Content uploaded by Tracy L. Tylka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tracy L. Tylka on Mar 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Integrating Social Comparison Theory
and Self-Esteem within Objectification Theory
to Predict Women’s Disordered Eating
Tracy L. Tylka &Natalie J. Sabik
Published online: 25 April 2010
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This study integrated social comparison theory
and self-esteem into the objectification theory framework to
broaden our understanding of sexual objectification as it
relates to body shame and disordered eating. Women (N=
274) from a Midwestern U.S. college completed measures
of sexual objectification via appearance feedback, body
surveillance, body shame, body comparison, self-esteem,
and disordered eating. Structural equation modeling indi-
cated that this expanded model fit the data. Appearance
feedback predicted body surveillance, body comparison,
self-esteem and—unexpectedly—disordered eating. Body
surveillance, body comparison, and self-esteem predicted
body shame. Furthermore, hierarchical moderated regres-
sion revealed that body comparison moderated the body
surveillance—disordered eating link; women who frequently
monitored their body and compared it to others’bodies
reported the highest disordered eating.
Keywords Objectification theory .Appearance feedback .
Body surveillance .Body shame .Body comparison .
Self-esteem .Eating disorder symptomatology
Introduction
In this study, we extended objectification theory (Fredrickson
and Roberts 1997) as it predicts body shame and disordered
eating by integrating social comparison (Festinger 1954)and
self-esteem (Striegel-Moore and Cachelin 1999)intoits
framework. Hesse-Biber et al. (2006, p. 208) speculated that
objectification theory and social comparison theory are part
of a “nexus of influence”that should be integrated to better
understand women’s negative body image and disordered
eating. In their review of objectification theory, Moradi
and Huang (2008) discussed objectification’s potential
connection with self-esteem and went a step further to
suggest that research should simultaneously examine appear-
ance comparison and the objectification theory variables.
However, until now, researchers have not tested a model
integrating these approaches.
The integration of objectification theory, body compar-
ison, and self-esteem allows for a broader understanding of
objectification and its correlates that has been missing in
previous literature. Specifically, it addresses how objectifying
messages about appearance could prime women to focus more
on their appearance. One manifestation of this appearance-
focus could be comparing their body with other women’s
bodies as a guide for how to look and a gauge for their relative
attractiveness. Given that many women learn that their worth
is equivalent to their appearance, another manifestation of this
appearance-focus could be women’s decreased self-worth if
they do not match up with societal ideals. By integrating these
approaches, we further addressed whether women who
frequently monitor their appearance also frequently compare
their bodies against other women’s bodies, as well as the
interactive contribution of these variables to women’s
disordered eating.
This article is based on Natalie J. Sabik's senior honors thesis
completed under the direction of Tracy L. Tylka at the Ohio State
University.
T. L. Tylka (*):N. J. Sabik
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University,
1465 Mt. Vernon Avenue,
Marion, OH 43302, USA
e-mail: tylka.2@osu.edu
Present Address:
N. J. Sabik
Women’s Studies, University of Michigan,
204 S. State Street,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9785-3
Consequently, in a sample of college women in the
Midwestern U.S., we examined the associations between
sexual objectification, body surveillance, body shame, body
comparison, self-esteem, and disordered eating. American
women are appropriate to sample in this context, as the
capitalistic structure of the U.S. encourages women to be
dissatisfied with their appearance in order to purchase
products to improve it (Kilbourne 2000; Pipher 1994). Yet,
the ideology that women should be valued by their sexual
attractiveness permeates many cultures (Hesse-Biber et al.
2006). This study, then, will likely be relevant and
important to women from various geographical regions.
A succinct yet powerful message—that women’s worth
depends on their resemblance to a thin, youthful image—is
sent to individuals in Western cultures (Hesse-Biber et al.
2006). This message is cast via multiple media venues that
portray women who fit this image as desirable, successful,
healthy, empowered, and happy. Embedded in the projec-
tion of this image is that (a) it is acceptable and entertaining
for men and women to judge and evaluate women’s worth
vis-à-vis their bodies (e.g., beauty pageants, Playboy
Playmate of the Year competitions, wet t-shirt contests;
Pettijohn and Jungeberg 2004; Tylka and Augustus-
Horvath in press; Wolf 1991) and (b) these activities
liberate women rather than oppress them (Levy 2005).
The message that women’s worth is equated with their
bodies is often internalized by women as well as their sig-
nificant others, who then evaluate the worth of their female
partners, daughters, mothers, sisters, and female friends by
the extent to which they resemble this image (i.e., appear-
ance feedback). Thus, women are reminded by others to
evaluate their bodies and other women’s bodies against this
“American ideal of female body image”(Hesse-Biber et al.
2006, p. 208).
This image is a result of selecting the 5–10% of women
with an already aberrant body type (e.g., lean, tall, big
breasts) and further airbrushing and photo-editing any
perceived imperfection; hence, it is impossible to attain
(Kilbourne 2000; Tiggemann and Pickering 1996). Women
may be left perceiving that “their bodies fail the beauty
test”(Hesse-Biber et al. 2006, p. 212) and experience
distress with their body image as a result. Mounting
research evidence suggests that both media exposure to
this image and direct pressures to be thin from significant
others influence U.S. women’s body dissatisfaction (Groesz
et al. 2002;Thompsonetal.1995). Body image disturbance,
such as body shame and dissatisfaction, is experienced by
many women who feel that their body falls short of the thin,
youthful ideal and view this discrepancy as reflecting
the inadequacy of their body (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997). Not only do media exposure and interpersonal
pressures to be thin encourage body dissatisfaction, but they
also predict U.S. and Canadian women’stendencytofocus
on their body, such as by constantly monitoring their
appearance and comparing their body with other women’s
bodies (Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009;Heinbergand
Thompson 1995; Morry and Staska 2001).
Objectification theory organizes these sociocultural (e.g.,
sexual objectification via media and interpersonal pressures
to be thin, body evaluation) and intrapersonal (e.g., body
focus) variables within a framework to explain women’s
shameful stance toward their bodies, which then contributes
to their disordered eating, depression, and sexual dysfunction
(Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). Specifically, objectification
theory states that women regularly experience sexual
objectification, being treated as bodies or body parts rather
than a whole person; thus, their inner qualities are neglected
at the expense of their physical appearance (Bartky 1990;
Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). Sexual objectification
regularly occurs through (a) media outlets that depict
interpersonal and social interactions and (b) interpersonal
encounters that mimic these interactions (Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997). One frequent way sexual objectification is
manifested is through men gazing at women (i.e., evaluating
their bodies) for their personal gratification.
Yet, measures of sexualized gaze/body evaluation only
contribute 2.0–6.7% of unique variance in body surveil-
lance among young adult U.S. women (Augustus-Horvath
and Tylka 2009; Moradi et al. 2005). Not only men
evaluate women’s bodies. Women could gaze at other
women as a means of evaluation or comparison. Women
who are recipients of this objectification may not know the
intent behind this gaze but simply realize that they are
objects of this gaze and their bodies are the focus of
attention. This certainly fits into the schema of sexual
objectification proposed by Fredrickson and Roberts
(1997), as they recognized that it has many forms with a
common thread—treating individuals as bodies. Therefore,
for our study, we honored this perspective and conceptualized
sexual objectification more broadly as appearance feedback.
