Literature Review on Sexual Objectification Instruments
Info: 20141 words (81 pages) Example Literature Review
Published: 1st Mar 2022
Tagged: Psychology
Evaluating Sexual Objectification Instruments and the Cumulative Evidence of their Psychometric Properties: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Background: Sexual objectification, a psychological process whereby individuals are rendered as sexual objects, has become increasingly evident in mass media. Accurate measurement is imperative given its associated negative outcomes for adults and children; however, there has yet been a systematic evaluation of sexual objectification instruments.
Method: Articles that included self-report instruments measuring sexual objectification were identified through MEDLINE Complete, ProQuest Central, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Reference lists were also examined for potentially relevant articles. The following characteristics were recorded for each instrument where available: (a) sampling methods and characteristics, (b) number of items, item development, scales and subscales, response anchors and score ranges, (c) description of instrument, (d) targets of sexual objectification, (e) reliability and (f) validity.
Results: Forty-four studies and 21 instruments were identified. There were variabilities in how instrument items were generated and how instruments measured and defined sexual objectification. There were also limited psychometric evaluations for almost all instruments, including concurrent, predictive, convergent, and known-groups validities. Consequently, evidence of cumulative validity was gathered by examining studies that used these instruments.
Conclusion: While researchers are given various options for instrument selection, very limited attention has centred on ensuring that existing sexual objectification instruments are psychometrically sound. Future research may benefit from refining these instruments to ensure that they have stable psychometric properties.
Introduction
Western societies have seen a notable rise of sexualisation in mass media as content analyses demonstrate that men, women, and young girls have been increasingly sexualised over recent decades (Collins, 2011; Graff, Murnen, & Krause, 2013; Hatton & Trautner, 2011; Rohlinger, 2002). Specifically, their bodies are often portrayed in overly provocative ways in television, magazines, and advertising, arguably with the intent of selling a product or attracting the viewer’s attention (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). Such sexualised portrayals often lead to unrealistic cultural standards of beauty and promote what researchers have labelled as the sexual objectification of these individuals (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Sexual objectification is the psychological process of perceiving an individual as a sexual object devoid of any individuality, scrutinising their appearance for pleasure or evaluation, and/or imposing sexuality upon them (LaCroix & Pratto, 2015; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Objectified individuals are regarded as mere instruments to be consumed by others, which in turn can result in severe consequences (Loughnan et al., 2010).
Consequences of Sexual Objectification
Ample evidence to date has demonstrated that constant sexual objectification is associated with negative mental health outcomes. Among these outcomes is the notion of self-objectification[1], where objectified individuals internalise observers’ perspectives and subsequently appraise their physical appearance to assimilate to cultural standards of beauty (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). According to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which is a theoretical feminist framework for explaining the ramifications of sexual objectification for women, self-objectification subsequently leads to experiencing shame and anxiety over one’s own appearance and disordered eating behaviours. Current research has confirmed this assertion, with studies demonstrating the direct and indirect positive relationships between sexual objectification and media consumption, body shame, appearance anxiety, and disordered eating behaviours (see Moradi & Huang, 2008 for a detailed review).
Evidence also suggests that sexual objectification further perpetuates gender oppression and discrimination (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Gardner, 1995). For example, individuals who objectify others are more likely to endorse sexist beliefs or stereotypical gender roles, pressure others to have sex (i.e., sexual coercion), or engage in sexual harassment (Rudman & Mescher, 2012; Davidson, Gervais, & Sherd, 2015). Current research also indicates that objectified individuals are more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment or sexual coercion (Fairchild & Rudman, 2008; Harned, 2000; Miles-McLean et al., 2015). Taken together, the academic literature has confirmed that sexual objectification is related to severe ramifications that occur on both an individual and interpersonal level. While the academic literature has mainly focused on women, a growing body of evidence has indicated that sexual objectification can occur for and have the same deleterious impact on men and young girls (Graff, Murnen, & Smolak, 2012; Holland & Haslam, 2016; Loughnan et al., 2010; Davidson, Gervais, Canivez, & Cole, 2013). Such evidence aligns with the idea that anyone can be objectified (Nussbaum, 1995).
Given the heightened promotion of sexual objectification in mass media over recent decades and its associated consequences, scientific interest and research have emerged to understand this social phenomenon in order to develop and evaluate related interventions (Loughnan et al., 2010). In response several instruments have been developed to measure sexual objectification in the academic literature.
Quantifying Sexual Objectification
Various methodologies have been introduced to determine how best sexual objectification should be measured. An overwhelming majority of studies have developed or used instruments that rely on self-reports, either through Likert-type questionnaires (e.g., Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale [ISOS]; Kozee, Tylka, Augustus‐Horvath, & Denchik, 2007), ranking the importance of body parts (e.g., Other-Objectification Scale [OOQ]; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005) and human attributes (e.g., Mental State Attribution Task [MSAT]; Loughnan et al., 2010), or reporting sexual objectification experiences on a “Yes/No” response format (e.g., Sexual Experiences Survey [SES]; Carr & Szymanski, 2011). Although the use of these instruments is valuable in measuring constructs in a simple and efficient manner, bias can occur as respondents are able to modify their answers because of personal motivations or social desirability concerns. Most recently, the use of implicit and indirect instruments have gained traction as ways of circumventing bias by examining non-conscious objectifying cognitions (Rudman & Mescher, 2012); however, evaluating these instruments are beyond the scope of this review, particularly as their use in the academic literature remains scarce (Vaes et al., 2011).
Self-report instruments have been widely used in examining sexual objectification over the past decade. Given its popularity, there exists a disproportionate and perhaps superfluous amount of instruments that have been developed during this somewhat brief period. It is possible that the large volume of instruments may be due to each instrument measuring different components or aspects of sexual objectification, particularly as there is yet no holistic view of the social phenomenon (Holland & Haslam, 2013). While the availability of multiple valid instruments is central to fostering good research and practice (Kerr & Holden, 1996), careful consideration is warranted in establishing effective instruments of sexual objectification and documenting and refining their psychometric properties. This point is made further salient when taking into account that good research is established on a solid foundation of measurement methods (Calogero, 2010).
