Journal of Research in Personality 36, 147–172 (2002)

doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2343, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Trait Self-Objectification in Women:

Affective and Personality Correlates

Kathi Miner-Rubino
University of Michigan

Jean M. Twenge
San Diego State University

and

Barbara L. Fredrickson
University of Michigan

Published online February 22, 2002

Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) predicts that taking an ob-
server’s perspective on one’s body (known as self-objectification) leads to negative
mental health outcomes. In this study, 98 college-aged women completed measures
of trait self-objectification, body shame, Neuroticism, and depression to test these
predictions. Participants also completed a measure of Big Five personality traits.
Trait self-objectification showed significant positive correlations with each of the
measures of negative affect. Trait self-objectification was also negatively correlated
with the personality traits Agreeableness and Intellect. There were no significant
correlations between trait self-objectification and Extraversion or Conscientious-
ness. Regression analysis demonstrated that trait self-objectification accounts for a
significant amount of variance in negative affectivity above and beyond other per-
sonality influences.  2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

Psychologists have long maintained that individuals’ personalities can

greatly influence their subjective experiences and the ways in which they

Portions of this research were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychologi-
cal Association, August 1999.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kathi Miner-Rubino or Barbara L. Fred-
rickson, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 East University Avenue,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109. Fax: (734) 647-9440. E-mail: [email protected] or blf@
umich.edu.
147
0092-6566/02 $35.00
 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)
All rights reserved.
148 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

relate to the social world. The social world, however, may also affect person-
ality and subjective experiences. Cooley’s (1922/1964) model of the look-
ing-glass self, for instance, posits that how a person is treated and viewed
by others can have an enormous influence on self-perception and behavior.
For example, how a woman perceives her own body can be influenced by
the larger cultural meanings associated with the female body. In fact, femi-
nists coming from a sociocultural or social construction tradition have em-
phasized that women’s bodies are constructed from more than just biology;
their bodies are also constructed through cultural practices and discourses.
In American society, women are often treated and viewed by others as
sexual objects, with beauty and thinness highly valued. Sexualized evalua-
tion is often enacted through gaze or a simple act of visual inspection of the
body (Kaschak, 1992). There is always the potential for sexual objectification
in the context of sexualized gazing. Sexual objectification occurs when a
woman’s body, body parts, or sexual functions are separated from her as a
person and are regarded as if they are capable of representing her (Fred-
rickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, sexual objectification is a cultural practice
that dehumanizes women. The most obvious sexually objectifying, dehuman-
izing treatment of women is in the realm of the visual media (e.g., television,
advertisements) that spotlight women’s bodies and body parts. These images
of women’s bodies permeate nearly every aspect of American culture, mak-
ing attempts to avoid them nearly impossible. As a result, it is likely that
every American girl or woman will be affected by these sexually objectifying
images to some degree.
Moreover, women’s bodies are targeted for sexual objectification more often
than are men’s (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Research by Swim, Hyers,
Cohen, and Ferguson (2001) shows not only that women report more sexually
objectifying incidents on a daily basis compared to men but also that such
incidents have more far-reaching psychological consequences for women. Be-
cause women’s bodies are evaluated in a way that men’s are not, women often
report more concern with eating, weight, and physical attractiveness (Franzoi,
1995; Pliner, Chaiken, & Flett, 1990). For women, a positive self-concept often
hinges on perceived physical attractiveness; for men, it often hinges on per-
ceived physical effectiveness (Lerner, Orlos, & Knapp, 1976). Adult women
are also more likely than men to experience ‘‘social physique anxiety’’—anxi-
ety stemming from others observing and evaluating their bodies (Hart, Leary, &
Rejeski, 1989). Thus, while certainly men may also be sexually objectified and
evaluated (and they often are in American culture), women are more likely to
be targets of sexual objectification and are more likely to be concerned and
unhappy with their physical appearance than are men.
Objectification Theory
In an attempt to better understand how sexual objectification might influ-
ence women’s lives and affective experiences, Fredrickson and Roberts
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 149

(1997) developed objectification theory. Similar to other feminist theories

based on the social constructionist perspective (e.g., Bartky, 1990; Spitzack,
1990), objectification theory provides a theoretical framework for under-
standing how the sexual objectification of women contributes to women’s
negative subjective experiences. However, objectification theory departs
from earlier frameworks in that it highlights the specific psychological conse-
quences of objectification.
Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) does not attempt to
explain why the sexual objectification of women is so pervasive in our cul-
ture.1 Instead, objectification theory explicates the mechanisms by which sex-
ual objectification and physical attractiveness ideals affect women (i.e., so-
cialization) and the consequences of these ideals. It takes as a given that all
women and girls in our society live in a culture in which their bodies are
looked at, evaluated, and potentially objectified. Thus, the aim of objectifica-
tion theory is to explicate how living in a social–cultural context that sexual-
izes and dehumanizes the female body can lead to specific negative affective
experiences and mental health risks for women and girls (see Fig. 1). The
goal of the current study was to examine some of the possible consequences
of sexual objectification as hypothesized by objectification theory. However,
we do not examine the cultural mechanisms by which sexual objectification
and physical attractiveness ideals affect women.
Because many women know that being looked at and evaluated is a con-
stant possibility, many women begin to measure their self-worth and happi-
ness by their physical appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Yet physi-
cal attractiveness ideals, such as ultra-thinness and extreme beauty, are
impossible for most women to attain (Wolf, 1991). So why do so many
women attempt the impossible? One clue comes from a long line of empirical
studies that document what many women have long suspected: Being physi-
cally attractive brings a multitude of benefits, and being physically unattrac-
tive brings an array of costs. Physical attractiveness has been shown to corre-
late highly with popularity, amount of dating experience, and marriage
opportunities for women (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971; Mar-
golin & White, 1987; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). Be-
ing beautiful can also translate into women’s economic power (Unger, 1979).
Obesity, on the other hand, can negatively affect women’s social mobility
(Wooley & Wooley, 1980; Wooley, Wooley, & Dyrenforth, 1979; for a re-
view, see Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
Women’s tacit awareness of these powerful benefits and costs, Fred-

1
A number of theorists, however, have attempted to explain why the sexual objectification
of women exists. For example Buss (1989), from an evolutionary perspective, argued that
women’s physical attractiveness signals their reproductive value. Alternatively, other theorists
(e.g., Connell, 1987; Kuhn, 1985) proposed that the sexual objectification of women serves
to maintain and reinforce patriarchy.
150 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

FIG. 1. Antecedents and consequences of self-objectification.