Scholars have argued that appearance feedback is a key
form of sexual objectification, as this feedback encourages
U.S. women to base their self-worth on their sexual
attractiveness (Tylka and Hill 2004). It is often promulgated
that the only acceptable bodies for women are sexually
attractive, and therefore appearance comments are rooted in
adherence to sexual beauty ideals (Calogero et al. 2009).
For instance, when a person hints that a woman should try a
new diet, laughs at her size, and/or comments negatively
about her weight, it indicates to this woman that someone
assessed her body and determined that (a) it did not match
up to the thin-ideal beauty standard, (b) she should try to
achieve this standard for respectful treatment, and (c) she is
inadequate for not meeting this standard. Weight commen-
tary seems to be especially relevant for U.S. women’s levels
of self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 19
due to American culture’s focus on thinness (Tylka and Hill
2004).
Our Proposed Integrative Model
Per objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997),
the influence of sexual objectification on eating disorder
symptomatology is indirect in that it is mediated by body-
related variables. Encounters with sexual objectification
socialize girls and women to engage in self-objectification
(see path a in Fig. 1). Self-objectification occurs when
women exchange their own perspective of their physical
appearance for an observer’s perspective and treat their
body as an object to be looked at and evaluated. It is often
assessed by the degree to which women monitor their own
body, or engage in body surveillance (Augustus-Horvath
and Tylka 2009;Lindbergetal.2007). As such, we focused
on body surveillance as the manifestation of self-
objectification and hereby refer to this variable, as it pertains
to this study, as body surveillance. Assessments of sexual
objectification, such as media exposure (Morry and Staska
2001), pressure to be thin (Tylka and Hill 2004), and
sexualized body evaluation (Augustus-Horvath and Tylka
2009; Kozee and Tylka 2006; Kozee et al. 2007;Moradiet
al. 2005) have been shown to predict U.S. and Canadian
women’s tendency to engage in body surveillance.
When women are sexually objectified, they may inter-
nalize society’s view that it is acceptable to focus on the
appearance of all women, not just themselves. Thus, they
may treat other women’s bodies as objects to be looked at
and evaluated. For instance, women are reducing other
women to their body when they engage in body compar-
ison, or evaluating their body against other women’s
bodies. Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954), sug-
gests that individuals have a drive to gauge how they are
doing in a given area, and in order to estimate how they are
doing, they look for comparison targets in their social
environment. Given that women are so frequently judged
on their appearance, many choose to compare their bodies
to other women’s bodies (Stice et al. 2001). Therefore,
sexual objectification could predict women’s tendency to
scrutinize other women’s physical appearance to determine
how it compares with their own (see path b). Bessenoff
(2006) found that U.S. college women tend to engage in
body comparison when exposed to thin-ideal media
advertisements. In a study of college women in Australia,
Tiggemann and McGill (2004) found that viewing images of
women’s bodies and body parts elicited body comparison.
Low self-esteem is also a logical consequence of sexual
objectification (see path c). Sexual objectification has
profound negative consequences on women’s sense of self,
as their physical appearance is highlighted and other
aspects of themselves (e.g., personality, intellect, feelings,
and attitudes) are downplayed or neglected (Fredrickson
and Roberts 1997). During puberty, girls begin to realize
that they are seen and evaluated by others as a body or a
collection of body parts and may experience reduced self-
esteem as a result (Pipher 1994). Indeed, the more
encounters with sexual objectification (e.g., pressures for
thinness, appearance commentary) U.S. women reported,
the lower their self-esteem (Herbozo and Thompson 2006;
Phan and Tylka 2006; Tylka and Subich 2004).
In turn, low self-esteem is considered a predisposing
factor to internalizing societal images of thinness (Striegel-
Moore and Cachelin 1999), which then predicts body
surveillance (e.g., Moradi et al. 2005). Women who have
a low self-esteem may turn to societal ideals, rather than
look within themselves, to determine their goals (Tylka and
Subich 2004). Given society’s message for women to focus
on their appearance, women with low self esteem may be
more likely to engage in constant body surveillance (see
path d) and/or body comparison to determine how their
Fig. 1 Proposed model
combining tenets of
objectification theory, social
comparison theory, and
self-esteem.
20 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
appearance compares with other women (see path e). In
support, U.S. women with low self-esteem experience
increased body surveillance (Mercurio and Landry 2008)
and engage in greater body comparison (van den Berg et al.
2007) than women with high self-esteem. In contrast, U.S.
college women with high self-esteem tend to be more
satisfied with and less focused on their appearance (Cook-
Cottone and Phelps 2003; Fingeret and Gleaves 2004), and
therefore may have less of a need to habitually monitor
their appearance and compare their bodies against other
women’s bodies.
Body surveillance could prompt women to compare their
bodies with other women’s bodies (see path f). Women who
hold their appearance in special prominence are likely to
focus on the appearance of others as well. Individuals
assess their status in a given area by comparing themselves
to others (Festinger 1954); thus, engaging in body
comparison may help women judge the status of their
appearance. To our knowledge, no empirical research has
explored the association between body surveillance and
body comparison.
According to objectification theory, body shame is a
logical consequence to self-objectification (see path g).
Body shame results when women perceive that their body
falls short of cultural ideals for appearance (Fredrickson
and Roberts 1997). Given the impossibility of these ideals
(Hesse-Biber et al. 2006), women who self-objectify likely
feel shameful toward their bodies. In support, the path from
body surveillance to body shame has received support for
U.S. college women, older women, and lesbian samples
(e.g., Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009; Kozee and Tylka
2006; Kozee et al. 2007; Moradi et al. 2005; Tiggemann
and Slater 2001; Tylka and Hill 2004). Self-objectification
is also posited to increase women’s appearance anxiety,
reduce awareness of internal body states, and disrupt flow,
or deep concentration in non-appearance-related tasks
(Fredrickson and Roberts 1997); however, these variables
have received less empirical support among U.S. college
women (Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009; Moradi et al.
2005). Therefore, we chose to focus on body shame as the
consequence to body surveillance in our model.
Self-esteem may also predict body shame in a negative
direction in the model (see path h). Preliminary research
supports the relationship between these variables. U.S.
college women who devalue their overall self-worth also
tend to hold their bodies in low esteem. Low self-esteem
predicts body dissatisfaction among college women (Tylka
and Subich 2004) and low self-esteem is associated with
body shame among exotic dancers (Downs et al. 2006) and
college women (Mercurio and Landry 2008) from the U.S.
Interestingly, van den Berg et al. (2007) found a direct path
from self-esteem to body dissatisfaction for U.S. women,
even after considering their level of body comparison.