Aim of Present Systematic Review
Sexual objectification – whether societal or internalised – is of great mental health and social importance. Therefore, the accurate measurement of sexual objectification is vital in studying and addressing its negative consequences for adults and children. Despite the various instruments used in sexual objectification research, there has not yet been a systematic evaluation of these measurement tools. The need for such an evaluation is evident since the real-world implications of the findings for those at risk of being objectified further augment the demand for using the most valid and reliable instruments. Accordingly, this systematic review aimed to evaluate self-report instruments that have been developed and used to measure sexual objectification and to record their psychometric properties (i.e., validities and reliabilities) as presented in the academic literature. By presenting an evaluation of the available instruments in the academic literature, it is hoped that researchers can make an informed selection of instrument(s) that correspond with their research questions and target populations rather than purely based on convenience.
Method
The following review on sexual objectification instruments was based on Cochrane procedures (Higgins & Green, 2008) and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) guidelines. As this review only focused on the availability and psychometric properties of sexual objectification instruments, the four Populations, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) elements were not incorporated in this review. Correspondingly, risk of bias analyses and quality assurances were not conducted as it was deemed irrelevant to a review of this nature. There has been no published protocol for this review.
A systematic search was conducted across five databases: MEDLINE Complete, ProQuest Central, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Database searches involved combining terms associated with sexual objectification and measurement using the Boolean terms or and and (see Table 1). For example, articles containing a test or instrument of sexual objectification were included in the results. Terms were also abbreviated to search for multiple suffixes; that is, searching on objectif* would include results for objectification, objectifying, objectifies and objectified. The complete strategy for the PsycINFO search is shown in Appendix A.
Searches of titles and abstracts resulted in a total of 7,324 potentially relevant articles. Articles from the first available date to 8December 2016 were included, and were retained for analysis and review if they: (a) were written in English, (b) contained more than one item, (c) measured sexual objectification and, (d) did not use sexual objectification instruments solely for manipulation checks. Articles were also excluded if they were not original or peer-reviewed articles, and if they measured self-objectification. While sexual objectification and self-objectification are related constructs, they arguably involve different cognitive processes and possess unique antecedents and consequences (Fredrickson et al., 1997; Fredrickson et al., 1998).
After abstract and title screening the 7,324 articles to identify those that reported measuring sexual objectification, 560 full-text articles were then examined based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional three articles were also identified for possible inclusion from examining the reference lists of retained articles. Forty-four studies and 21 instruments were identified for qualitative analysis. Figure 1 displays the PRISMA statement addressing detailed reasons for exclusion.
Original articles reporting the development and validation of instruments were included whenever possible. In some studies sexual objectification was measured using either modified self-objectification instruments or existing instruments that were not originally developed to measure sexual objectification. In these instances, studies that first introduced the instrument to measure sexual objectification were included in the analysis in place of the original articles. The following characteristics were extracted for each instrument where available: (a) sampling methods and characteristics, (b) number of items, item development, scales and subscales, response anchors and score ranges, (c) description of instrument, (d) targets of sexual objectification, (e) reliability (i.e., test-retest, internal consistency, split-half reliability), and (f) validity (i.e., concurrent, predictive, convergent, and known-groups validity).
Results
Database searches yielded 7,324 articles, and 21 instruments were identified from the protocol presented in this review. A detailed description of these instruments and their psychometric properties are provided in Tables 2 through 4.
Background and Development
Information relating to the description, background, and development of each instrument is presented in Table 2, which indicated that instruments differed in how they were developed. Specifically, item development was informed by various sources, including the academic literature, experts, students, and other instruments. Two instruments were modifications of self-objectification instruments, and four instruments that were originally developed to assess different constructs (e.g., mind perception, moral status, sexual experiences, and sexism) were used to measure sexual objectification. The most commonly used statistical method for item selection was factor analysis.
Samples of high-school and college students were used in the development of 16 instruments. Correspondingly, most instruments (n=13) were developed using samples of primarily White or Caucasian respondents from Western countries, including Australia.
There is considerable variability in the criteria used to define and measure sexual objectification. Six ways of how sexual objectification is measured were identified in this review: (a) the frequency an individual reports encountering sexual objectification experiences; (b) the extent that women are considered sexual objects; (c) the frequency an individual reports objectifying others; (d) the degree of acceptance that men can objectify women; (e) ranking the importance of body- and appearance-related traits; and (f) the extent a target is attributed with personality- and human-related traits, including thoughts and emotions.
Seven instruments were used only once to measure sexual objectification in the academic literature. Most instruments (n=14) were originally developed to exclusively measure the sexual objectification of women. In comparison, only a few instruments were developed to measure the sexual objectification of both men and women (n=3) or girls (n=3). Only one instrument was developed to exclusively measure the sexual objectification of men, and no instruments were found to measure the sexual objectification of boys.
Instrument Characteristics
Instrument characteristics, including items, subscales, scaling, and scoring, are shown in Table 2. The mean number of items was 14.05, with a range from 4 to 40. Most instruments used a Likert-type response format to measure the degree of frequency or agreement/disagreement with items, with scales ranging from 5- to 9-points. The other two instruments adopted either a “Yes/No” response format, or a ranking system to organise respondents’ perceived importance of traits. Scores on a majority of instruments (n=19) are determined using the sums or averages of the items. For most instruments (n=14), higher scores indicate greater frequencies of being objectified or greater tendencies to objectify others. Directionality differed for all remaining instruments (n=7), with higher scores implying lesser tendencies to objectify others since respondents attribute greater personality- or human-related traits to a target.
Reliability
Information pertaining to instrument reliability is presented in Table 3. Internal consistency estimates (i.e., coefficient α) were available for most instruments (n=17), and ranged from.60 to .96. Three instruments did not report internal consistency estimates, while a coefficient α was not possible to calculate for one instrument because its scoring protocol required ranking items. Test-retest reliability estimates were available for only three instruments, which ranged from .72 to .93, and split-half and inter-rater reliability estimates were not available for any instrument.
Validity
Most articles examined the theoretical relationships between sexual objectification scores and relevant constructs (e.g., self-objectification), and differences on sexual objectification scores between selected groups of participants and/or targets (e.g., men vs. women). Information pertaining to evidence of instrument validity in prior studies – via significance testing (e.g., r values, t-tests, F-tests, R2 values, B and β values) – is presented in Table 4. As the area of sexual objectification is currently somewhat limited in scope, psychometric evaluations were not provided for most instruments. Cumulative validity was therefore gathered in this review by evaluating the results from studies that used these instruments.