rickson and Roberts (1997) argued, creates hyperconcern with physical ap-
pearance in some women. Like those who gaze at them, some women begin
to judge their self-worth by the size, shape, and attractiveness of their bodies.
To some degree, a woman may adopt an observer’s perspective on herself,
frequently wondering, ‘‘How do I look?’’ Many women may in fact value
this implicitly objectifying view of themselves more than they value physical
attributes best appreciated from a first-person perspective—attributes such
as health, abilities, and comfort. This peculiar stance toward the self is what
Fredrickson and Roberts termed self-objectification. Thus, objectification
theory maintains that sexual objectification in the larger sociocultural arena
can coax women and girls to treat themselves as objects to be looked at,
evaluated, and dehumanized, leading them to adopt an observer’s perspective
on their physical selves. Self-objectification, then, is a particular view of the
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 151

self that can lead to a form of self-consciousness characterized by the habit-

ual monitoring of the body’s outward appearance.
Even though all women are, to some extent, affected by the cultural sexual
objectification of women, not all women internalize objectification and self-
objectify to the same degree. In fact, objectification theory proposes that
sexual objectification affects women differently depending on particular
combinations of class, ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation as well as per-
sonal histories and physical attributes. Furthermore, individual differences
such as self-esteem and locus of control might also help to explain individual
differences in self-objectification. Thus, even though women in general are
affected by sexual objectification, there are certain subgroups of women who
may be especially likely to internalize these cultural norms and to self-objec-
tify. Similarly, other subgroups of women may be able to deflect the negative
consequences of living in a sexually objectifying culture and self-objectify
to a lesser degree. Because self-objectification is assumed to stem from the
sexual objectification of women in the larger culture, and because objectifi-
cation can be internalized to varying degrees based on particular individual
circumstances, trait self-objectification has been conceptualized as a culture-
based individual difference variable.
Self-Objectification versus Body Dissatisfaction
Research to date on the objectification of one’s own body has been primar-
ily concerned with how objectification contributes to women’s negative body
esteem. Indeed, research has demonstrated that a woman who thinks of her
‘‘body-as-object’’ (i.e., the body as parts) rather than her ‘‘body-as-process’’
(i.e., the body as a dynamic process emphasizing function and movement)
is more likely to report lower levels of body esteem (Franzoi, 1995). Other
research has also demonstrated (e.g., Pliner et al., 1990) that women who are
concerned about eating, body weight, and physical appearance have lower
appearance self-esteem. While these findings are important, they link con-
cern about physical appearance to dissatisfaction about one’s body.
By contrast, objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) makes
a critical distinction between self-objectification and the more common con-
cept of body dissatisfaction. Self-objectification entails concern with physi-
cal appearance but without a judgmental or evaluative component. In other
words, self-objectification implies that individuals implicitly ask themselves
the question, ‘‘How do I look?’’ Departing from the concept of body dissatis-
faction, self-objectification does not presume that the answer to that question
is necessarily negative. Moreover, objectification theory predicts that self-
objectification will have more far-reaching consequences on emotional well-
being, not simply dissatisfaction with one’s body as other research in this
area proposes. Certainly, for many women, especially because beauty ideals
are so unrealistic, self-objectification and body dissatisfaction go hand-in-
152 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

hand. Even so, women who are satisfied with their looks may also exper-
ience the adverse effects of self-objectification so long as they are concerned
with appearance more than other body attributes (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
State and Trait Self-Objectification
Just as not all women self-objectify to the same degree, they also do not
self-objectify in all contexts. In fact, objectification theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997) conceptualizes self-objectification as both a situationally in-
duced state and a relatively enduring trait. Daily, women enter into a variety
of contexts, some of which will accentuate their awareness of actual or poten-
tial objectification. State self-objectification is elicited in circumstances that
accentuate observers’ perspectives on one’s body. For example, in a series
of experiments conducted by Fredrickson and colleagues, women were ran-
domly assigned to try on a swimsuit or a sweater; self-objectification was
induced in the women who were wearing swimwear but not in women who
were wearing sweaters.2 Thus, in this context (trying on swimwear), women
were more aware of their bodies’ appearance. This temporary state of self-
objectification in turn produced experiences of body shame, patterns of re-
strained eating, and diminished cognitive performance (Fredrickson, Rob-
erts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998).
By contrast, trait self-objectification represents stable individual differ-
ences in chronic preoccupation with appearance. According to objectification
theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), the more a woman internalizes the
dehumanizing cultural messages of sexual objectification, the more likely
she is to self-objectify and the more likely she is to experience the affective
consequences of self-objectification. To assess trait self-objectification, Fred-
rickson and colleagues developed a simple measure that asks respondents to
rank order a list of body attributes by how important each is to their physical
self-concept (Fredrickson et al., 1998; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). The mea-
sure has shown high test–retest reliability (r ⫽ .92, p ⬍ .001 [Fredrickson,
1999]), suggesting that the measure is stable and trait-like. Fredrickson and
colleagues (1998) administered this measure to more than 1200 college stu-
dents and have found that women, compared to men, score higher on trait
self-objectification.
Differentiating Self-Objectification
Self-objectification is similar to and different from a number of constructs
already in the literature. Again, self-objectification is the adoption of an ob-
server’s perspective on the self whereby one treats oneself as an object to

2
Manipulation checks showed that women wearing swimwear were significantly more likely
to emphasize body shape and size on an open-ended identity test (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 153

be looked at and evaluated. A conceptually similar construct is McKinley

and Hyde’s (1996) body surveillance, which refers to the extent to which a
woman exists as an object to herself and relates to her own body as an exter-
nal onlooker. Like trait self-objectification, body surveillance is hypothe-
sized to result from the internalization of cultural appearance standards and
the sexual objectification of the female body. The major difference between
the two constructs is how they are measured; trait self-objectification is as-
sessed by a rank order measure, with individuals asked to rank the impor-
tance of appearance-based attributes (e.g., weight) to their physical self-con-
cept compared to internally based attributes (e.g., health). By contrast, body
surveillance is assessed by a number of questions to which individuals re-
spond on a scale using Likert ratings. Both measures assess the degree to
which a woman thinks of her body in terms of how it looks rather than how
it feels.
Another construct related to self-objectification is Franzoi’s (1995) body-
as-object. Franzoi argued that there are two ways to think about one’s body;
one is to view the body as an object composed of discrete parts, and the
other is to view the body as a dynamic process where function is of greater
importance than beauty. Thus, like self-objectification (and body surveil-
lance), body-as-object refers to the extent to which an individual emphasizes
her or his body as an object to be evaluated rather than as a body of feeling
and function. Like Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) and McKinley and Hyde
(1996), Franzoi (1995) argued that women, more than men, objectify their
own bodies (i.e., focus on body-as-object) as a result of ‘‘greater cultural
scrutiny’’ of the female body and appearance standards. The major difference
between trait self-objectification and body-as-object is that body-as-object
refers to attitudes toward one’s body parts, while self-objectification refers
to the adoption of an observer’s perspective on the self. This difference ac-
counts for why individuals with high body-as-object scores are hypothesized
to also report high levels of body dissatisfaction, and in fact research shows
just this (Franzoi, 1995). By contrast, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) argued
that self-objectification is not related to satisfaction with one’s body.
Trait self-objectification is also conceptually similar to the widely studied
personality trait public self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss,
1975). Public self-consciousness refers to the awareness of self as a social
object, concern with how others will evaluate the self, and the impression
that one makes on others. Public self-consciousness is similar to self-objecti-
fication in that individuals high in these constructs are aware of themselves
as a social object and concerned with physical appearance. However, there
are a number of ways in which these two constructs differ. For example,
public self-consciousness entails more than outward appearance, including
the impression one makes on others and the style of one’s behavior. Another
way in which self-objectification and public self-consciousness differ is that,
154 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