Body comparison is also likely to predict body shame in
the model (see path i). Canadian, Australian, and U.S.
women who compared their bodies or body parts to others
perceived as more attractive (i.e., upward social comparison),
such as those who resemble the thin-ideal, experienced body
image distress (Morrison et al. 2004; Paxton et al. 1999;
Thompson et al. 1999;vandenBergetal.2007). U.S.
college women who made upward social comparisons with
advertisements featuring attractive models reported greater
body dissatisfaction (Engeln-Maddox 2005). Also, body
comparison predicted body dissatisfaction in Caucasian
U.S. women (Stormer and Thompson 1996; van den Berg
et al. 2002) and Japanese women (Yamamiya et al. 2008).
Women who are shameful of their bodies may then
engage in disordered eating, perhaps in an attempt to lose
weight in order to appear more consistent with the thin
ideal standard for women (see path j; Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997). This path has been empirically supported
with largely Caucasian samples of U.S. and Australian
college women (Moradi et al. 2005; Noll and Fredrickson
1998; Tiggemann and Slater 2001; Tylka and Hill 2004)
and non-collegiate U.S. women (Augustus-Horvath and
Tylka 2009).
Interaction of Body Surveillance and Body Comparison
Self-objectification is a key variable in objectification
theory (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997); the extent to which
one internalizes sexual objectification is the first step
toward increased disordered eating. Similarly, body com-
parison is an important component of social comparison
theory in the prediction of disordered eating (Stice et al.
2001). In the spirit of integrating these theories, we
examined whether body surveillance and body comparison
would interact to predict disordered eating. Theoretically,
the tendency to compare the body against other women’s
bodies (media images or encounters with actual women
perceived as more attractive) strengthens U.S. women’s
motivation to alter their bodies in accordance with the ideal
(Cahill and Mussap 2007; Stormer and Thompson 1996;
Thompson et al. 1999; van den Berg et al. 2007). This
process may be particularly strong for women high in body
surveillance, as physical attractiveness is a more salient
goal for these women. Engaging in frequent upward body
comparison would serve as a constant reminder to women
high in body surveillance that they are falling short of their
goal. Hence, the more they compare their bodies with
unrealistic media images and other women more similar to
the societal ideal, the more women high in body surveil-
lance will be motivated to lose weight. Specifically, we
argued that frequent body comparison would prompt
women high in body surveillance to engage in greater
disordered eating behaviors.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 21
Specific Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are as follows:
H1: The model proposed in Fig. 1would fit the data, with
variables embedded in objectification theory, body
comparison, and self-esteem making unique contri-
butions to women’s body shame and disordered
eating. The paths specified, as well as their anticipated
direction, i.e., positive (+) or negative (−), are as follows:
H1a: Appearance feedback would predict unique
variance in body surveillance (+), body compari-
son (+), and self-esteem (−).
H1b: Self-esteem would predict unique variance in
body surveillance (−), body comparison (−), and
body shame (−).
H1c: Body surveillance would predict unique variance
in body shame (+) and body comparison (+).
H1d: Body comparison would predict unique variance
in body shame (+).
H1e: Body shame would predict unique variance in
disordered eating (+).
H2: Body comparison would moderate the relationship
between body surveillance and disordered eating.
Specifically, the relationship between body surveillance
and disordered eating would be stronger for women
who more frequently engage in body comparison.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants entered into the data set were 274 college
women ranging in age from 18–29 years (M= 19.22, SD =
1.71) recruited from a large Midwestern university. This
sample size exceeded the 230 participants required to
estimate this model, as five participants are needed for
each of the 46 paths estimated (Hu and Bentler 1999). Most
women (76.7%) identified as Caucasian American, fol-
lowed in frequency by African American (10.4%), Latina
(3.6%), and Asian American (2.4%). Seventeen participants
(6.8%) indicated “other”and identified as multiracial,
African, or Asian. Women classified themselves as first
year students (67.9%), sophomores (15.7%), juniors
(8.4%), seniors (6.8%), or post-baccalaureate (0.4%). Two
participants (0.8%) did not specify their college rank. Most
participants identified their socioeconomic standing as
upper-middle class (45.8%) or middle class (40.2%),
whereas fewer participants endorsed working class
(10.4%) and upper class (3.2%) labels.
Women enrolled in the university introductory psychol-
ogy course were recruited via an online advertisement of
the study presented on the psychology department’s
website. Students had a choice of participating in this study
or one of several other studies advertised on this website.
Women who elected to participate were instructed that their
responses would remain anonymous. After providing their
consent, they completed the questionnaires in a classroom
setting used as a research lab. Measures were counter-
balanced to control for order effects. Participants received
credit that was applied toward their class grade. To be
entered into the data set, women needed to have completed
at least 90% of all measures.
Latent Variables and Measures
Sexual Objectification via Appearance Feedback
The Feedback on Physical Appearance Scale (FOPAS;
Tantleff-Dunn et al. 1995) was chosen as it assesses
perceived sexual objectification related to verbal and
nonverbal appearance feedback. Other measures of perceived
sexual objectification (e.g., the Interpersonal Sexual Objec-
tification Scale; Kozee et al. 2007) measure body evaluation
meant for the gratification of the objectifier (e.g., whistles,
cat calls, ogling). The FOPAS’s 8 items (e.g., “Someone
made some facial expression when looking at your body,”
“Someone suggested a new diet that’s available”) are rated
along a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never)to5(always).
Five items directly assess weight-related appearance com-
mentary, which is especially relevant to body shame and
disordered eating (Tylka and Hill 2004). Items are averaged
to obtain a total score, and higher scores indicate greater
perceived appearance feedback. Among college women,
Tan tleff -Dun n e t a l. (1995) reported that scores on the
FOPAS were internally consistent (α= .88) and stable over a
2-week period (r=.82). These authors also reported that the
FOPAS was related to appearance evaluation (r=−.37), body
satisfaction (r=−.34), weight-related anxiety (r=.27), and
drive for thinness (r=.48), supporting its construct validity.
Further, these authors reported support for its discriminant
validity in that it was unrelated to socially desirable respond-
ing. For the present study, alpha was .89 for its scores.
Self-Esteem
The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg 1965)
was used to measure self-esteem. Participants rate its 10
items (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”)
along a 4-point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree)to4
(strongly agree). Items are averaged to arrive at a total
score, and higher scores reflect greater self-esteem. For
samples of college women, internal consistency reliability
22 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
estimates (e.g., α=.93; Tylka and Subich 2004) and test-
retest reliability estimates over a 2-week period
(e.g., r=.85; Robinson and Shaver 1973) are adequate.
Among college women, the RSES correlated with another
measure of self-esteem (r=.59; Robinson and Shaver
1973), and it was related to optimism (r=.73), life
satisfaction (r=.61), and proactive coping (r= .63; Tylka
2006), supporting its convergent validity. For the present
study, alpha was .88 for its scores.