In accordance with Cronbach and Meehl’s (1955) conceptualisations of validity, concurrent validity is defined as the correlations between sexual objectification scores and variables theorised to be associated with sexual objectification. In the case of providing concurrent validity for sexual objectification instruments, variables used in the literature include: self-objectification, eating disorder symptoms, consumption and exposure to the media, sexist attitudes, and sexual coercion. Correlations between sexual objectification scores and other variables not traditionally associated with sexual objectification were also included in Table 4. Predictive validity is defined as the ability of sexual objectification instruments to predict performances on some future criterion, and convergent validity is defined as the correlations between scores on sexual objectification instruments (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Sexual objectification scores were also examined across selected groups of participants to provide evidence of known-groups validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Ultimately, 15 of the 21 instruments established some form of validity.
Concurrent Validity: Variables Theorised to be Related to Sexual Objectification
Self-Objectification
Evidence for the hypothetical relationships between sexual objectification and self-objectification was established in seven instruments. Body shame and body surveillance (i.e., components of self-objectification), and self-objectification were associated with greater scores on instruments measuring the frequency of reported encounters with sexual objectification experiences or tendencies to objectify others. The strength of these correlations (i.e., r values) were generally small, but ranged from.15 to .69 (Mdn=.27). Only scores on three instruments demonstrated correlations equal to or greater than .30, which included the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007), OOQ (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005), and Partner-Objectification Scale (Zurbriggen, Ramsey, & Jaworski, 2011). All other instruments demonstrated correlations less than.30[2], suggesting that the strength between sexual objectification scores on these instruments and self-objectification were generally small.
Eating Disorder Symptoms
Four instruments established evidence for the theoretical relationships between sexual objectification and eating disorder symptoms. Men and women who reported engaging in disordered eating behaviours were more likely to score higher on instruments measuring how frequently they encountered sexual objectification experiences. The ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) was the only instrument that consistently demonstrated correlations between sexual objectification scores and eating disorder symptoms that were above .30. Other instruments established correlations ranging from.15 to .28.
Consumption or Exposure to the Media
Evidence for the hypothetical relationships between sexual objectification and consumption or exposure to the media was established in seven instruments. Increased exposure to the media and consumption of pornography were associated with greater scores on instruments evaluating individuals’ tendencies to objectify others. Boys’ and girls’ exposure to sexually explicit media was also related to scores on instruments measuring their beliefs that women are sexual objects. Women who had a previous partner who frequently consumed pornography were also more likely to score higher on instruments evaluating how frequently they encountered sexual objectification experiences. Of all instruments, only the Women as Sex Objects Scale (Peter & Valkenburg, 2007) and Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale – Perpetrator (ISOS-P; Gervais, DiLillo, & McChargue, 2014) established correlations between sexual objectification scores and media consumption or exposure that were equal to or above .30. Other instruments demonstrated correlations ranging from.14 to .27.
Sexist Attitudes
Five instruments established evidence for the theoretical relationships between sexual objectification and sexist attitudes. Men who displayed hostility towards women or endorsed women’s traditional and sexual roles were likely to score higher on instruments evaluating their tendencies to objectify women. Women who reported unfair sexist treatment at school or work were also more likely to score greater on instruments measuring how frequently they encounter sexual objectification experiences. The ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) and Objectified Body Consciousness Scale – Modified (OCB-M; Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015) were the only instruments that consistently established correlations between sexual objectification scores and sexist attitudes that were over .30. All instruments demonstrated correlations ranging from.14 to .37.
Sexual Coercion
Evidence for the hypothetical relationships between sexual objectification and sexual coercion was established in three instruments. Men who engaged in sexual violence or manipulated women to have sex were more likely to score greater in instruments evaluating their tendencies to objectify others. Women who reported encountering sexual objectification experiences were also more likely to feel coerced to have sex and perceive themselves as being manipulated by their partners to have sex. All instruments established correlations between sexual objectification scores and sexual coercion that ranged from .16 to .51.
Other Variables
Three instruments established evidence for the theoretical relationships between sexual objectification scores and psychological wellbeing, where women who reported greater frequencies of encountering sexual objectification experiences were more likely to report psychological distress, depression, and anxiety. Two instruments demonstrated positive correlations between scores on sexual objectification instruments and drug and alcohol use in men and women. Evidence for the hypothetical relationships between sexual objectification and age was also established in four instruments, with age being negatively associated with instruments measuring the frequency of reported encounters with sexual objectification experiences for men and women. Three instruments established positive correlations between sexual objectification scores and the internalisation of cultural beauty standards in men and women. Two instruments demonstrated positive correlations between sexual objectification scores and appearance-related outcomes, including increased drives for thin bodies in women and muscular bodies in men.
Predictive Validity: Sexual Objectification Scores Predicting Other Variables
Limited evidence exists regarding the predictive validity of sexual objectification instruments, with only four instruments providing some form of predictive validity. It is important to note, however, that no authors directly purported that these findings were evidence of predictive validity. Sexual objectification scores on instruments evaluating men’s tendencies to objectify women predicted men’s breast-size ideals, and sexual objectification scores on instruments measuring boys’ tendencies to objectify girls predicted boys’ exposure to sexy self-presentation. Correspondingly, scores on instruments measuring individuals’ tendencies to objectify others predicted relationship satisfaction for men and women, and sexual satisfaction for men.
Convergent Validity: Correlations with Other Sexual Objectification Instruments
Little evidence of convergent validity was found in this systematic review. Only four instruments were used in studies that demonstrated convergent validity, which included the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007), SES (Carr & Szymanski, 2011), MSAT (Loughnan et al., 2010), and Human Emotions Task (Borinca, 2016); however, there were no assertions made by any author that these findings were evidence of convergent validity. The correlations reported for these instruments ranged from .42 to .43.
Known-Groups Validity: Differences in Sexual Objectification Scores Amongst Groups
Known-groups validity was observed in six instruments, with differences in gender and sexual orientation most commonly examined. In terms of gender differences, women reported encountering more sexual objectification experiences than men. Contrastingly, men reported sexually objectifying women more than women while boys also regarded women as sexual objects more than girls.
Heterosexual men reported encountering less sexual objectification experiences than heterosexual women, lesbians, and gay men, whom reported comparable levels of sexual objectification experiences. Similarly, gay men reported objectifying men more than heterosexual men. No authors explicitly claimed that any of these findings were evidence of known-groups validity.
Discussion
The theoretical tenets of objectification theory have been empirically tested with a variety of instruments that have been created in response to the growing scientific interest in sexual objectification. These instruments have been developed with the good intent of quantifying the components of sexual objectification in order to allow the documenting of this social phenomenon, and the development of interventions against its associated harmful ramifications. It is perhaps this good intent that has led to the precipitous development of many instruments that are under-evidenced in terms of their psychometric utility.