rather than simply being aware of themselves as social objects, individuals

high in self-objectification go one step further and adopt the perspective of
observers. In other words, rather than simply having awareness of being
observed, high self-objectifiers take a peculiar stance on their selves and
actually become the observers. Moreover, unlike self-objectification (and the
related constructs of body surveillance and body-as-object), research does
not show a gender difference in public self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al.,
1975), and public self-consciousness is not thought to stem from the de-
humanizing cultural practices and attitudes surrounding the female body.
Even so, because self-objectification and public self-consciousness overlap
to some extent, there are a number of research findings on public self-
consciousness that might generalize to self-objectification. For example,
public self-consciousness is correlated with anxiety (Darvill, Johnson, &
Danko, 1992; Fenigstein et al., 1975; Tunnell, 1984), shame and neuroticism
(Darvill et al., 1992; Scandell, 1998), concern with physical appearance
(Miller & Cox, 1982), and other-directedness (Tobey & Tunnell, 1981; Tun-
nell, 1984). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) hypothesized that self-objectifi-
cation is also related to these constructs. In addition, research by McKinley
and Hyde (1996) shows that public self-consciousness is highly correlated
with body surveillance, which (as described above) is conceptually similar
to self-objectification.
Consequences of Self-Objectification
According to objectification theory, a high degree of self-objectification
has affective consequences. These include increased opportunities to experi-
ence certain negative emotions, decreased opportunities to experience certain
positive emotions, and diminished awareness of internal bodily cues. The
primary purpose of the current study was to test some of the specific predic-
tions of objectification theory. Specifically, we were interested in whether
self-objectification is related to shame, anxiety, and depression as the theory
hypothesizes. A discussion of why and how these negative emotional conse-
quences are linked with self-objectification follows.
First, objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) proposes that
self-objectification creates opportunities to experience shame, particularly
shame about one’s body. Shame is considered a moral emotion that is used
to socialize individuals to societal standards. As such, theoretical accounts
of shame hold that this emotion occurs when individuals feel they have failed
to live up to an important societal ideal. Objectification theory posits that
because current ideals for women’s appearance are so unrealistic, women
who self-objectify are likely to experience body shame. Noll and Fredrickson
(1998) surveyed 204 women and found that trait self-objectification corre-
lates with reports of body shame (correlations ranged from .29 to .51). In
related work, McKinley and Hyde (1996) surveyed 360 women and reported
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 155

similar correlations (ranging from .39 to .66) between their measures of body
surveillance and body shame. Why does objectification theory propose that
body shame, and not body dissatisfaction, will be linked with self-objectifi-
cation? Body shame is more tied with morality and self-worth, whereas body
dissatisfaction entails more of an opinion about one’s body. Thus, objectifi-
cation theory proposes that the consequences of self-objectification are asso-
ciated with negative feelings about the self in relation to one’s body (e.g.,
I’m a bad person because I can’t live up to beauty ideals) rather than simply
having a negative feeling about one’s body (e.g., I’m fat compared to beauty
ideals).
Another affective consequence of trait self-objectification is anxiety. Fred-
rickson and Roberts (1997) argue that women become more anxious in a
culture that objectifies the female body. Because women never know exactly
when or how they will be looked at and evaluated, they may have feelings
of anxiety about potential exposure. Consistent with this view, past studies
document that women experience more anxiety about their appearance than
do men (Dion, Dion, & Keelan, 1990) and manifest this anxiety by monitor-
ing and adjusting their appearance and clothing (Keelan, Dion, & Dion,
1992). Moreover, because women always face the possibility of being
sexually assaulted, they must constantly be aware of the fact that they may
be the next target of sexual victimization. Indeed, widely accepted rape
‘‘myths’’ hold that women’s clothing and attractiveness can provoke sexual
violence (Beneke, 1982; Burt, 1980, 1991; Jacobson & Popovich, 1983),
which may lead women to be overly preoccupied with their physical appear-
ance. Research shows that attentiveness to threats of victimization is a daily
source of anxiety for many women, affecting their personal and work lives
(Gordon & Riger, 1989; Rozee, 1988). Trait self-objectification, then, fosters
vigilance about one’s physical appearance and physical safety, as objectifi-
cation theory proposes. We speculate that this vigilance can lead to a more
general anxiety that infuses other aspects of women’s lives. The cognitive
and affective symptoms of anxiety have been found to be closely related to
the personality trait Neuroticism (Clark, Steer, & Beck, 1994). As such, in
the current study we employed a measure of Neuroticism to assess general
anxiety and predict that trait self-objectification will correlate positively with
this personality attribute.
Anxiety is highly correlated with depression (e.g., Tanaka-Matsumi &
Kameoka, 1986), and depression is also thought to be among the affective
consequences of self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Women
are about twice as likely to become depressed as are men (Kessler, McGon-
agle, Nelson, & Hughes, 1994). Many theories have been offered to explain
this gender difference (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990), and objectification the-
ory draws from several of them. First, self-objectification may lead to recur-
ring feelings of body shame and anxiety, which in turn may lead to a form of
156 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Beck, 1976;

Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). This may occur because bodies are only partially
changeable. For example, although women can exercise, diet, or have sur-
gery in efforts to change their bodies or appearance, there are limits to how
much women can change their bodies to realize cultural ideals. Moreover,
objectification theory proposes that to the extent that beauty ideals are based
on White women, women of color are never able attain them. Because bodies
are so hard to change, and because problem-solving techniques are not al-
ways as useful for appearance concerns, women may begin to feel more
anxious and shameful about their bodies, resulting in feelings of helplessness
because they have failed to attain the ideal. Moreover, individuals may rumi-
nate over such problems, a coping technique that has been linked to higher
incidences of depression (Morrow & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990; Nolen-Hoek-
sema, 1991), especially among women (Nolen-Hoeksema, Morrow, & Fred-
rickson, 1993). In addition, some theorists have suggested that having more
self-initiated positive experiences increases quality of life (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990) and reduces chances for depression (Lewinsohn, 1974). Individuals
who self-objectify, however, often depend on others’ evaluations of their
appearance for positive experiences; not having direct control over others’
feedback may lead to depression because the positive experiences are not
self-initiated. These factors may combine to increase the risks of depression
among those who chronically self-objectify.
Objectification and Personality
Research has found that personality may be implicated in the perception
of one’s body as an object. For example, Franzoi (1995) found that a wom-
an’s attitude toward her body-as-object (i.e., body as parts) was significantly
influenced by the extent to which she possessed masculine and feminine
personality traits. Women who complied with traditional cultural definitions
of gender by adopting many feminine personality traits (e.g., concerned
about others, passive) generally held more negative attitudes toward their
body parts than did women who adopted few feminine stereotypical traits.
By contrast, women who had more instrumental masculine traits (e.g., active,
dominant, assertive) reported more positive attitudes toward their body parts.
Thus, it was the most feminine women who were the most dissatisfied with
their bodies. Franzoi argued that the possession of masculine traits may pro-
tect women against a preoccupation with female attractiveness standards that
can ultimately lead to feelings of negative body affect and disordered eating.
We hypothesize that other personality traits may also be linked with self-
objectification. To examine the relationship between self-objectification and
other aspects of personality that have not been studied previously, we also
included measures of Big Five personality traits in this study. The Big Five
trait factors have traditionally been labeled as Extraversion/Surgency,
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 157

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability),

and Intellect/Openness to Experience. These five traits are thought to be
present in varying degrees in all individuals (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Goldberg, 1990, 1992; John, 1990). We predict that trait self-objectification
may show specific relationships with these particular personality variables.
As discussed previously, trait self-objectification should correlate posi-
tively with Neuroticism. In addition, trait self-objectification might also be
related to the personality trait Extraversion/Surgency. People high on this
trait describe themselves as motivated, assertive, bold, and active. Those who
self-objectify (and thus rely heavily on others’ opinions) may find it more
difficult to be assertive and instrumental because these traits depend on inde-
pendent, self-motivated actions (Franzoi, 1995; Spence & Helmreich, 1980).
Because they are constantly preoccupied with how they will be evaluated
by others, self-objectifiers may feel incapable and uncomfortable acting in an
assertive and dominant manner for fear of disapproval from others. Related
research shows that individuals high on public self-consciousness, which is
conceptually similar to self-objectification, are more sensitive to rejection
by others (Fenigstein, 1979). This concern with evaluations by others may
lead individuals who self-objectify to become somewhat withdrawn. Thus,
we expect that self-objectification will correlate negatively with measures
of Extraversion/Surgency.
Those who self-objectify may also be likely to score high on the Big Five
trait Agreeableness. Among other aspects, Agreeableness is thought to en-
compass constructs such as the internalization of moral values, concern with
evaluation, being other-oriented, and the ability to take another’s perspective
(Eisenberg, 1986; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Penner & Fritzsche, 1993).
Indeed, research by Tobey and Tunnell (1981) and Tunnell (1984) shows
that individuals high on public self-consciousness (which, again, is similar
to self-objectification) are more other-directed. Thus, high self-objectifiers,
who are overly concerned with how others perceive them, may be preoccu-
pied with not only their physical appearance but also their overt behavior,
resulting in a tendency to be highly agreeable in an effort to please others.
Self-objectification may also be related to the Big Five trait Intellect (also
called Openness to Experience). Individuals high on Intellect describe them-
selves as intellectual, imaginative, and creative. Objectification theory sug-
gests that expending mental resources thinking about one’s physical ap-
pearance may decrease opportunities for new experiences and intellectual
pursuits as one’s thinking becomes less permeable and less open to curiosity
and cognitive exploration. For these reasons, we expect that self-objectifica-
tion will correlate negatively with the Big Five trait Intellect.
The Big Five personality trait Conscientiousness refers to a tendency to
be highly responsible, orderly, prudent and diligent. Objectification theory
makes no clear connection between these characteristics and self-objectifica-
158 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

tion. Thus, we make no prediction about the relationship between self-object-

ification and Conscientiousness and only employ a measure of Conscien-
tiousness here to demonstrate discriminant validity.

Hypotheses
Combining the tenets of objectification theory with the ideas presented
here, we made the following hypotheses regarding the relationships between
trait self-objectification and its affective consequences. First, as posited in
objectification theory, women’s trait self-objectification will be positively
correlated with body shame and depression. Second, as developed here,
women’s trait self-objectification will be positively correlated with Neuroti-
cism.
We also made the following hypotheses regarding the relationship be-
tween trait self-objectification and other personality variables. Third, as de-
veloped here, women’s trait self-objectification will be negatively correlated
with Extraversion; fourth, women’s self-objectification will show a negative
correlation with Intellect and a positive correlation with Agreeableness; and
fifth, women’s trait self-objectification will show no significant correlation
with Conscientiousness, demonstrating the discriminant validity of trait self-
objectification.
Finally, sixth, because objectification theory predicts that self-objectifica-
tion is not synonymous with body dissatisfaction, we hypothesize that body
dissatisfaction will not correlate with women’s trait self-objectification, dem-
onstrating the discriminant validity of trait self-objectification. We also pre-
dict that body dissatisfaction will not correlate with any of the affective or
personality variables discussed above.

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 98 University of Michigan undergraduate women who completed the study
to fulfill a requirement in their introductory psychology class. Of these participants, 73% were
White and 27% were non-White (6% Black, 5% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 5% other). The
average age was 18.6 years, and most were first- or second-year college students.

Procedures and Measures

Participants completed the measures in group sessions outside of class time. The sessions
were run by two White female researchers. All respondents completed the following measures:
the Trait Self-Objectification Questionnaire (TSOQ) (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; reprinted in
Fredrickson et al., 1998), the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) (McKinley &
Hyde, 1996), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977),
the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), the dominance
scale of the Personality Research Form (PRF) (Jackson, 1965), the Rathus Assertiveness Scale
(Rathus, 1973), and the Goldberg Big Five scale (unipolar, 100-item) (Goldberg, 1992). The
Extraversion scale of the EPQ, the dominance scale of the PRF, the Rathus Assertiveness
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 159