Body Surveillance
The Body Surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body
Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley and Hyde 1996)
was used to measure the degree to which a woman looks at
her body and thinks of her body in terms of how it appears
to others rather than its functionality. It includes 8 items,
such as “I think that it is more important that my clothes are
comfortable than whether they look good on me [reverse
scored],”that are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree)to7(strongly agree). Items are averaged; higher
scores indicate greater levels of body surveillance. For this
subscale, McKinley and Hyde (1996) reported that its
scores were internally consistent (α= .89), stable over a 2-
week period (r=.73), and related to public self-
consciousness among college women (r= .46). For the
present study, alpha was .85 for its scores.
Body Comparison
The Body Comparison Scale (Fisher and Thompson 1998)
contains 25 items measuring how often one compares
specific body sites (e.g., buttocks, thighs, hips, calves,
waist, thighs, etc.), as well as overall body shape and
muscle tone, to other individuals of the same gender. Item
responses range from 1 (never)to5(always) and are
averaged. Higher total scores reflect greater body compar-
ison. Reliability and validity information have not been
published for this scale. For the present study, alpha was
.94 for its scores.
Body Shame
The Body Shame subscale of the OBCS (McKinley and
Hyde 1996) was used to measure the level of shame women
feel towards their bodies. This subscale contains 8 items
(e.g., “When I can’t control my weight, I feel like
something must be wrong with me”) that are rated on a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly
agree). Items are averaged; higher subscale scores demon-
strate greater levels of body shame. McKinley and Hyde
(1996) reported alpha levels ranging from .70 to .84, found
that it was stable over a 2-week period (r= .79), and noted
that it was related to body esteem (r=−.46) for a sample of
young adult women. For the present study, alpha was .84
for its scores.
Eating Disorder Symptomatology
The Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26; Garner et al. 1982)
was used to determine women’s levels of this construct. Its
26 items (e.g., “I avoid eating when I am hungry”,“I vomit
after I’ve eaten”) are rated along a 6-point scale ranging
from 1 (never)to6(always). Garner et al. (1982)
recommended that the responses never,rarely,andsome-
times receive a score of 0, while the responses often,very
often, and always receive scores of 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
However, in the statistical analyses reported in the present
study, EAT-26 scores were treated as continuous variables,
as researchers (e.g., Mazzeo 1999) have suggested that the
EAT-26 can be used as a continuous measure in nonclinical
samples of women. The reason for using this continuous
scoring procedure was that, due to the relatively low base
rate of clinical eating disorders, it was expected that the
distribution of EAT-26 scores would be skewed which
would jeopardize the assumptions of the planned analyses.
Thus, total scores were equal to the sum of all coded
responses (i.e., ranging from 26–156), with higher scores
reflecting greater symptomatology. Among college women,
the EAT-26 has been found to be internally consistent (α
=.92; Moradi et al. 2005) and stable over a 3-week period
(r=.86; Mazzeo 1999) when it was scored continuously.
Further, it was related to bulimic symptomatology (r=.55)
and drive for thinness (r= .84) for college women (Brook-
ings and Wilson 1994), upholding its convergent validity.
For the present study, alpha was .91 for its scores.
Creation of Measured/Observed Variables
We followed Russell et al. (1998) recommendations on
constructing three parcels, or measured indicators, for each
of our six latent variables. Specifically, for each scale or
subscale, an exploratory factor analysis was first performed
using the maximum likelihood (ML) method of extraction,
and a single factor was specified to be extracted. The factor
loadings from this analysis were then rank-ordered by their
magnitude and successively assigned (from the highest to
the lowest factor loading) to each of three parcels; this
process equalized the average loadings of each parcel on its
respective latent factor. Last, items within each parcel were
averaged to obtain a total parcel score. Parcel scores were
used to estimate their respective latent variable within the
SEM analyses. Four BCS items (comparison of ears, nose,
lips, and shape of face) were not included in these parcels
as they had extremely low item-factor loadings (i.e.,
loadings ≤.15).
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 23
Results
We handled the few missing data points by substituting
participants’mean scale or subscale scores for the missing
value and then examined data for normality of distribution.
Researchers testing latent variable structural equation and
hierarchical regression models need to transform variables that
have absolute values of skewness>3 and kurtosis > 10 (Kline
2005). The skewness and kurtosis values for the 18 parcels
and for the total scale/subscale scores were lower than these
values (skewness range= −0.54 to 0.90, kurtosis range −0.60
to 1.10); therefore, we did not transform any variable.
Next, we calculated the scale/subscale means, standard
deviations, and intercorrelations. These values are pre-
sented in Table 1. As expected, constructs embedded with
objectification theory, social comparison theory, and self-
esteem were significantly related to each other and to
eating disorder symptomatology, offering preliminary
evidence that they may combine together in a meaningful
way to predict disordered eating among college women.
Test of the Hypothesized Latent Variable Model
For all latent variable analyses, we used Mplus Version 4.1
(Muthén and Muthén 2006) with maximum likelihood
estimation and the covariance matrix as input. We deter-
mined the adequacy of model fit by the consensus among
three indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999): the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the standardized root-mean
square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). Findings from a Monte Carlo
simulation study revealed that CFI values of .95 and higher,
SRMR values of .08 or lower, and RMSEA values of .06
and lower indicate a relatively good fit of the model to the
data, whereas CFI values of .90–.94, SRMR values of
.09–.10, and RMSEA values of .07–.10 indicate an
acceptable fit. Values outside of these ranges reflect an
unacceptable fit of the model to the data.
Examination of the Measurement Model
We first evaluated our measurement model, or the parcel-
factor loadings and relationships among latent variables,
using confirmatory factor analysis. The measurement model
provided an acceptable to good fit to the data (CFI= .97,
SRMR=.04, RMSEA= .06). Significant parcel—factor
loadings ranged from .73–.95 (all ps< .001), indicating that
all latent factors were adequately operationalized. Therefore,
this measurement model was used to test the hypothesized
structural model. Parcel-factor loadings are included in Fig. 2,
and the relationships between the latent variables are
presented in Table 2.
Examination of the Structural Model
Next, to test H1, we evaluated the hypothesized structural
model (Fig. 1). As expected, this model provided an
acceptable to good fit to the data (CFI= .97, SRMR = .06,
RMSEA= .06). All hypothesized paths were significant
(H1a–H1e); these path coefficients are presented in Fig. 2.
Data indicated that sexual objectification via appearance
feedback accounted for 6.3% of the variance in self-esteem.
Appearance feedback and self-esteem accounted for 14.8%
of the variance in body surveillance. Appearance feedback,
self-esteem, and body surveillance accounted for 44.7% of
the variance in body comparison. Self-esteem, body
surveillance, and body comparison accounted for 61.1%
of the variance in body shame. Last, body shame accounted
for 67.9% of the variance in disordered eating.
Alternative Models
To further provide evidence for our model, we explored
four alternative models. In each model, a direct path was
added to the model presented in Fig. 1. These added direct
paths should not be significant based on extant theoretical
and/or empirical evidence. In the first alternative model, a
Table 1 Scale/subscale means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations.