Although the rapid expansion of sexual objectification research and instruments is promising, researchers are faced with the challenging task of selecting the most appropriate instrument for their research. Consequently, this systematic review was conducted with the primary aim of identifying the available instruments for use in this area, and presenting their cumulative evidence. This was done with the explicit intention of allowing researchers to make informed decisions when selecting instruments for their research. This review identified 21 instruments that have been previously used to measure sexual objectification in the academic literature from 2001 until 2016. The outcomes of this review were based on the published psychometric properties and the related and available evidence of the use of each instrument. Three major observations emerged in this review, as discussed below.
Limited Psychometric Evaluations and Variations Among Instruments
There is a considerable lack of psychometric evaluation for sexual objectification instruments examined in this review. With the exception of the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007), the psychometric properties of all instruments were seldom assessed by researchers. While internal consistency reliability estimates were provided for most instruments, cumulative validity was gathered in this review since there were limited psychometric evaluations in the original studies. Given the importance of using valid and reliable instruments in psychological research (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2017), the scarcity of assessing instruments’ psychometric properties is concerning because it calls into question whether these instruments are accurately measuring sexual objectification. Concerns are further raised in view of the different criteria used to assess sexual objectification and how these instruments were developed (i.e., issues involving content validity).
There are many variations regarding how instruments measure sexual objectification. Specifically, six ways of assessing the social phenomenon were identified in this review, which may be accounted for by the diverse explanations regarding what constitutes as sexual objectification. Instruments examined were also found to measure certain aspects or components of sexual objectification, thereby demonstrating that there is yet no instrument that comprehensively assesses the full range of the construct. For example, the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) specifically measures how frequently an individual encounters sexual objectification experiences while the Women as Sex Objects Scale (Peter & Valkenburg, 2007) specifically measures the extent an individual perceives women as sexual objects. Taken together, there is inconsistency with how sexual objectification is defined and measured, which may complicate researchers’ task of choosing the most suitable instrument for their research.
Disparities were also noted in how instrument items were generated, as previous research, existing instruments, and/or factor analyses were used to select items for inclusion; however, of all instruments, only three – the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007), the Sexual Objectification Experiences Scale (SOES; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), and Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (CSOS; Hill & Fischer, 2008) – employed a panel of experts to generate and review items. When considering the importance of involving experts in establishing content validity (Hinkin, Tracey, & Enz, 1997), the dearth of expert opinion when developing instruments may cast doubt on whether the “best” items were retained or even generated to begin with. Respectively, the use of existing instruments is potentially problematic since these instruments may assess constructs that are related yet are different to sexual objectification (e.g., sexism). There is therefore a possibility that items included in these instruments may not sufficiently capture and assess the full range of the sexual objectification construct, which may render the content validity of these instruments negligible. Consequently, this reinforces the need for psychometric evaluations of current instruments to ensure that they validly and reliably measure sexual objectification.
Uniformity of Findings and Methodological Caveats
Despite the great variation in the measurement and development of these instruments, the findings were markedly uniform across studies. All instruments were related to variables associated with sexual objectification where examined, and there were no discrepancies in terms of the direction of the relationships. For example, greater tendencies to sexually objectify others and the frequency of reported encounters of sexual objectification experiences were consistently associated with higher levels of self-objectification, eating disorder symptoms, and media consumption and exposure. Taken together, the cohesive findings demonstrate some evidence of concurrent validity; however, the correlations were generally small, indicating weak relationships between scores on sexual objectification instruments and other examined variables. Such low correlations may likely be explained by the shortage of psychometric evaluations of instruments, the differing ways in which instruments have been developed, and how instruments define and measure sexual objectification. Nevertheless, the weak relationships indicate that existing instruments may largely demonstrate inadequate evidence of concurrent validity.
To a much lesser extent evidence of known-groups, predictive, and convergent validity were provided, with less than one third of instruments demonstrating any one of these validities. Regardless, the findings were strongly consistent across instruments despite not being explicitly stated by researchers as evidence of validity. For example, the findings unvaryingly demonstrated significant and meaningful positive relationships between four instruments, thereby indicating convergent validity. Although the consistency of these findings is encouraging, very little is known of the predictive utility of most sexual objectification instruments, their relationships with other similar instruments, and their ability to establish differences between sexually objectification scores across distinct groups. Accordingly, the limited validities of a majority of existing instruments may further hinder researchers’ efforts with selecting the most appropriate instrument for their research.
Despite the uniformity of the findings in the academic literature, there are some methodological caveats that should be considered. Evidently, the generalisability of the findings (i.e., external validity) is largely restricted to Caucasian, high-school and university-aged students or adult women. It is possible that individuals who are older, or who originate from a more socially conservative society, may respond differently to being sexually objectified or sexually objectifying others (Graff et al., 2012; Loughnan et al., 2015). Men and/or children may also experience sexual objectification in a dissimilar way to women (Graff et al., 2012). The limited external validity of findings is made more salient when taking into account that there are no normative data across all instruments. It is therefore not possible to establish what normative high or low scores would appear for any population, let alone to adequately make cross-cultural comparisons. Taken together, such caveats may impede our understanding of sexual objectification to a wider range of individuals in the community. Future research may therefore benefit from using more diverse samples – including cross-cultural, clinical, and minority populations – and incorporating normative data for these instruments.
Selecting the “Best” Instrument
The final albeit most important observation made in this review involves evaluating the quality of evidence and determining the “best” instrument to measure sexual objectification accordingly. It is important to note that it is difficult and perhaps inapposite to make such judgements given the great variation with how instruments define and measure sexual objectification.
Based on examining psychometric properties alone, the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) stands out as the most widely-used and psychometrically sound sexual objectification instrument. As opposed to other instruments, the ISOS relied on experts and the academic literature to ensure good scale and item development, demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability estimates, and possesses the most extensive evidence of cumulative validity (i.e., 35 findings). Importantly, the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) is only appropriate for measuring how frequently an individual reports encountering sexual objectification experiences. Researchers wishing to measure respondents’ propensity to objectify others may consider the OOQ (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005), which has the second most extensive evidence of cumulative validity (i.e., 23 findings); however, as this instrument was modified from a self-objectification instrument, it may not accurately represent or measure the sexual objectification construct.
