mediators of the three-way cross-level interaction effect on well-being for both theoretical and methodological reasons. First, we did not have a theoretical basis for testing the mediational role of these variables; second, these variables did not satisfy a required condition for mediation: The cross-level Self-Esteem Appearance CSW Self-Objectification interaction did not significantly predict either state appearance CSW or appearance validation goals.

597

REFERENCES
Barrett, D. J., & Feldman-Barrett, L. (2000). The experience-sampling program (ESP). Retrieved from http://ww2.bc.edu/~barretli/esp/ Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839-855. Calogero, R. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16-21. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Self-consciousness and reactance. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 16-29. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1983). Self-directed attention and the comparison of self with standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 205-222. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-52). New York: Guilford. Cook-Cottone, C., & Phelps, L. (2003). Body dissatisfaction in college women: Identification of risk and protective factors to guide college counseling practices. Journal of College Counseling, 6, 80-89. Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908. Crocker, J., Sommers, S., & Luhtanen, R. (2002). Hopes dashed and dreams fulfilled: Contingencies of self-worth in the graduate school admissions process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1275-1286. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-623. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 33-37. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assesment and inquiry. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.

Fingeret, M. C., & Gleaves, D. H. (2004). Sociocultural, feminist, and psychological influences on womens body satisfaction: A structural modeling analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 370-380. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Rade, B., & Jaberg, P. (2001). Body dissatisfaction in women and men: The role of gender-typing and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 44, 461-484. Franko, D. L., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (2002). The role of body dissatisfaction as a risk factor for depression in adolescent girls: Are the differences black and white? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 975-983. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding womens lived experiences 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. Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body objectification and fat talk: Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377-388. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553. Harrison, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Womens sport media, self-objectification, and mental health in Black and White adolescent females. Journal of Communication, 53, 216-232. Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331. Impett, E. A., Daubenmier, J. J., & Hirschman, A. L. (2006). Minding the body: Yoga, embodiment, and well-being. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 3, 39-48. Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8, 115-128. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41-62. McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39, 113-123. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215. Miller, C. T., & Downey, K. T. (1999). A meta-analysis of heavyweight and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 68-84. Miller, L. C., & Cox, C. L. (1982), For appearances sake: Public selfconsciousness and makeup use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 748-751. Miner-Rubino, K., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Trait self-objectification in women: Affective and personality correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 147-172. Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 371-379. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is meditated and when mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. 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. Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435-449. Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 59-64.

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009

598

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Striegel-Moore, R. H., Silberstein, L. R., Rodin, J. (1993). The social self in bulimia nervosa: Public self-consciousness, social anxiety, and perceived fraudulence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 297-303. Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299-311. Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57-64. Tolman, D. L., Impett, E. A., Tracy, A. J., & Michael, A. (2006). Looking good, sounding good: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls mental health. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 85-95. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678-691. Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: HarperCollins.

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. R. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1989). Bridging the research traditions of task/ego involvement and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation: Comment on Butler (1987). Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 265-268. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565. Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affects well-being: The role of external contingencies of selfworth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 63-77. Sargent, J. T., Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2006). Contingencies of self-worth and symptoms of depression in college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(6), 628-646. Strelan, P., Mehaffey, S. J., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Self-objectification and esteem in young women: The mediating role of reasons for exercise. Sex Roles, 48, 89-95.

Received June 8, 2006 Revision accepted October 16, 2007

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com by DIRTU CATALIN on April 10, 2009