Scale, and the Surgency scale of the Goldberg Big Five scale all were used to measure the
Extraversion/Surgency construct. The Neuroticism scale of the EPQ and the Emotional Stabil-
ity (reverse-coded) scale of the Goldberg Big Five measure were used to assess Neuroticism.
The remaining Big Five traits were measured using the Goldberg Big Five scale.
The participants also completed the Body Image Assessment (BIA) (Williamson, Davis,
Bennett, Goreczny, & Gleaves, 1985). The BIA measures the discrepancy between individuals’
actual body sizes and their ideal sizes (i.e., body dissatisfaction). Respondents are asked to
consider drawings of 10 female body types ranging from very underweight to very overweight.
Women then report which body type they currently have and which they would ideally prefer
to have. The numerical difference between the two chosen types is considered a measure of
body dissatisfaction. While considered a measure of body dissatisfaction, this measure is lim-
ited in that it focuses on body size and emphasizes weight dissatisfaction.
While the personality and depression measures are fairly well known, the measures of trait
self-objectification require more description. We employ two different measures here. The
first, Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) Trait Self-Objectification Questionnaire, assesses concern
with appearance without an evaluative or judgmental component. The measure is based both
on objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and the Body Esteem Scale (Franzoi &
Shields, 1984). It departs from the Body Esteem Scale in that it does not examine respondents’
satisfaction with their bodies; rather, it examines the extent to which appearance-based attri-
butes dominate individuals’ physical self-conceptions. Respondents rank order a list of body
attributes by how important each is to their physical self-concept. Half of the attributes are
based on physical appearance (e.g., weight, attractiveness), and the other half are based on
physical competence (e.g., health, strength). Difference scores for ranks could range from 25
to ⫺25. A high score describes a person who places more value on physical appearance than
on physical competence; a lower score describes the opposite. (For a copy of this measure,
see Fredrickson et al., 1998.) Previous research has demonstrated satisfactory validity and
reliability of the TSOQ (Fredrickson, 1999; Noll, 1996).
A conceptually similar measure is drawn from McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified
Body Consciousness Scale. Like Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) Trait Self-Objectification
Scale, the OBCS body surveillance subscale taps the tendency to adopt an observer’s perspec-
tive on the body. Example items include ‘‘I often worry about whether the clothes I am wearing
make me look good’’ and ‘‘I think more about how my body feels than how my body looks’’
(reverse-coded). The OBCS also includes a body shame subscale that, as the name suggests,
measures respondents’ feelings of shame about their outward appearance and weight. Example
items include ‘‘When I can’t control my weight, I feel like something must be wrong with
me’’ and ‘‘I feel like I must be a bad person when I don’t look as good as I could.’’ These
subscales of the OBCS are valid and reliable (McKinley & Hyde, 1996).

RESULTS
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
The Trait Self-Objectification Questionnaire and the surveillance subscale
of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale were highly correlated (r ⫽
.63, p ⬍ .001), demonstrating the convergent validity of the TSOQ with an
instrument shown to measure trait-like self-objectification constructs. Be-
cause the TSOQ asks participants to rank attributes and leads to a single
score, it could be argued that the measure might be unreliable. The high
correlation between these two measures, however, helps to substantiate the
validity of the ranking measure. Moreover, because the TSOQ and the sur-
veillance scale of the OBCS were so highly correlated, we z-scored each
160 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

TABLE 1
Negative Affect and Personality Correlates of Self-Objectification
and Body Dissatisfaction

Self-objectification Body
composite dissatisfaction

Self-objectification composite — .17

OBCS body shame .63*** .42***
CES depression .27** .12
Goldberg emotional stability a .37*** .17
EPQ neuroticism .42*** .05
Rathus assertiveness ⫺.18 ⫺.05
PRF dominance ⫺.03 .15
Goldberg surgency ⫺.10 ⫺.03
EPQ extraversion ⫺.04 .02
Goldberg agreeableness ⫺.26* ⫺.08
Goldberg intellect ⫺.23* ⫺.09
Goldberg conscientiousness ⫺.02 .08
Masculinity ⫺.20* ⫺.02
Femininity ⫺.09 ⫺.01

Note. OBCS, Objectified Body Consciousness Scale; CES, Center for Epidemiologic Stud-
ies; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; PRF, Personality Research Form.
a
Reverse-coded.
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.
*** p ⬍ .001.

measure and combined them to form a self-objectification composite (Cron-

bach’s alpha ⫽ .85).
On the body dissatisfaction scale, women’s preferred body sizes averaged
1.38 figures thinner (ranging from ⫺2 to 6) than their self-reported actual
body sizes. Women’s body dissatisfaction was not significantly correlated
with the self-objectification composite (r ⫽ .17, ns), suggesting they are
separate constructs. The analyses that follow using the self-objectification
composite were also run with controls for body dissatisfaction; the results
were essentially unchanged. Thus, the uncontrolled correlations are reported
here. The correlations between the self-objectification composite and the af-
fective, personality, and body dissatisfaction variables are shown in Table 1.
Trait Self-Objectification
Are shame, depression, and Neuroticism related to self-objectification as
objectification theory predicts? Our first and second hypotheses, that self-
objectification would be significantly correlated with measures of body
shame, depression, and Neuroticism, were confirmed (see Table 1). Wom-
en’s trait self-objectification correlated with all three constructs, with higher
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 161

correlations for the body shame and Neuroticism measures. Thus, women
who self-objectify feel more body shame, are more anxious, and show more
symptoms of depression.
We predicted in the third hypothesis that self-objectification would corre-
late negatively with measures assessing Extraversion/Surgency. This hy-
pothesis was not confirmed (see Table 1). In the fourth hypothesis, we pre-
dicted that Intellect would be negatively correlated with self-objectification
and that Agreeableness would be positively correlated with self-objectifica-
tion. Both Agreeableness and Intellect showed significant correlations with
self-objectification (see Table 1). As expected, Intellect was significantly
negatively correlated with self-objectification. Contrary to predictions, there
was a significant negative correlation between self-objectification and Agree-
ableness. As predicted in the fifth hypothesis, Conscientiousness showed no
significant relationship to self-objectification.
Finally, we expected that women’s body dissatisfaction would not be sig-
nificantly correlated with self-objectification and would not correlate with
any of the affective or personality variables. This hypothesis was mostly
confirmed; women showed no correlations between body dissatisfaction and
any of these measures, with one exception (see Table 1): Body dissatisfaction
is significantly related to body shame. This is not surprising, however, given
that both tap body evaluations.
In addition to the above analyses, we thought it would be interesting to
examine whether masculinity and femininity were also related to self-objecti-
fication. As described earlier, Franzoi (1995) found that how women viewed
their body parts (body-as-object) was significantly related to the extent to
which they held masculine and feminine personality traits. Although there
are some differences between trait self-objectification and body-as-object,
the two constructs overlap enough to where we felt we might be able to
extend Franzoi’s work in this area.
Because the examination of the relationship between trait self-objectifica-
tion and masculinity and femininity was not the primary aim of this study,
we did not employ traditional measures of these constructs. To examine these
relationships post hoc, we used items from the Goldberg Big Five scale
(Goldberg, 1992) to create scales assessing masculinity and femininity. We
selected items based on classic gender stereotype measures of these con-
structs (Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). We included active, assert-
ive, bold, vigorous, and daring in the masculinity scale (Cronbach’s alpha
⫽ .68) and included considerate, cooperative, emotional, kind, helpful, and
warm in the femininity scale (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .77). Self-objectification
was significantly negatively correlated with masculinity but was not signifi-
cantly correlated with femininity (see Table 1).
The above results demonstrate that several personality traits are associated
with trait self-objectification. The results also demonstrate that self-objecti-
162 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