Although researchers may first consider the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) and OOQ (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005), other factors should be taken into account, including which instruments are of suitable length and reading level or possess subscales of interest. By referring to Tables 2 through 4 as a guide, researchers with specific hypotheses and populations can choose instruments that match their requirements. For example, researchers intending on assessing the frequency of sexual objectification experiences encountered by gay or bisexual men may consider the SOES (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010) since it was specifically developed to be used with sexual minority men. Correspondingly, researchers wishing to establish change over time with stable instruments may consider employing the SES (Carr & Szymanski, 2011) or the ISOS (Kozee et al., 2007) for which respondents’ scores have been strongly correlated between two different time points.
Limitations of the Systematic Review
This review has several limitations that warrant mention. Firstly, a single coder conducted this review, which may increase the possibility of bias and error. Secondly, only self-report instruments (e.g., questionnaires and scales) were examined in this review, thereby limiting the evaluations of other types of instruments that have been used to measure sexual objectification (e.g., implicit instruments). Lastly, this review was limited to English-speaking articles and did not include unpublished articles, conference articles, and dissertations. Future research may thus benefit from examining a broader and conceivable range of suitable instruments and articles to investigate and incorporate the findings into the academic literature.
Concluding Remarks
Sexual objectification research has flourished over recent decades, leading to the proliferation of instruments in the academic literature. While researchers are given a plethora of options for selecting an instrument, this review has demonstrated that very limited attention has centred on ensuring that these instruments are psychometrically sound. Instruments examined in this review varied considerably in terms of how they define and measure sexual objectification, as well as the extent they provided evidence of validity and reliability for tests’ scores. Most concerning is that some instruments did not demonstrate any evidence of validity or were only used once, signifying that they are not viable instruments for psychological research. Taken together, this review emphasises the imperativeness of ensuring that existing instruments have stable psychometric properties via evaluations of their validity and reliability. It is also important that a review of this nature is continually updated to reflect the current academic literature, particularly as instruments will require frequent refinement to ensure that they consistently and optimally measure sexual objectification.
Overall, there is importance placed on developing and selecting valid and reliable instruments in psychological research. Newer fields of psychology – like sexual objectification – are therefore not exempt from employing stringent protocols in developing and validating instruments. This point is made further salient when considering the implications of using psychometrically robust instruments. In using sexual objectification instruments that have adequate or strong evidence of validity and reliability, it becomes possible to accurately enhance our understanding of sexual objectification in order to minimise the harmful ramifications for sexually objectified individuals.
References
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641-658.
Borinca, I. (2016). The Social Exclusion and Sexual Objectification among males, ages 18-30 years old in Kosovo. European Scientific Journal, 12(5), 140-157.
Calogero, R. M. (2010). Operationalizing self-objectification: Assessment and related methodological issues. In Calogero, Rachel M. and Tantleff-Dunn, Stacey and Thompson, J. Kevin (Ed.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 23-49). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12304-002.
Carr, E. R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2011). Sexual objectification and substance abuse in young adult women. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 39-66. doi: 10.1177/0011000010378449.
Carr, E. R., Szymanski, D. M., Taha, F., West, L. M., & Kaslow, N. J. (2014). Understanding the link between multiple oppressions and depression among African American women: The role of internalization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(2), 233-245. doi: 10.1177/0361684313499900.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64(3-4), 290-298. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 345-359. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037.
Davids, C. M., Watson, L. B., Nilsson, J. E., & Marszalek, J. M. (2015). Body dissatisfaction among gay men: The roles of sexual objectification, gay community involvement, and psychological sense of community. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 376-385. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000127.
Davidson, M. M., Gervais, S. J., Canivez, G. L., & Cole, B. P. (2013). A psychometric examination of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale among college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 239. doi: 10.1037/a0032075.
Davidson, M. M., Gervais, S. J., & Sherd, L. W. (2015). The ripple effects of stranger harassment on objectification of self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 53-66. doi: 10.1177/0361684313514371.
Engeln-Maddox, R., Miller, S. A., & Doyle, D. M. (2011). Tests of objectification theory in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual community samples: Mixed evidence for proposed pathways. Sex Roles, 65(7-8), 518-532. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9958-8.
Fairchild, K., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 338-357. doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0.
Franz, M. R., DiLillo, D., & Gervais, S. J. (2016). Sexual objectification and sexual assault: Do self-objectification and sexual assertiveness account for the link? Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 262-270. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000015.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
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(1), 269-284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.
Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and public harassment. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Gervais, S. J., DiLillo, D., & McChargue, D. (2014). Understanding the link between men’s alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration: The mediating role of sexual objectification. Psychology of Violence, 4(2), 156.
Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., & Riemer, A. R. (2015). Who treats people as sex objects? Cultural orientation, social comparison, and sexual objectification perpetration. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 28(1), 153-181.
Graff, K., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2012). Too sexualized to be taken seriously? Perceptions of a girl in childlike vs. sexualized clothing. Sex Roles, 66, 764-755. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0145-3.
Graff, K. A., Murnen, S. K., & Krause, A. K. (2013). Low-cut shirts and high-heeled shoes: Increased sexualization across time in magazine depictions of girls. Sex Roles, 69(11-12), 571-582. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0321-0.
Gurung, R. A., & Chrouser, C. J. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter? Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 91-99. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z.
Harned, M. S. (2000). Harassed bodies: An examination of the relationships among women’s experiences of sexual harassment, body image and eating disturbances. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(4), 336-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00216.x.
Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.
Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualisation of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15(3), 256-278. doi: 10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2.
Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598-601. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5): John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2008). Examining objectification theory: Lesbian and heterosexual women’s experiences with sexual and self-objectification. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(5), 745-776. doi: 10.1177/0011000007301669.
Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120. doi: 10.1177/109634809702100108.
Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2013). Worth the weight: The objectification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 0, 1-7. doi: 10.1177/0361684312474800.
Holland, E., & Haslam, N. (2016). Cute little things: The objectification of prepubescent girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 108-119. doi: 10.1177/0361684315602887.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Kerr, P. S., & Holden, P. R. (1996). Development of the Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS). Journal of Social Behaviour & Personality, 11(5), 3-16.
Kozak, M., Frankenhauser, H., & Roberts, T. A. (2009). Objects of desire: Objectification as a function of male sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(3), 225-230. doi: 10.1037/a0016257.
Kistler, M. E., & Lee, M. J. (2009). Does exposure to sexual hip-hop music videos influence the sexual attitudes of college students? Mass Communication and Society, 13(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430902865336.
Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of objectification theory with lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 348-357. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00310.x.
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus‐Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 176-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x.
LaCroix, J. M., & Pratto, F. (2015). Instrumentality and the denial of personhood: The social psychology of objectifying others. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28, 183-211.