Instrument MSD1 2 345
1. FOPAS—Sexual objectification 2.21 .53 –
2. RSE—Self-esteem 3.16 .46 −.23* –
3. OBCS-Body surveillance 4.92 .94 .25* −.28* –
4. Body Comparison Scale 2.85 .70 .45* −.34* .50* –
5. OBCS-Body shame 3.82 1.04 .32* −.40* .57* .45* –
6. EAT-26—Disordered eating 65.94 18.14 .39* −.35* .57* .46* .68*
N=274. FOPAS= Feedback on Physical Appearance Scale, RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, OBCS = Objectified Body Consciousness Scale,
EAT-26=Eating Attitudes Test-26. Scores can range from: 1 (low) to 5 (high) for the FOPAS, 1 (low) to 4 (high) for the RSE, 1 (low) to 7 (high)
for the OBCS Body surveillance subscale, 1 (low) to 5 (high) for the Body Comparison Scale, 1 (low) to 7 (high) for the OBCS Body shame
subscale, and 26 (low) to 156 (high) for the EAT-26. *p<.001.
24 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
direct path was added from sexual objectification to
disordered eating. According to Fredrickson and Roberts
(1997), there should not be a direct relationship between
these variables after accounting for body surveillance and
body shame. Unexpectedly, this direct path was significant,
suggesting that appearance feedback accounted for unique
variance in disordered eating above and beyond the
variance accounted for by body shame, β=.142, t(273)=
2.63, p<.05. The first alternative model fit the data better
than the model presented in Fig. 1,χ
difference
2
(1)=7.49,
p<.05. In the second alternative model, we added a direct
path from body surveillance to disordered eating. Fredrickson
and Roberts (1997) suggested that body shame should
account for this link; yet, Moradi and Huang (2008)noted
several studies that supported this direct link. Interestingly,
body surveillance accounted for unique variance in disor-
dered eating, β=.158, t(273)=2.01, p<.05, but this second
alternative model did not fit the data better than the model
presented in Fig. 1,χ
difference
2
(1)= 3.65, ns.
In the third alternative model, a direct path was added
from self-esteem to disordered eating. Self-esteem should
only influence eating disorder symptomatology through
body shame (Tylka and Subich 2004). As predicted, this
direct path was not significant, β=−.01, t(273) = −0.17, ns,
and the third alternative model did not fit the data better
than the model presented in Fig. 1;χ
difference
2
(1)=0.03, ns.
Last, we examined whether there was a direct path from
body comparison to disordered eating in the fourth
alternative model, as body image disturbance has been
proposed to account for the link between body comparison
and disordered eating (Thompson et al. 1999). Consistent
with predictions, body comparison did not directly predict
disordered eating, β=.119, t(273)=1.81, ns, and the fourth
alternative model did not fit the data better than the original
model, χ
difference
2
(1)=3.69, ns.
Hierarchical Moderated Regression (HMR)
To test H2, we used HMR to examine whether body
comparison moderated the relationship between body
surveillance and disordered eating. According to many
scholars (e.g., Aiken and West 1991; Frazier et al. 2004),
HMR is the best analysis to detect the presence or absence
of moderating effects. To conduct this analysis, we first
centered the scale scores for the predictor (i.e., body
surveillance) and proposed moderator (i.e., body compari-
son) in order to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity
between the main effect and interaction terms (Cronbach
Fig. 2 Path coefficients and
parcel-factor loadings for the
structural model. *p<.05.
Latent variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Sexual objectification –
2. Self-esteem −.25* –
3. Body surveillance .29* −.31* –
4. Body comparison .49* −.36* .56* –
5. Body shame .34* −.46* .70* .52* –
6. Eating disorder symptomatology .39* −.39* .64* .53* .79*
Tab l e 2 Correlations between
the latent variables obtained via
analyzing the measurement
model.
N=274. *p<.01.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 25
1987). Second, we entered body surveillance and body
comparison at Step 1 of the analysis. Third, we entered the
interaction of body surveillance and body comparison (i.e.,
body surveillance× body comparison) at Step 2 of the
analysis. Evidence for a significant moderator effect, or
interaction, is noted at Step 2 by a statistically significant
increment in R
2
(i.e., ΔR
2
) and beta weight. Also, the effect
size was considered; ΔR
2
values at or above .02 were
considered to make unique and meaningful contributions to
the criterion (Cohen 1992). While at first glance a ΔR
2
value of .02 appears to be minimal, suggesting that the
moderator effect only accounted for 2% of the variance in
the criterion, it is common that these effects only account
for between 1–3% of criterion variance in non-experimental
designs, as these designs make it very difficult to detect
moderator effects (McClelland and Judd 1993).
Consistent with H2, body comparison strengthened the
relationship between body surveillance and disordered
eating, β=1.10, t(273)= 3.01, p< .05. Thus, at high levels
of body surveillance, women who also reported high body
comparison reported significantly greater disordered eating
than participants who reported low body comparison. This
interaction accounted for 2.3% of the variance in eating
disorder symptomatology beyond the variance accounted for
by body surveillance and body shame, ΔR
2
at Step 2=.023.
The regression slopes of this interaction were plotted in a
graph, which is presented in Fig. 3, using predicted values
for eating disorder symptomatology calculated from repre-
sentative groups at the mean, 1 standard deviation (SD)
above the mean and 1 SD below the mean on body
surveillance and body comparison. These predicted values
were obtained by multiplying the respective unstandardized
regression coefficients for each centered variable by its
appropriate value (i.e., +1 SD or −1SD of body
surveillance for the first term, +1 SD or −1SD of body
comparison for the second term, and the product of the
standard deviations of body surveillance and body compar-
ison for the interaction term), summing these products, and
then adding the constant value (Aiken and West 1991;
Frazier et al. 2004). An analysis of the significance of
simple slopes (Aiken and West 1991) showed that body
surveillance strongly predicted disordered eating for wom-
en high on body comparison, β=.64, t(273) = 7.36, p< .05,
whereas body surveillance more modestly predicted disor-
dered eating for women low on body comparison, β= .36,
t(273)=5.50, p<.05.
Discussion
Integrating social comparison theory and self-esteem into
the objectification theory framework broadens our under-
standing of sexual objectification and its connection to
women’s body image and disordered eating. Hence, we
added to the literature on body image and eating disorder
symptomatology by developing a structural model that
articulated how objectification theory variables, body
comparison, and self-esteem work together. To do this, we
focused on appearance feedback as the measure of sexual
objectification, as well as body surveillance, body compar-
ison, and self-esteem, because these variables all have clear
sociocultural and intrapersonal connections to women’s
appearance (Wolf 1991). Overall, our model fit the data for
our sample of young adult U.S. college women. Especially
noteworthy is that, when examined simultaneously, body
surveillance, body comparison, and self-esteem remained
significant predictors of body shame, emphasizing their
incremental contribution and the multifaceted nature of
body image.
Additionally, this integration adds complexity to the
gender-specific model of objectification posed by Fredrickson
and Roberts (1997). In their model, men are typically the
perpetrators of sexual objectification. The objectifying nature
of social comparison suggests that women are routinely
directing their gaze towards other women—a phenomenon
that has received little attention in the previous literature. Our
model also highlights the connection between body surveil-
lance, social comparison, and objectification. Women who are
focused on their appearance are more attentive to other
women’s appearance and how it compares to their own; this
body comparison may simultaneously direct their attention
back to their own body (e.g., heightened body surveillance)
while perpetuating the objectification of other women’s
bodies.
The importance of combining these approaches is further
underscored when comparing the findings from our
integrated model with findings from a model that contained
only objectification theory constructs (Augustus-Horvath
and Tylka 2009). The sample used in the Augustus-Horvath
Fig. 3 The interaction of body surveillance with body comparison in
the prediction of disordered eating.
26 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
and Tylka (2009) study was similar to ours—young adult
Midwestern U.S. college women. In the present study,
appearance feedback and self-esteem explained 14.8% of
the variance in body surveillance. In contrast, Augustus-
Horvath and Tylka (2009) found that interpersonal sexual
objectification only explained 6.7% of the variance in body
surveillance. In the present study, body surveillance, body
comparison, and self-esteem contributed a total of 61.1% of
the variance in body shame. Augustus-Horvath and Tylka
found that body surveillance contributed 53.3% of the
variance in body shame.
Each hypothesized path was significant in our model.
Sexual objectification via appearance feedback positively
predicted body surveillance and body comparison and
negatively predicted self-esteem. Thus, it appears that
sexual objectification, when conceptualized as appearance
feedback, predicts more than women’s tendency to monitor
their bodies. Individually, researchers have found that
interpersonal sexual objectification predicts body surveil-
lance (e.g., Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009; Moradi et
al. 2005), that exposure to thin images of women predict
body comparison (Bessenoff 2006; Tiggemann and McGill
2004), and that sexual objectification negatively predicts
women’s self-esteem (Herbozo and Thompson 2006; Phan
and Tylka 2006; Tylka and Subich 2004). However, these
studies have not measured objectification as appearance
feedback. If internalized, appearance feedback may translate
into women reducing their self-worth as well as other
women’s worth by scrutinizing their appearance to determine
how it compares with their own.
Self-esteem uniquely predicted body surveillance, body
comparison, and body shame within our model, which
illustrates the importance of including self-esteem as a
variable within the objectification theory framework. Given
that women with high self-esteem are generally satisfied
with their inner qualities as well as appearance, they may be
more likely to accept their body as it is rather than
vigilantly monitoring it and comparing it against other
women’s bodies. In contrast, women with low self-esteem
tend to lack confidence in their inner qualities and their
outer appearance and are likely to turn to societal ideals for
guidance, which encourages them to focus on their
appearance and to gauge their appearance against other
women’s appearance.
Consistent with prior theory (Fredrickson and Roberts
1997) and research on college women (e.g., Augustus-
Horvath and Tylka 2009; Moradi et al. 2005; Noll and
Fredrickson 1998; Tylka and Hill 2004), body surveillance
predicted body shame in our model. Yet, our findings
highlight the importance of exploring body surveillance,
body comparison, and body shame in tandem. Habitually
monitoring their bodies focuses women’s attention on their
appearance, which heightens their tendency to comparing
themselves to impossible media body ideals (Kilbourne
2000; Tiggemann and Pickering 1996). Perceiving that they
fall short of these ideals, they experience body shame.
Based on our findings, body comparison partially drives the
relationship between body surveillance and body shame.
As expected, body shame predicted eating disorder
symptomatology in our model. This significant path has
been proposed (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997) and sup-
ported in several studies (e.g., Moradi et al. 2005; Noll and
Fredrickson 1998; Tiggemann and Slater 2001; Tylka and
Hill 2004). Women high in body shame appear to be more
likely to try harmful and drastic measures to alter their
bodies and lose weight, perhaps in an attempt to dissipate
the embarrassment they feel from their bodies not measuring
up to the thin-ideal for women.
In a series of four post-hoc analyses, we further
determined whether sexual objectification via appearance
feedback, body surveillance, self-esteem, or body compar-
ison predicted unique variance in women’s disordered
eating, as each of these four variables was theorized to be
indirectly rather than directly associated with disordered
eating (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; Moradi et al. 2005;
Thompson et al. 1999; Tylka and Subich 2004). Curiously,
appearance feedback and body surveillance each predicted
disordered eating above and beyond all other variable
associations within our model; however, only the addition
of the appearance feedback—disordered eating path im-
proved model fit. The fact that we assessed sexual
objectification as appearance feedback, which is tailored
toward weight commentary, may account for our finding.
Other researchers who have assessed sexual objectification
as sexualized body evaluation have not found it to be
directly related to disordered eating in models of objecti-
fication theory (Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009; Kozee
and Tylka 2006; Moradi et al. 2005).
Interestingly, body comparison intensified the relation-
ship between body surveillance and disordered eating. This
interaction effect accounted for 2.3% of the criterion
variance above and beyond the individual body surveillance
and body comparison predictors, which is within the 1–3%
range for significant interaction effects typically found in
non-experimental research (McClelland and Judd 1993).
Engaging in frequent body comparison, which is often
upward as women compare themselves to media images of
women and other women perceived to be thinner or more
attractive (van den Berg et al. 2007; Thompson et al. 1999),
would serve as a regular reminder to women high in body
surveillance that they are not achieving their appearance-
related goals. Because the comparison targets are often thin,
continual body comparison may direct women high in body
surveillance to use drastic measures (i.e., disordered eating
behaviors) in an attempt to lose weight. Therefore, triggers
and contexts that promote body comparison (e.g., reading
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 27
fashion magazines; fitness centers which contain large
mirrors, posters featuring sexualized and idealized female
bodies, and female members wearing revealing clothing)
for women high in body surveillance may be especially
damaging for their disordered eating.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
This study has limitations that need to be addressed. First,
we explored women’s dispositional tendency to engage in
body comparison in general and did not have participants
report the direction of this comparison (i.e., the degree to
which they engaged in upward body comparison and
downward body comparison on a separate basis). To our
knowledge, there is no measure of dispositional body
comparison that has participants report the degree to which
they engage in both types of comparison. Dispositional
body comparison (without specifying the direction of
comparison) has been shown to predict women’s body
dissatisfaction (Stormer and Thompson 1996; Thompson et
al. 1999). Experimental studies that have manipulated the
direction of state body comparison (e.g., by exposing
participants to an overweight or slender model supposedly
in order to provoke downward or upward comparison,
respectively) have indicated that upward, but not downward,
body comparison is associated with body dissatisfaction (Lin
and Kulik 2002; van den Berg and Thompson 2007).
Therefore, the type of dispositional body comparison would
be important to consider in future research on our model.
Additionally, we did not gather information about the
targets of women’s body comparisons, which may have
made a difference in our findings. In an experimental study,
Shomaker and Furman (2007) found that body comparisons
with same gender peers produced stronger associations with
negative body image than body comparisons with media
images. Thus, assessing participants’target(s) of body
comparison is an additional important direction for future
research.
Although we used latent variable SEM to simultaneously
examine the associations between the variable paths, the
model was embedded within a correlational methodology.
As a result, firm conclusions cannot be made about the
direction of the model variables. Whereas, the fit of the
model tested supported our hypotheses, other orderings of
the variables may be equally plausible. A longitudinal
examination of our model could better explore the
directionality of the model paths.
Alternatively, directional paths may not be the best
conceptualization of the model variables. For instance,
body surveillance and body comparison may actually
promote each other. Women who frequently compare their
body/body parts to the body/body parts of other women
may feel a greater need, in turn, to habitually monitor their
own body. Engaging in body comparison may constantly
remind women that other women may be using their bodies
for comparison. This realization may encourage women to
habitually monitor their appearance to look their best for
others’comparisons. It would be worthy to explore whether
this process is bidirectional.
Additionally, researchers should expand this model. As
disordered eating is not the only proposed psychological
disorder to result from body shame (Fredrickson and
Roberts 1997), it would be useful to incorporate depression
and sexual dysfunction as criteria within our model. Other
researchers have found support that body shame is linked to
depression (Szymanski and Henning 2007) and sexual
dysfunction (Steer and Tiggemann 2008), although sexual
objectification, self-esteem, and body comparison have not
been explored within these studies. We also encourage
researchers to explore whether other measures of the same
construct (e.g., the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale
in lieu of the Body Comparison Scale) would produce
similar findings.
We especially urge researchers to include body compar-
ison in their models of objectification theory. A woman
who compares her body to other women’s bodies places
herself in a unique situation wherein she is both the
purveyor of objectification (objectifying the target of her
comparison) and the recipient of objectification (i.e.,
objectifying her own body). Thus, body comparison is
likely to simultaneously raise the prevalence of sexual and
self-objectification. Researchers may wish to further ex-
plore this dynamic. It is also critical that researchers
understand that objectifying gaze may come from both
men (perhaps more for their personal gratification) and
women (perhaps more as a means of body comparison).
Assessing the degree to which women perceive that they
are targets of other women’s body comparison and the
associations between this variable and body surveillance,
body shame, their own body comparison tendencies, self-
esteem, and disordered eating would be a worthwhile
avenue for research.
Overall, the majority of the research on objectification
theory, social comparison theory, and self-esteem related to
body image and disordered eating has used predominantly
White, heterosexual samples of young adult college
women. It is unclear if constructs embedded in objectifica-
tion theory, body comparison, and self-esteem relate to one
another in a similar manner for more diverse samples. Some
studies have indicated that many, but not all, tenets of
objectification theory can be applied to women older than
25 (Augustus-Horvath and Tylka 2009), lesbian women
(Kozee and Tylka 2006), and women who are deaf (Moradi
and Rottenstein 2007). Research on body comparison and
self-esteem also has used samples of predominantly White,
heterosexual samples of adolescent or young adult women,
28 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
although some researchers have found an association
between body comparison and body dissatisfaction in
Japanese women (Yamamiya et al. 2008) and college men
(Tylka et al. 2005). Self-esteem was negatively associated
with body dissatisfaction in Asian American (Phan and
Tylka 2006) and African American (Russell and Cox 2003)
college women. Clearly, future research should examine the
model investigated in this study with more diverse samples
of women and men.
Gaining a clearer understanding of the link between
objectification, social comparison, and disordered eating is
the first step in finding ways to interrupt these processes.
Tiggemann and McGill (2004) explained that body com-
parison is a strong predictor of body dissatisfaction,
indicating that body comparison is a possible specific target
for future interventions. Specifically, they suggested that if
girls and women are taught to resist making comparisons
with the bodies of others, their future levels of body
dissatisfaction and body surveillance may be reduced.
Other studies have suggested that girls and women
prompted to make downward comparisons, especially on
non-appearance-related dimensions, reported higher body
satisfaction and positive mood than those instructed to
make upward body comparisons (van den Berg and
Thompson 2007). Similarly, an intervention that asked
participants to make downward comparisons to models on
non-appearance dimensions, such as special talents or
important friendships, reported more positive shifts in body
image, weight satisfaction, and anxiety related to appear-
ance than did women who simply compared themselves to
models (Lew et al. 2007). It is possible that interventions
designed to lessen the amount of body surveillance may
also reduce their tendency to make body comparisons and
body shame. For instance, teaching girls and women how to
contextualize sexual objectification; articulating specific
ways in which engaging in body surveillance and body
comparison have limited their authenticity, development,
relationships, body, mind, and spirit; and managing triggers
to engage in body surveillance and body comparison (e.g.,
creation of scripts they can use with themselves and others;
Tylka and Augustus-Horvath in press).
Conclusion
This study adds to our understanding of the complex and
multifaceted relationships between objectification (sexual
and self), social comparison, self-esteem, body shame, and
disordered eating. When we take a broad perspective and
think about how various theories contribute to the predic-
tion of the same phenomenon, we can see more clearly how
elements from each might work together in previously
unrecognized ways. By understanding how these processes
work together, we are better equipped to interrupt negative
body image and disordered eating, which contributes to and
enhances the positive mental health of women.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Tylka, T. L. (2009). A test and extension
of objectification theory as it predicts disordered eating: Does
women’s age matter? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
253–265. doi:10.1037/a0014637.
Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the
phenomenon of oppression. New York: Routledge.
Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison,
self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30, 239–251. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00292.x.
Brookings, J. B., & Wilson, J. F. (1994). Personality and family-
environment predictors of self-reported eating attitudes and
behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 313–326.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_10.
Cahill, S., & Mussap, A. J. (2007). Emotional reactions following
exposure to idealized bodies predict unhealthy body change
attitudes and behaviors in women and men. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 62, 631–639. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.
2006.11.001.
Calogero, R. M., Herbozo, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2009). Comple-
mentary weightism: The potential costs of appearance-related
commentary for women’s self-objectification. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 33, 120–132. doi:0361-6843/09.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–
159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Cook-Cottone, C., & Phelps, L. A. (2003).Body dissatisfaction incollege
women: Identification of risk and protective factors to guide college
counseling practices. Journal of College Counseling, 6,80–89.
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws
in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414–
417. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.414.
Downs, D. M., James, S., & Cowan, G. (2006). Body objectification,
self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction: A comparison of exotic
dancers and college women. Sex Roles, 54,745–752. doi:10.1007/
s11199-006-9042-y.
Engeln-Maddox, R. (2005). Cognitive responses to idealized media
images of women: The relationship of social comparison and
critical processing to body image disturbance in college women.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1114–1138.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7,117
–140.
Fingeret, M. C., & Gleaves, D. H. (2004). Sociocultural, feminist, and
psychological influences on women’s body satisfaction: A
structural modeling analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
28, 370–380. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00154.x.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator
and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 51,115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
51.1.115.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental
health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1982).
The eating attitudes test: Psychometric features and clinical
correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12, 871–878.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 29
Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of
experimental presentation of thin media images on body
satisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31,1–
16. doi:10.1002/eat.10005.
Heinberg, L. J., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Body image and televised
images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory
investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14,325–
338.
Herbozo, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2006). Development and validation
of the verbal commentary on physical appearance scale:
Considering both positive and negative commentary. Body
Image, 3, 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.10.001.
Hesse-Biber, S., Leavy, P., Quinn, C. E., & Zoino, J. (2006). The mass
marketing of disordered eating and eating disorders: The social
psychology of women, thinness, and culture. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 29,208–224. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006. 03.007.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1–55.
Kilbourne, J. (2000). Can’t buy my love: How advertising changes the
way we think and feel. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of objectification theory
with lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 348–
357. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00310.x.
Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A.
L. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31, 176–189. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x.
Levy, A. (2005). Feminist chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of
raunch culture. New York: Free.
Lew, A., Mann, T., Myers, H., Taylor, S., & Bower, J. (2007). Thin-
ideal media and women’s body dissatisfaction: Prevention using
downward social comparisons on non-appearance dimensions.
Sex Roles, 57, 543–556. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9274-5.
Lin, L. F., & Kulik, J. A. (2002). Social comparison and women’s
body satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24,115–
123. doi:10.1207/153248302753674622.
Lindberg, S. M., Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2007). Gender, pubertal
development, and peer sexual harassment predict objectified
body consciousness in early adolescence. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 17, 723–742.
Mazzeo, S. E. (1999). Modification of an existing measure of body
image preoccupation and its relationship to disordered eating in
female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,
42–50. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.1.42.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of
detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological
Bulletin, 114, 376–390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376.
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.
Mercurio, A. E., & Landry, L. J. (2008). Self-objectification and well-
being: The impact of self-objectification on women’s overall
sense of self-worth and life satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58, 458–466.
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9357-3.
Moradi, B., & Rottenstein, A. (2007). Objectification theory and deaf
cultural identity attitudes: Roles in deaf women’s eating disorder
symptomatology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 178–
188. doi:10.1037/0022-1067.54.2.178.
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and
psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,373–398. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.
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,
420–428. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.420.
Morrison, T. G., Kalin, R., & Morrison, M. A. (2004). Body-image
evaluation and body-image investment among adolescents: A test of
sociocultural and social comparison theories. Adolescence, 39,571–
593.
Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internaliza-
tion, self-objectification, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in
male and female university students. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 33,269–279. doi:10.1037/h0087148.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.).
Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.
tb00181.x.
Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., Wertheim, E. H., & Muir, S. L. (1999).
Friendship clique and peer influences on body image concerns,
dietary restraint, extreme weight-loss behaviors, and binge eating
in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 255–
266. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.108.2.255.
Pettijohn, T. F., & Jungeberg, B. J. (2004). Playboy playmate curves:
Changes in facial and body feature preferences across social and
economic conditions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30, 1186–1197. doi :10.1177/0146167204264078.
Phan, T., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). Exploring a model and moderators of
disordered eating with Asian American college women. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 53,36–47. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.
53.1.36.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent
girls. New York: Random House.
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of social
psychological attitudes (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social
Research.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Russell, W. D., & Cox, R. H. (2003). Social physique anxiety, body
dissatisfaction, and self-esteem in college females of differing
exercise frequency, perceived weight discrepancy, and race.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 297–318.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998).
Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable
structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45,18–29. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.18.
Shomaker, L. B., & Furman, W. (2007). Same-sex peers’influence on
young women’s body image: An experimental manipulation.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,871–895.
doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.8.871.
Steer, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The role of self-objectification in
women’s sexual functioning. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 27, 205–225. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.3.205.
Stice, E., Spangler, D., & Agras, S. W. (2001). Exposure to media-
portrayed thin-ideal images adversely affects vulnerable girls: A
longitudinal experiment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
20, 270–288. doi:10.1521/jscp.20.3.270.22309.
Stormer, S. M., & Thompson, J. K. (1996). Explanations of body
image disturbance: A test of maturational status, negative
verbal commentary, social comparison, and sociocultural
hypotheses. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19,
193–202.
Striegel-Moore, R. H., & Cachelin, F. M. (1999). Body image
concerns and disordered eating in adolescent girls: Risk and
protective factors. In N. G. Johnson, M. C. Roberts, & J. Worrel
30 Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31
(Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent girls (pp. 85–
108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henning, S. L. (2007). The role of self-
objectification in women’s depression: A test of objectification
theory. Sex Roles, 56,45–53. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9147-3.
Tantleff-Dunn, S., Thompson, J. K., & Dunn, M. E. (1995). The
Feedback on Physical Appearance Scale (FOPAS): Questionnaire
development and psychometric evaluation. Eating Disorders:
The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 3, 332–341.
Thompson, J. K., Coovert, M. D., Richards, K. J., Johnson, S., & Cattarin,
J. (1995). Development of body image, eating disturbance, and
general psychological functioning in female adolescents: Covariance
structural modeling and longitudinal investigations. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 18,221–236. doi:10.1002/1098-108X
(199511)18:3<221::AID-EAT2260180 304>3.0.CO;2-D.
Thompson, J. K., Coovert, M. D., & Stormer, S. M. (1999). Body
image, social comparison, and eating disturbance: A covariance
structure model investigation. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 26,43–51.
Tiggemann, M., & Pickering, A. S. (1996). Role of television in
adolescent women’s body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 199–203.
Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in
former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
25,57–64.
Tiggemann, M., & McGill, B. (2004). The role of social comparison
in the effect of magazine advertisements on women’s mood and
body dissatisfaction. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,
23,23–44. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.1.23.26991.
Tylka, T. L., & Hill, M. S. (2004). Objectification theory as it relates
to disordered eating among college women. Sex Roles, 51, 719–
730. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0721-2.
Tylka, T. L., & Subich, L. M. (2004). Examining a multidimensional
model of eating disorder symptomatology among college women.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,314–328. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.51.3.314.
Tylka, T. L., & Augustus-Horvath, C. L. (in press). Fighting self-
objectification in prevention and intervention contexts. In R.
M. Calogero, S. Tantleff-Dunn, & J. K. Thompson (Eds.),
Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and
counteractions. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Tylka, T. L., Bergeron, D., & Schwartz, J. P. (2005). Development and
psychometric evaluation of the Male Body Attitudes Scale
(MBAS). Body Image, 2, 161–175. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.
03.001.
van den Berg, P., Paxton, S. J., Keery, H., Wall, M., Guo, J., &
Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Body dissatisfaction and body
comparison with media images in males and females. Body
Image, 4, 257–268. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.04.003.
van den Berg, P., & Thompson, J. K. (2007). Self-schema and social
comparison explanations of body dissatisfaction: A laboratory
investigation. Body Image, 4,29–38.
van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., &
Coovert, M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body
image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling
investigation testing the meditational role of appearance
comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53,1007–
1020.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: Morrow.
Yamamiya, Y., Shroff, H., & Thompson, J. K. (2008). The tripartite
influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A
replication with a Japanese sample. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 41,88–91.
Sex Roles (2010) 63:18–31 31