fication is associated with the experience of negative affect, as predicted by

objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). However, these results
cannot tell us the unique effect of self-objectification on the experience of
negative affect above and beyond personality influences. In other words,
does self-objectification predict the experience of negative affect even when
controlling for other personality traits? To make this assessment, we con-
ducted a multiple regression analysis. Before discussing the results, the vari-
ables used in this analysis need clarification.
Because the four measures of negative affect (the CES depression scale,
the Goldberg Emotional Stability scale (reverse-coded), the EPQ Neuroti-
cism scale, and the OBCS body shame scale) were so highly intercorrelated
(see Table 2), we z-scored the individual items of each scale and combined
them to form a composite. We call this composite ‘‘negative affectivity.’’
This decision is supported by research demonstrating that while anxiety and
depression have specific unique components, they also have a common com-
ponent representing broad individual differences in negative affectivity
(Clark & Watson, 1991). Likewise, the experience of body shame is thought
to encompass feelings of worthlessness, failure, and self-consciousness simi-
lar to depression and Neuroticism. The alpha for the negative affectivity
composite was high (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .95). In addition, because the inter-
correlations between the Extraversion/Surgency scales were so highly inter-
correlated (see Table 2), we z-scored the individual items of the Goldberg
Surgency, EPQ Extraversion, PRF dominance, and Rathus assertiveness
scales and combined them to form a composite of overall Extraversion.
The alpha for the Extraversion composite was also very high (Cronbach’s
alpha ⫽ .95).
Based on the significant correlations between Agreeableness and the nega-
tive affect variables (see Table 2) and between the Extraversion and negative
affect variables (see Table 2), we decided to use only these personality vari-
ables (and not the Conscientiousness, Intellect, masculinity, or femininity
variables) as predictors in the analysis. In addition, because body dissatisfac-
tion was significantly correlated with body shame, we also included this vari-
able in the analysis as a predictor.
Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis using
body dissatisfaction, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and self-objectification as
predictors of negative affectivity. In the first step, we entered the personality
and body dissatisfaction variables, which accounted for 19% of the variance
in negative affectivity (R 2 ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .001). Body dissatisfaction and Agree-
ableness both served as significant predictors of negative affectivity. Extra-
version was not a significant predictor. Table 3 also reveals that after control-
ling for the two personality variables and body dissatisfaction in Step 1, self-
objectification, which was entered in Step 2, explained an additional 18%
of the variance in negative affectivity (R 2 ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .001). Agreeableness
 TABLE 2
Intercorrelations of Personality and Negative Affect Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Negative affect
1. CES depression — .64*** .75*** .37** ⫺.35** ⫺.10 ⫺.24* ⫺.19 ⫺.22* ⫺.13 .09 ⫺.17 .11
2. Goldberg emotional stability a — .76*** .38** ⫺.12 .21* .09 .12 ⫺.42*** .00 ⫺.05 .07 .11
3. EPQ neuroticism — .44** ⫺.32** ⫺.11 ⫺.21* ⫺.10 ⫺.32** ⫺.08 .14 ⫺.13 .05
4. OBCS body shame — ⫺.24* .04 ⫺.11 ⫺.02 ⫺.23* ⫺.21* .07 ⫺.10 ⫺.08
Extraversion
5. Rathus assertiveness — .59*** .57*** .34** ⫺.04 .30** .02 .56*** .02
6. PRF dominance — .59*** .55*** .01 .29** .04 .61*** .28**
7. Goldberg surgency — .82*** .18 .31** ⫺.15 .83*** .36***
8. EPQ extraversion — .33** .35** ⫺.05 .66*** .44***
Other Big Five
9. Goldberg agreeableness — .21* .35** .13 .74***
10. Goldberg intellect — ⫺.05 .26* .20*
11. Goldberg conscientiousness — ⫺.05 .31**
Other
12. Masculinity — .34**
13. Femininity —

Note. CES, Center for Epidemiologic Studies; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; OBCS, Objectified Body Consciousness Scale; PRF,
TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN

Personality Research Form.

a
Reverse-coded.
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.
*** p ⬍ .001.
163
164 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

TABLE 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Body Dissatisfaction, Personality,
and Self-Objectification Predicting Negative Affectivity

Variable B β R2 ∆R 2

Step 1
Body dissatisfaction .47 .21*
Extraversion composite .00 ⫺.08
Goldberg agreeableness .00 ⫺.34*** .19 .19***
Step 2
Body dissatisfaction .27 .13
Extraversion composite .00 ⫺.07
Goldberg agreeableness .00 ⫺.23*
Self-objectification composite .82 .46*** .37 .18***
* p ⬍ .05.
*** p ⬍ .001.

remained a significant predictor. These results suggest that self-objectifica-

tion significantly predicts negative affectivity above and beyond other per-
sonality influences.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was twofold. Our first goal was to test
some of the specific predictions made by objectification theory (Fred-
rickson & Roberts, 1997). Our second goal was to explore whether particular
personality constructs are related to self-objectification. The results presented
here suggest that trait self-objectification—an individual’s internal stable
maintenance of an observer’s perspective on her or his body—does indeed
have a relationship with mental health and other personality traits.
Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) contends that self-
objectification has specific negative consequences for the mental health of
women. As predicted, and congruent with the tenets of objectification theory,
women who score high on self-objectification also score high on measures
of body shame, Neuroticism/anxiety, and depression. These findings suggest
that in a culture that objectifies and dehumanizes the female body as the
American culture does (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), many women become
preoccupied with their physical appearance, and this preoccupation predicts
experiences of depression, anxiety, and body shame.
Past research has demonstrated that self-objectification is significantly in-
fluenced by masculine and feminine personality traits. For example, Franzoi
(1995) found that women who held many feminine stereotypical personality
traits held more negative attitudes toward their body parts than did women
who adopted few feminine stereotypical traits and that women who had many
masculine stereotypical traits reported the most positive attitudes toward
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 165

their body parts. Similar to these findings, we found that women who held
many masculine stereotypical traits were less likely to self-objectify. We did
not find, however, that femininity was related to self-objectification. Thus,
our findings extend Franzoi’s work in this area and provide further evidence
for the possibility that having many masculine stereotypical traits may pro-
tect some women from the internalization of the observer’s perspective and
being overly concerned with their physical appearance.
We posited that trait self-objectification would be related to a number of
other personality variables as well. For example, we predicted that there
would be a negative correlation between self-objectification and the Big Five
trait Extraversion/Surgency. This prediction was not supported. Thus, it ap-
pears that the internalization of the observer’s perspective is not related to
how dominant, assertive, and extraverted an individual is, at least in this
study.
As predicted, Intellect showed a negative relationship with trait self-ob-
jectification. This finding suggests that when women are preoccupied with
their outward appearance, they may be unable to expend mental energy on
intellectual and creative pursuits. Indeed, research findings (i.e., Tunnell,
1984) suggest that excessive concern with others’ impressions may ‘‘sap the
energy and creativity’’ of individuals who are overly concerned with their
appearance. Another possibility is that self-objectification increases depres-
sion, anxiety, and body shame, which in turn disrupt efficient cognitive func-
tioning by affecting an individual’s ability to think clearly and/or creatively.
Indeed, the results of this study suggest that self-objectification influences
the experience of anxiety and depression, and past research has demonstrated
that these negative emotions influence different aspects of information pro-
cessing (for a review, see Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998). It has also been
suggested that shame leads people to focus exclusively on the self, resulting
in an inability to think clearly (Lewis, 1992). In line with this view is the
previous finding that state self-objectification produces diminished cognitive
performance in women (Fredrickson et al., 1998). It is also possible that
women who are absorbed in intellectual and creative endeavors are less likely
to become absorbed in their physical appearance. Thus, women high on Intel-
lect may be less likely to self-objectify simply because they are concerned
with things other than beauty. Finally, it is also possible that women low on
Intellect may be more likely to have traditional gender beliefs, making them
more preoccupied with their outward appearance. In other words, women
high on conventionality may also be low on Intellect but high on self-objecti-
fication; thus, it may be that conventionality influences one’s propensity to-
ward both Intellect and self-objectification. Research findings by Tunnell
(1984) show that public self-consciousness, which is conceptually related to
self-objectification, is significantly related to conventionality and that indi-
viduals high in public self-consciousness may attempt to lessen feelings of
166 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

anxiety associated with social evaluation by conforming to prevailing cul-

tural values.
Interestingly, and going against predictions, the personality trait Agree-
ableness was negatively correlated with trait self-objectification. Perhaps in-
dividuals who self-objectify are less agreeable because they are more likely
to be self-absorbed, attending to the self rather than to others. In any case,
the current study does suggest that self-objectification is related to particular
aspects of personality. This study has also demonstrated that trait self-object-
ification predicts negative affectivity even when controlling for other person-
ality variables.
Limitations and Conclusions
There are a number of limitations to the current study. First, this study
included only women as participants. Because women are more likely to
be recipients of sexual objectification, objectification theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997) limits its aim to illuminating the consequences of self-objecti-
fication for women and is mostly silent about consequences for men. The
media, however, no longer ignore men in their perpetuation of the quest for
the perfect body. A trend toward equal treatment in the visual media, with
an increase in objectifying portrayals of men, has been documented (Van
Zoonen, 1994; Wernick, 1991). Notably, however, media messages targeted
at men emphasize body building and muscle toning, while those targeted at
women emphasize dieting and weight loss (Anderson & DiDomenico, 1992).
Thus, although men are not immune to the current cultural emphasis on the
body, the meanings of such messages may differ depending on which gender
is targeted. In addition, although existing data show a significant sex differ-
ence (with women scoring higher) on trait self-objectification (Fredrickson
et al., 1998), these same data show that men’s and women’s distributions
on trait self-objectification overlap considerably and that within-sex variation
is great. Future research should begin to examine the experiential and af-
fective consequences of males’ tendencies to self-objectify.
Another limitation of the current study is the reliance on (mostly
White) college-aged women. Objectification theory predicts that middle-
aged women may be able to relinquish the internalized observer’s perspec-
tive and avoid the culture of objectification along with its negative affective
consequences. This prediction follows from the observation that women are
most targeted for objectifying treatment during their years of reproductive
potential (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, as middle-aged women move
out of childbearing age and society focuses less on their physical appearance,
they may experience feelings of increased confidence and self-determination
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Indeed, research evidence suggests that
women in their 50s report the highest quality of life (as compared to women
of other ages) and increases in confidence, power, and dominance (James &
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 167

Lewkowicz, 1997; Hann, Millsap, & Hartka, 1986; Helson & Moane, 1987)
as well as increased feelings of autonomy (Mitchell & Helson, 1990; Stewart,
1995). Research studies have also demonstrated that younger women report
more concern about body shape and rate the importance of physical appear-
ance more highly than do older women (Franzoi & Koehler, 1998; Hether-
ington & Burnett, 1994; Pliner et al., 1990). In addition, while the current
study does include some women of color, the number is small. Research
suggests that African Americans may be able to construct a sense of self that
deflects rather that reflects others’ appraisals (Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, &
Broadnax, 1994). Future research should examine the different experiences
and effects of objectification across diverse subgroups of women.
An additional limitation concerns our measure of body dissatisfaction. The
measure we employed for the current study asks respondents to choose their
actual and ideal body sizes from a number of silhouettes. However, because
the silhouettes range from very thin to very overweight, it is likely that this
measure is tapping into not only body dissatisfaction (by the discrepancy
between the two images) but also weight dissatisfaction. In other words,
this measure is probably assessing weight dissatisfaction as well as body
dissatisfaction. Furthermore, this measure may also be assessing things other
than weight and body dissatisfaction such as shape and waist-to-hip ratio
dissatisfaction. Future research should use an alternative measure for assess-
ing body dissatisfaction.
Finally, we employed a measure of Neuroticism to serve as a proxy for
general anxiety. While anxiety is an important component of Neuroticism,
this personality attribute is also assumed to contain components that are not
predicted to be related to self-objectification (e.g., hostility). Future research
should examine the relationship between self-objectification and anxiety us-
ing a pure measure of anxiety to substantiate our findings. In addition, our
theorizing suggests that self-objectification influences feelings associated
with the personality trait Neuroticism (e.g., anxiety, negative affect); we
found that self-objectification significantly predicts feelings of Neuroticism
in women. It could also be, however, that women who score high on Neuroti-
cism may be more likely to self-objectify. But given the tenets of objectifica-
tion theory, the possibility that the internalization of objectification from a
culture that sexualizes the female body can influence feelings associated with
Neuroticism seems warranted. Objectification theory specifically predicts
that sexual objectification can and will lead to specific negative affective
experiences for women.
Despite these limitations, the findings of the current study help to illumi-
nate the nature of trait self-objectification and add to the literature in this
area. Importantly, the discrepancy between one’s ideal and actual body (body
dissatisfaction) showed no significant correlations with personality traits or
relationship to mental health risks (with the exception of body shame). It
168 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

appears, then, that it is not just the wish to be thinner that is related to psycho-
logical consequences but rather seeing oneself from an observer’s perspec-
tive. In addition, results from the current study suggest that trait self-objecti-
fication is related to other personality variables such as Agreeableness,
Intellect, and masculinity and has the potential to result in negative emotional
consequences. Past research has been primarily concerned with how viewing
oneself as an object influences body esteem (e.g., Franzoi, 1995; Pliner et
al., 1990). We argue that self-objectification has more far-reaching conse-
quences and that it affects women’s more general psychological well-being,
not just body satisfaction. We contend that self-objectification can influence
feelings of depression, shame, and anxiety.
There are, however, a number of questions regarding self-objectification
that remain unanswered. For example, are there other personality variables
that are related to self-objectification and that may help to ‘‘inoculate’’
women from the effects of a sexually objectifying culture? What are the
exact mechanisms through which women internalize objectification? Do
some women self-objectify more with respect to thinness, whereas others
self-objectify with respect to other aspects of beauty? How can we prevent
the cascade of adverse repercussions of self-objectification? There are no
ready answers yet. Future research is needed to explore the specific psycho-
logical constructs, personality variables, and behaviors associated with self-
objectification and those that might protect girls and women from their sus-
ceptibility to self-objectification.

REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Anderson, A. E., & DiDomenico, L. (1992). Diet vs. shape content of popular male and female
magazines: A dose–response relationship to the incidence of eating disorders? Interna-
tional Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 283–287.
Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression.
New York: Routledge.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the affective disorders. New York: International
Univ. Press.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Beneke, T. (1982). Men on rape. New York: St. Martin’s.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and
dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 7, 173–189.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 217–230.
Burt, M. R. (1991). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.),
Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 26–40). New York: Wiley.
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 169

Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., & Beck, A. T. (1994). Common and specific dimensions of self-
reported anxiety and depression: Implications for the cognitive and tripartite models.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 645–654.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Cooley, C. H. (1964). Human nature and the social order (rev. ed.). New York: Schocken
Books. (Original work published 1922)
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psy-
chological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 503–513.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper Perennial.
Darvill, T. J., Johnson, R. C., & Danko, G. P. (1992). Personality correlates of public and
private self-consciousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 383–384.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance anxiety as a dimension of
social-evaluative anxiety: Exploring the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary Social
Psychology, 14, 220–224.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
San Diego: EDITS.
Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 481–495.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.
Franzoi, S. L. (1995). The ‘‘body-as-object’’ versus the body-as-process: Gender differences
and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33, 417–437.
Franzoi, S. L., & Koehler, V. (1998). Age and gender differences in body attitudes: A compari-
son of young and elderly adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,
47, 1–10.
Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body Esteem Scale: Multidimensional structure
and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173–
178.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1999). [Test–retest reliability on the Trait Self-Objectification Question-
naire]. Unpublished raw data, University of Michigan.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding wom-
en’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–
206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That
swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The Big Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26–42.
170 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

Gordon, M. T., & Riger, S. (1989). The female fear: The social cost of rape. New York: Free
Press.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–
824). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hann, N., Millsap, R., & Hartka, E. (1986). As time goes by: Change and stability in personal-
ity over fifty years. Psychology and Aging, 1, 220–232.
Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique
anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 94–104.
Helson, R., & Moane, G. (1987). Personality change in women from college to midlife. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 176–186.
Hetherington, M. M., & Burnett, L. (1994). Ageing and the pursuit of slimness: Dietary re-
straint and weight satisfaction in elderly women. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
33, 391–400.
Jackson, D. N. (1965). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychol-
ogists’ Press.
Jacobson, M. B., & Popovich, P. M. (1983). Victim attractiveness and perceptions of responsi-
bility in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 100–104.
James, J. B., & Lewkowicz, C. J. (1997). Themes of power and affiliation across time. In
M. E. Lachman, & J. B. James (Eds.), Multiple paths of midlife development (pp. 109–
143). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.)., Handbook of personality: Theory
and research. New York: Guilford.
Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A new psychology of women’s experience. New York:
Basic Books.
Keelan, J. P., Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1992). Correlates of appearance anxiety in late
adolescence and early adulthood among young women. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 193–
205.
Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Nelson, C. B., & Hughes, M. (1994). Sex and depression
in the National Comorbidity Survey: II. Cohort effects. Journal of Affective Disorders,
30, 15–26.
Kuhn, A. (1985). A power of the image: Essays on representation and sexuality. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lerner, R. M., Orlos, J. B., & Knapp, J. R. (1976). Physical attractiveness, physical effective-
ness, and self-concept in late adolescence. Adolescence, 11, 313–326.
Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Friedman & M. M.
Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Washing-
ton DC: Winston–Wiley.
Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: Free Press.
Margolin, L., & White, L. (1987). The continuing role of physical attractiveness in marriage.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 21–27.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 20, 205–215.
Miller, L. C., & Cox, C. L. (1982). For appearance’s sake: Public self-consciousness and
makeup use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 748–751.
 TRAIT SELF-OBJECTIFICATION IN WOMEN 171

Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood
disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412.
Mitchell, V., & Helson, R. (1990). Women’s prime of life: Is it the 50s? Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 14, 451–470.
Morrow, J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Effects of responses to depression on the remedia-
tion of depressive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 519–527.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Sex differences in depression. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of
depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569–582.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Morrow, J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1993). Response styles and the dura-
tion of episodes of depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 20–28.
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.
Penner, L. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1993, August). Measuring the prosocial personality: Four
construct validity scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association, Toronto.
Pliner, P., Chaiken, S., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Gender differences in concern with body weight
and physical appearance over the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
16, 263–273.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy,
4, 398–406.
Rozee, P. (1988, August). The effects of fear of rape on working women. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Scandell, D. J. (1998). The personality correlates of public and private self-consciousness
from a five-factor perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 579–592.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity. Austin: Univ. of Texas
Press.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressive-
ness: Their relationship with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 5, 147–163.
Spitzack, C. (1990). Confessing excess: Women and the politics of body reduction. Albany:
State Univ. of New York Press.
Stewart, A. J. (1995, April). Rethinking middle age: Learning from women’s lives. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence
for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal
of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.
Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popu-
lar self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 328–333.
Tobey, E. L., & Tunnell, G. (1981). Predicting our impressions on others: Effects of public
self-consciousness and acting—A selfmonitoring subscale. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 7, 661–669.
172 MINER-RUBINO, TWENGE, AND FREDRICKSON

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-conscious-
ness, and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549–555.
Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male. New York: Harper & Row.
Van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist media studies. London: Sage.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attrac-
tiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.
Watson, S., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,
J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology, and symbolic expression.
London: Sage.
Williamson, D. A., Davis, C. J., Bennett, S. M., Goreczny, A. J., & Gleaves, D. H. (1985).
Development of a simple procedure for assessing body image disturbance. Behavioral
Assessment, 11, 433–446.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York:
Anchor.
Wooley, O. W., Wooley, S. C., & Dyrenforth, S. R. (1979). Obesity and women: A neglected
feminist topic. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 2, 81–92.
Wooley, S. C., & Wooley, O. W. (1980). Eating disorders: Anorexia and obesity. In A. M.
Brodsky & R. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Woman and psychotherapy (pp. 135–158). New York:
Guilford.