Lindner, D., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Jentsch, F. (2012). Social comparison and the ‘circle of objectification’. Sex Roles, 67(3-4), 222-235. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0175-x.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709-717. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.755.
Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455-461. doi: 10.1177/0361684313485718.
Loughnan, S., Fernandez-Campos, S., Vaes, J., Anjum, G., Aziz, M., Harada, C., … & Tsuchiya, K. (2015). Exploring the role of culture in sexual objectification: A seven nations study. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 28(1), 125-152.
Lozano, L. M., Valor-Segura, I., Sáez, G., & Exposito, F. (2015). The Spanish Adaptation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale (ISOS). Psicothema, 27(2), 134-140.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x.
Miles-McLean, H., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Robertson, C. M., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M. A., & Papp, L. J. (2015). “Stop looking at me!” Interpersonal sexual objectification as a source of insidious trauma. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3), 363-374. doi: 10.1177/0361684314561018.
Mikorski, R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2016). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000058.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 420-428.
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377-398. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24, 249-291. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2007). Adolescents’ exposure to a sexualized media environment and their notions of women as sex objects. Sex Roles, 56(5-6), 381-395. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9176-y.
Ramsey, L. R., & Hoyt, T. (2015). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 151-170. doi: 0.1177/0361684314544679.
Rohlinger, D. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46(3-4), 61-74. doi: 10.1023/A:1016575909173.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734-746. doi: 10.1177/0146167212436401.
Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52(9), 707-712. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3.
Swami, V., & Tovee, M. J. (2013). Men’s oppressive beliefs predict their breast size preferences in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1199-1207. doi: doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0081-5.
Swami, V., Coles, R., Wilson, E., Salem, N., Wyrozumska, K., & Furnham, A. (2010). Oppressive beliefs at play: Associations among beauty ideals and practices and individual differences in sexism, objectification of others, and media exposure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(3), 365-379. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01582.x.
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(1), 31-53. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00200.
Szymanski, D. M., Gupta, A., Carr, E. R., & Stewart, D. (2009). Internalized misogyny as a moderator of the link between sexist events and women’s psychological distress. Sex Roles, 61(1-2), 101-109. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9611-y.
Szymanski, D. M., & Feltman, C. E. (2014). Experiencing and coping with sexually objectifying treatment: Internalization and resilience. Sex Roles, 71(3-4), 159-170. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0392-6.
Testa, M., VanZile‐Tamsen, C., Livingston, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the sexual experiences survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 256-265. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00143.x.
Tolaymat, L. D., & Moradi, B. (2011). US Muslim women and body image: links among objectification theory constructs and the hijab. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 383-392. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023461.
Tylka, T. L., & Kroon Van Diest, A. M. (2015). You looking at her “hot” body may not be “cool” for me: Integrating male partners’ pornography use into objectification theory for women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 67-84. doi: 10.1177/0361684314521784.
Vaes, J. Paladino, M. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualised females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanise sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774-785. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.824.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1-5. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x.
van Oosten, J. M., Peter, J., & Boot, I. (2015). Exploring associations between exposure to sexy online self-presentations and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 1078-1091. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0194-8.
Velez, B. L., Campos, I. D., & Moradi, B. (2015). Relations of Sexual Objectification and Racist Discrimination with Latina Women’s Body Image and Mental Health. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(6), 906-935. doi: 10.1177/0011000015591287.
Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1-15.
Ward, L. M., Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2015). The impact of men’s magazines on adolescent boys’ objectification and courtship beliefs. Journal of Adolescence, 39, 49-58.
Watson, L. B., Grotewiel, M., Farrell, M., Marshik, J., & Schneider, M. (2015). Experiences of sexual objectification, minority stress, and disordered eating among sexual minority women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 458-470. doi: 10.1177/0361684315575024.
Watson, L. B., Marszalek, J. M., Dispenza, F., & Davids, C. M. (2015). Understanding the relationships among white and African American women’s sexual objectification experiences, physical safety anxiety, and psychological distress. Sex Roles, 72(3-4), 91-104. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0444-y.
Wiseman, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2), 154-166. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018937.
Wright, P. J., Arroyo, A., & Bae, S. (2015). An experimental analysis of young women’s attitude toward the male gaze following exposure to centerfold images of varying explicitness. Communication Reports, 28(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.915048.
Zurbriggen, E. L., Ramsey, L. R., & Jaworski, B. K. (2011). Self-and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7-8), 449-462. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4.
Tables
Table 1
Sexual Objectification and Measurement Terms Used in Boolean Search
| Sexual Objectification | Measurement |
| “Sexual Objectification” | Scale* |
| OR Objectification | OR Instrument |
| OR Objectif* | OR Test |
| OR Measur* | |
| OR Inventory | |
| OR Index | |
| OR Survey* | |
| OR Questionnaire* | |
| OR Task* | |
| OR Assessment* | |
| OR “Eye tracking” | |
| OR “Visual Tracking” |
Note. Asterisks cause the search to include all possible suffixes to a term.
Table 2. Background and Development
| Instrument | Description of Measure | Development | TSO | Sample |
|
The subscale measures an individual’s reported sexual objectification experiences (e.g., “Had people shout sexist comments, whistle, or make cat-calls at me”). | The authors used a previously developed measure (Daily Sexist Events Scale; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). | Women | 221 (all women) university students from the USA. The majority of participants identified as White (64%). |
|
The instrument measures the degree an individual sexually objectifies people in general by ranking their perceived importance of body- (e.g., “strength”) and appearance-attributes (e.g., “weight”) of others. | The study used a modified version of the Self-Objectification Scale (Fredrickson et al., 1998), a self-objectification measure. | Men and Women | 132 (68 males, 64 females) of mostly university students from Australia. All participants were White and middle-class. |
|
The instrument measures the extent an individual believes that women are sexual objects (e.g., “Sexually active girls are more attractive partners”). | Items were developed by following an operationalisation of “women as sex objects” by Ward (2002). | Women | 745 (48% boys, 52% girls) Dutch adolescents. |
|
The instrument measures the degree of sexual objectification experiences encountered by sexual minority men (e.g., “Someone made offensive or unwanted sexualised gestures toward me”). | Existing measures of sexual objectification experiences were reviewed, and items that were applicable to sexual minority men were identified. Five gay or bisexual consultants, two of whom had experience conducting research with sexual minority populations, were asked to evaluate the applicability of the items to sexual minority men’s experiences. | Men | 213 (all sexual minority males). The majority of the sample identified as White or Caucasian (approximately 77%). |
|
The instrument measures the extent of interpersonal sexual objectification experiences encountered by an individual (e.g., “How often have you felt that someone was staring at your body?”). | Items were generated from the sexual objectification literature, and were written by a counselling psychologist and two counselling psychology graduate students. Items were then reviewed by a counselling psychologist and a women’s studies professor. | Women | 342 (all females) university students from the USA. The majority of the participants identified as White or Caucasian (71.8%). |
(Continued)
Table 2. Background and Development (Continued)
| Instrument | Description of Measure | Development | TSO | Sample |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target’s sexuality (e.g., “desirable”), capability (e.g., “strength”), and personality (e.g., “self-respect”). | Items were adapted from previous research. | Women | 82 (all females) university students. Participants were “predominantly White.” |
|
The instrument measures individuals’ experiences with cultural sexual objectification as described in objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Example items include “How many times have you had someone stare at your breasts while talking to you?” and “How many times have you been in a situation where someone made evaluative or judging comments on your weight or body shape?” | Items were adapted from existing measures, and were independently reviewed by seven judges familiar with objectification theory. | Women | 361 (all females) of mostly undergraduate psychology students. The majority of the participants identified as White or Caucasian (83.9%). |
|
The instrument measures the extent that 25 traits described a target (e.g., “helpful” and “impulsive”). | Items were adapted from previous research. | Women | 133 (37 males, 96 females) university students from the USA. |
|
The instrument measures the degree to which an individual accepts or approves of men sexually objectifying women (e.g., “It is okay for men to check out attractive women at bars or dance clubs”). | Not reported | Women | 195 (59 males and 136 females) adults. |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target’s capacity to experience mental states reflecting perception (e.g., “seeing”), emotions (e.g., “joy”), thoughts (e.g., “reasoning”), and intentions (e.g., “wishes”). | The authors used a previously developed measure (MSAT; Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner, 2008). | Men and Women | 166 (72 males, 94 females) of mostly university students. |
(Continued)
Table 2. Background and Development (Continued)
| Instrument | Description of Measure | Development | TSO | Sample |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target based on masculine-stereotyped traits (e.g., “intelligent”), feminine-stereotyped traits (e.g., “friendly”), and traits that might be affected by a sexualisation manipulation (e.g., “self-respecting”). | Items were chosen in part based on previous research. | Girls | 162 (56 males, 106 females) university students from the USA. The majority of the sample identified as Caucasian (80%). |
|
The instrument measures the extent an individual sexually objectifies their partner (e.g., “During the day, I think about how my partner looks many times”). | Items were modified from the surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996), a self-objectification measure. | Men and Women | 184 (79 males, 105 females) university students from the USA. The majority of the sample identified as White (67.9%). |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target’s moral agency (e.g., “In general, how intentional do you believe the woman’s behaviour is?”) and items assessed moral patiency (e.g., ‘‘How bad would you feel if you manipulated this woman?’’). | Items were drawn from previous research. | Women | 191 (96 males; 95 females) Australian university students. The majority of the sample identified as Caucasian (76.7%). |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target’s capacity to experience mental states (e.g., “planning”), as well as their moral concern for a target (e.g., “How bad would you feel if you took advantage of Laura?”) | Items were adapted from the MSAT (Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner, 2008) and Moral Status Scale (Holland & Haslam, 2013). | Women | 60 (15 males, 44 females, 1 unreported) adults whom were recruited via email and electronic bulletin boards. |
|
The instrument consists of behaviourally-specific questions describing concrete events that reflect varying levels of sexual aggression that have been experienced since age 14 (e.g., “Have you ever been fondled, kissed, or touched sexually when you didn’t want to …?”) | The authors used a previously developed measure (SES; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004). | Women | 300 (all females) university students from the USA. The majority of sample identified as White (89%). |
(Continued)
Table 2. Background and Development (Continued)
| Instrument | Description of Measure | Development | TSO | Sample |
|
The instrument measures the frequency with which an individual sexually objectifies others during their interactions with them (e.g., “Made a degrading sexual gesture toward someone?)”. | Items were modified from an existing measure (ISOS; Kozee et al., 2007). | Women | 502 (all males) university students from the USA. The majority of the sample identified as European-American (85.9%). |
|
The instrument measures the extent an individual sexually objectifies their partner (e.g., “When my partner can’t control his/her weight, I feel like something must be wrong with him/her”). | Items of Zurbriggen et al.’s (2011) Partner-Objectification Scale were used, as well as the modified shame subscale of the OBCS (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). | Women | 199 (all males) adults. The majority of the sample identified as White or Caucasian (81.5%). |
|
The instrument measures the degree to which boys are perceived to sexually objectify girls (e.g., “There is nothing wrong with boys being primarily interested in a girls’ body”). | Items were developed from previous research between the use of sexually explicit internet material and sexual objectification of women. | Girls | 1636 (48.5% boys, 51.5% girls) students. Participants were recruited from 12 Belgium schools. |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s evaluation of how important they consider four body attributes are for girls and women (e.g., “buttocks,” “breasts,” “belly,” and “body size”). | Items were derived from similar measures assessing men’s views of women. | Girls and Women | 592 Dutch adolescent students (all males). |
|
The instrument measures women’s acceptance of the male gaze (e.g., “It is okay for men to admire women’s bodies as they pass by on the street”). | Items were adapted from previous research. | Women | 114 (all females) university students. The majority of participants identified as White (87.8%). |
|
The instrument measures an individual’s impression of a target’s capacity to experience emotions (e.g., “agitation,” “fear,” and “attraction”). | Items were developed from previous research. | Women | 98 total (all men) adults from Kosovo. |
Table 3. Instrument Characteristics and Reliability Evidence
| Instrument | No. of Items | Subscale (No. of Items)
No. of Factors, %, σ2 |
Response Scale | Score Range | Coefficient α | Test–Retest Reliability |
|
25 | – | 1–5, Never–About 2+ Times A Week During the Semester | 25–125 | Total .87 | Not reported |
|
10 | – | 1–10, Least Important–Most Important | 1–10 | N/A | Not reported |
|
5 | 1 factor, 50%, σ2 | 1–5, Disagree Completely–Agree Completely) | 5–25 | Total .75 | Not reported |
|
17 | 1 factor, 43.50%, σ2 | 1–6, Response Categories Not Provided | 17–102 | Total .91 | Not reported |
|
15 |
2 factors, 56.16% of variance (total) |
1–5, Never–Almost Always | 15–75 | Total .92
|
r = .90 over 3–week period |
|
15 | – | 1–9, Not At All–Extremely | 15–135 | Not reported | Not reported |
|
40 |
3 factors |
1–5, Never–Almost All the Time | 40–200 | Total .96 | Not reported |
|
25 | – | 1–7, Not At All–Entirely | 25–175 | Not reported | Not reported |
|
15 | – | 1–7, Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree | 15–105 | Total .88 | Not reported |
|
20 | – | 1–7, Not At All–Very Much so | 20–140 | Total .88–.94 | Not reported |
(Continued)
Table 3. Instrument Characteristics and Reliability Evidence (Continued)
| Instrument | No. of Items | Subscale (No. of Items)
No. of Factors, %, σ2 |
Response Scale | Score Range | Coefficient α | Test–Retest Reliability |
|
9 | – | 1–7, Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree | 9–63 | Not reported | Not reported |
|
10 | – | 1–7, Disagree Strongly–Agree Strongly | 9–63 | Total .67 | Not reported |
|
9 |
|
1–7, Not At All–Very Much So | 9–63 |
|
Not reported |
|
12 |
|
1–7, Hardly Ever–Very Frequently (Mental Capacities), Not At All–Extremely (Moral Concern) | 9–63 |
|
Not reported |
|
11 | – | Yes–No | 0–4, No Aggression–Rape | Total .77 | r = .93 over 1–week period |
|
15 |
|
1–5, Never–Always | 1–75 |
|
.Not reported |
|
16 |
|
1–6, Disagree Strongly–Agree Strongly) | 16–96 |
|
Not reported |
|
5 | 1 factor, 54%, σ2 | 1–7, Totally Agree–Totally Disagree | 1–35 | Total >.78 | Not reported |
|
4 | 1 factor, 62.60% | 1–10, Not At All Important–Very Important | 4–40 | Total .88 | Not reported |
|
5 | 1 factor, 46.54% (45.18% at 48–hour follow–up) | 1–7, Disagree Strongly–Agree Strongly | 1–35 | Total .69 | r = .72 over 48–hour period |
|
12 | – | 1–7, Not At All–Very Much | 12–84 | Total .69 | Not reported |
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Self-Objectification
Eating Disorder Symptoms
Psychological Wellbeing
Internalisation of Cultural Beauty Standards
Group Differences
|
|
|
Self-Objectification
Eating Disorder Symptoms
Media Consumption/Exposure
Harassment Experiences
Social Comparison
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Sexist Attitudes
Appearance-Related Outcomes
Group Differences
Age
|
|
|
Media Consumption/Exposure
Group Differences
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Self-Objectification
Eating Disorder Symptoms
Internalisation of Cultural Beauty Standards |
|
Age
Community Involvement
|
|
|
|
Self-Objectification
Eating Disorder Symptoms
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Internalisation of Cultural Beauty Standards
Sexist Attitudes
Media Consumption/Exposure
Relationship Outcomes
Experiences with Racism
Appearance-Related Outcomes
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Age
Group Differences
Psychological Wellbeing
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. |
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Self-Objectification
|
|
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. | |
|
Group Differences
|
|
|
Relationship Outcomes
|
|
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. | |
|
Self-Objectification
Relationship Outcomes
|
|
| Media Consumption/Exposure
Group Differences
|
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Sexual Coercion
Sexist Attitudes
|
|
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. | |
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. | |
|
Self-Objectification
Psychological Wellbeing
Drug Use/Abuse
Other Sexual Objectification Instruments
|
|
|
Media Consumption/Exposure
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Sexist Attitudes
Sexual Coercion
Social Comparison
|
|
| Drug Use/Abuse
|
|
|
|
Sexual Coercion
|
|
(Continued)
Table 4. Evidence of Accumulative Validity for Sexual Objectification Instruments (Continued)
| Instrument | Evidence of Validity | Source |
|
Sexist Attitudes
|
|
|
Media Consumption/Exposure
|
|
|
Age
Media Consumption/Exposure
Beliefs of Courtship Strategies
|
|
|
Evidence of validity for this instrument was not found. | |
|
Relationship Outcomes
Other Sexual Objectification Instruments
|
|
Records identified through database searching
(n=7324)
Additional records identified through other sources
(n=3)
Records after duplicates removed
(n=4197)
Records screened
(n=4197)
Records excluded
(n=3637)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
(n=560)
Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n=516)
260 = Self-objectification outcomes only
109 = University reports
60 = Wrong measures
32 = Psychometric information not provided
24 = Theory only
14 = Implicit/Indirect instruments only
7 = Article missing
6 = Manipulation checks
3 = Synopsis only
1 = Non-English article
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
(n=44)
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram outlining articles excluded at each stage in the screening process
Appendix A
Complete Search Strategy for PsycINFO
| # | Query | |
| S1 | DE objectif* OR DE sexualis* OR DE sexualiz* | |
| S2 | TI ( objectif* OR sexualis* OR sexualiz* ) OR AB ( objectif* OR sexualis* OR sexualiz* ) OR TM ( objectif* OR sexualis* OR sexualiz* ) | |
| S3 | S1 OR S2 | |
| S4 | DE scale* OR DE instrument OR DE test* OR DE measur* OR DE inventory OR DE index OR DE survey* OR DE questionnaire* OR DE task* OR DE assessment* OR DE “eye tracking” OR DE “eye-tracking” OR DE “visual tracking” | |
| S5 | TI ( scale* OR instrument OR test* OR measur* OR inventory OR index OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR task* OR assessment* OR “eye tracking” OR “eye-tracking” OR “visual tracking” ) OR AB ( scale* OR instrument OR test* OR measur* OR inventory OR index OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR task* OR assessment* OR “eye tracking” OR “eye-tracking” OR “visual tracking” ) OR TM ( scale* OR instrument OR test* OR measur* OR inventory OR index OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR task* OR assessment* OR “eye tracking” OR “eye-tracking” OR “visual tracking” ) | |
| S6 | S4 OR S5 | |
| S7 | S3 AND S6 | |
[1] As self-objectification is not the focus of this review, it will not be explored further.
[2] The magnitude of correlations were classified using Cohen’s (1992) criteria, in which correlations of .10 are “small” in strength, those approximately .30 are “medium” and those approximately or above .50 are “large.”
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
View all
Related Content
All TagsContent relating to: "Psychology"
Psychology is the study of human behaviour and the mind, taking into account external factors, experiences, social influences and other factors. Psychologists set out to understand the mind of humans, exploring how different factors can contribute to behaviour, thoughts, and feelings.
Related Articles
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this literature review and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: