Gender Differences in Reactions to the Sexualization of Athletes

Abstract

Abstract Participants rated a series of photographs that depicted well-known male and female athletes in a sexualized fashion or not. In general, sexualized targets were perceived as more attractive but as less competent than non-sexualized targets, and for ratings of competence, sexualization effects were greater for female targets. Sexualization had no effects on women's perceptions of the competence of male targets, whereas for men, sexualization affected their perceptions of the competence of both male and female targets, although the influence of sexualization was stronger for female targets than it was for male targets. These findings suggest that the gender of the target and of the perceiver needs to be considered when evaluating the influences of sexualization. The implications of these findings are discussed with within the context of objectification theory, which has focused on the objectification of women by women.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [College of William & Mary]
On: 03 March 2015, At: 06:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
The Journal of Social Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Gender Differences in Reactions to the
Sexualization of Athletes
John B. Nezlekab, William Krohna, Dannon Wilsona & Laura Maruskinc
a College of William & Mary
b University of Social Sciences and Humanities
c University of California, Berkeley
Accepted author version posted online: 25 Sep 2014.Published
online: 04 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: John B. Nezlek, William Krohn, Dannon Wilson & Laura Maruskin (2015) Gender
Differences in Reactions to the Sexualization of Athletes, The Journal of Social Psychology, 155:1,
1-11, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2014.959883
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.959883
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Journal of Social Psychology, 155: 1–11, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-4545 print / 1940-1183 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2014.959883
ARTICLES
Gender Differences in Reactions to the Sexualization
of Athletes
JOHN B. NEZLEK
College of William & Mary; and
University of Social Sciences and Humanities
WILLIAM KROHN
DANNON WILSON
College of William & Mary
LAURA MARUSKIN
University of California, Berkeley
ABSTRACT. Participants rated a series of photographs that depicted well-known male and female
athletes in a sexualized fashion or not. In general, sexualized targets were perceived as more attrac-
tive but as less competent than non-sexualized targets, and for ratings of competence, sexualization
effects were greater for female targets. Sexualization had no effects on women’s perceptions of the
competence of male targets, whereas for men, sexualization affected their perceptions of the compe-
tence of both male and female targets, although the influence of sexualization was stronger for female
targets than it was for male targets. These findings suggest that the gender of the target and of the
perceiver needs to be considered when evaluating the influences of sexualization. The implications
of these findings are discussed within the context of objectification theory, which has focused on the
objectification of women by women.
Keywords: advertising, objectification, sex differences, sexualization
SOCIAL SCIENTISTS HAVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED about the impact of media images
on people, particularly young people who are presumed to be more likely than adults to be in
some type of identity formation process. There are numerous themes in this research, and the
Address correspondence to John B. Nezlek, College of William & Mary, Department of Psychology, Box 8795,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA. E-mail: jbnezl@wm.edu
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

2THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
present paper focuses on the combination of two of the more common elements in mass adver-
tising: sexuality and using images of athletes in advertising. We examined the influence of the
sexualization of athletes on perceptions of these athletes within the context of what is generally
known as Objectification Theory (e.g., Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
Although sexualization has been studied in various contexts, we were interested in the impli-
cations of the sexualization of athletes. Athletes are commonly used in advertising, so often
that a recent study specifically targeted star athletes’ endorsements of junk food products
as an important contributor to increases in childhood obesity (Bragg, Yanamadala, Roberto,
Harris, & Brownell, 2013). Moreover, we were specifically interested in the possible effects that
sexualization of male athletes would have on perceptions of these athletes, and we were interested
in the reactions of both men and women to these images.
Most of the existing research on the impact of the sexualization of mass media images has
concerned the sexualization of women, and very little research has compared the impact of sex-
ualizing men and women (e.g., Moradi & Huang, 2008). Moreover, no research has specifically
examined gender differences in the effects of the sexualization of male and female athletes. For
example, Gurung and Chrouser (2007) found that the provocative dress of female athletes led
them to be sexualized but did not include either male athletes or male participants.
The present study was designed to complement existing research by examining gender differ-
ences in the effects of the sexualization of male and female athletes. Participants in the present
study viewed pictures of prominent male or female athletes, and the pictures were either sexu-
alized or not. To ensure that the type of sexualization we examined was the same as that which
might occur in contemporary media, we used images that had appeared in the popular media.
Based on previous research and theory, we expected that sexualizing both male and female ath-
letes would lead to objectification but that this effect would be stronger for female athletes. Within
the present context, objectification would occur when an individual’s capabilities are presumed
to be diminished when that individual is perceived primarily as a sexual object rather than as a
person.
Objectification Theory
Although our study concerned sexualized images per se, the context within which it was devel-
oped and is grounded is typically referred to as Objectification Theory. Objectification occurs
when individuals focus on a person’s physical characteristics (e.g., attractiveness) and neglect
a person’s psychological characteristics (e.g., intelligence). This leads to (or represents the
fact that) people are perceived as objects, merely physical bodies, rather than as complete
persons (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Within this context, sexualization, defined as an inten-
tional heightened emphasis on the physical, sexual characteristics of an individual, can lead to
objectification.
Fredrickson and Roberts suggest that objectification can occur within interpersonal encoun-
ters and through visual mass media, and they discuss an important, possible consequence of
objectification, self-objectification. Self-objectification refers to the tendency for people to per-
ceive and value their bodies from a third-person perspective by focusing on physical and
observable attributes (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Self-objectification can occur when peo-
ple think that they are being viewed in a sexually objectifying manner, and then they internalize
the observer’s perspective. They begin to think of themselves less as people and more as objects.
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NEZLEK ET AL. 3
One of the most important aspects of Objectification Theory is that in contemporary soci-
ety women are objectified more often than men. The plethora of media images of attractive
female bodies in movies, magazines, advertisements, and so forth increases the likelihood of
objectification (Gurung & Chrouser, 2007). For example, print media tend to focus on the head
and face of male images whereas the body is the primary focus for female images (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997). As discussed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), gazing, or inspecting the body,
is a form of sexualization that can lead to sexual objectification.
Provocative Dress and Athletes in the Media
In terms of the focus of the present study, research suggests that women who present themselves
provocatively are perceived by men to be more flirtatious, seductive, and promiscuous than other
women (Koukounas & Letch, 2001). Furthermore, although there may be a positive relationship
between amount of exposed skin and perceptions of sexuality for women, research suggests that
the less clothed a woman is, the less capable and intelligent she is thought to be (Gurung &
Chrouser, 2007). Gurung and Chrouser (2007) suggest that provocatively dressed women are
perceived as less intelligent because of the repeated depiction in the media of unintelligent yet
attractive and provocatively dressed women, such as images of women in advertisements. They
suggest that provocatively dressed women activate stereotypes that downplay personal attributes
at the expense of physical attributes.
We think that such processes are particularly salient when considering media images of ath-
letes. Images of professional athletes pervade the mass media. As a result, professional athletes,
and perhaps female athletes in particular, can become valued by society for their physical appear-
ance rather than their athletic ability. For example, research suggests that media coverage of
female athletes tends to sexualize them (Daniels, 2009). Knight and Giuliano (2001) posit that
references to the attractiveness, femininity, and emotionality of female athletes in media coverage
make their stereotypical gender role more salient than their athletic role.
The media represent female athletes as women first and athletes second, whereas male ath-
letes are portrayed in terms of athleticism, a gender-role consistent schema (Knight & Giuliano,
2001). For example, a television announcer might discuss the number of children a female athlete
has but will not discuss the family status of a male athlete. Additionally, female athletes can con-
tribute to their own sexualization by posing provocatively for national magazines (Daniels, 2009).
This focus on physical appearance may come at the expense of psychological attributes, such as
determination, and may contribute to objectification (Gurung & Chrouser, 2007). In sum, the
mass media strengthens gender-role stereotypes and encourages sexualization and objectification
of athletes (e.g., Daniels, 2009). Moreover, it appears that the mass media emphasize female
athletes’ attractiveness, whereas for male athletes, athletic ability is emphasized (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 59 undergraduates, 30 women and 29 men, who volunteered for a study in
fulfillment of an introductory psychology class requirement. Students were at a public university
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

4THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
in the United States. We did not record the ages of participants but the mean age of the students
in the courses which these students were taking was 18.23 (SD =3.09, min =18, max =26).
Procedure
Participants volunteered for a study about person perception. Participants completed the study in
same-sex groups of four. After participants provided informed consent, the experimenter read the
instructions, which were to complete background measures and to rate a series of photographs.
The purpose of the study was described as examination of the impressions people form of others
based upon photographs. The photographs were concealed so that participants were not aware
of the photographs they would be rating while they completed the other measures. During the
study, an experimenter remained in the room and answered participants’ questions. Following
this, participants were debriefed, and none offered comments that suggested that their data should
be excluded.
Photographs and Ratings
Each participant was randomly assigned to either the sexualized or non-sexualized condition.
In each condition, participants viewed and rated four images of professional athletes, two men
and two women. In the non-sexualized condition, all images depicted the target in his or her
athletic role. In the sexualized condition each participant viewed the same athletes, but the target
was dressed in a sexually provocative fashion.
The images were taken from popular magazines and were presented in random order. Each
image was printed by a high quality color printer onto 6” ×8” glossy paper. Images of the
following athletes were used: professional football player Tom Brady, professional soccer player
David Beckham, professional racecar driver Danica Patrick, and professional swimmer Amanda
Beard.
In the non-sexualized condition, the images of Tom Brady and David Beckham depicted them
on the field in an action shot. The image of Danica Patrick depicted her on the podium holding a
trophy after a win. The image of Amanda Beard depicted her on the starting block for a race. In the
sexualized condition, Tom Brady was shown seated with a widely opened shirt. David Beckham
was lying across a bed with his shirt open and with only a pair of briefs on. Amanda Beard was
shown in bikini bottoms, seductively lifting her shirt to expose the majority of her midsection.
Danica Patrick was shown in a short tank top and bikini bottoms bent over a sports car.
In each condition the name and profession of the athlete were written next to the picture.
Participants rated the person depicted in each picture on eight attributes, based on those used by
Gurung and Chrouser (2007). These were attractiveness, desirability, sexuality, strength, determi-
nation, capableness, self-respect, and intelligence. The eight attributes were divided into two main
categories: sexualization and competence/ability. The sexualization category was composed of
three attributes (sexual, desirable, and attractive) that assessed the extent to which the target was
seen as a sexual object. The second category was composed of five attributes (strength, deter-
mined, capable, intelligent, and self-respecting) that focused on the individual’s capabilities and
personal characteristics. Participants rated the pictures using 9-point scales with endpoints labeled
“not at all” and “extremely.”
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NEZLEK ET AL. 5
RESULTS
There were 14 male participants in the not sexualized image condition and 15 in the sexualized
image condition. There were 14 female participants in the not sexualized image condition and
16 in the sexualized image condition. To simplify the presentation of these analyses, we dis-
cuss only those effects that involved sexualization.1Finally, although we chose our dependent
measures to represent two categories (sexualization and competence/ability), given the lack of
existing research concerning the conceptual structure underlying such judgments, we analyzed
individual items.
The primary analyses were 2 (participant gender) ×2 (gender of target) ×2 (sexualized or
not) ANOVA, with participant gender and sexualization as between-subjects factors and target
gender as a within-subjects factor. Each participant rated two photographs of male targets and
two photographs of female targets, and we analyzed mean ratings for the two male targets and for
the two female targets. Given that the primary focus of the study was sexualization, in explaining
the results (particularly when explaining interactions) we rely upon what we refer to as the sex-
ualization effect (SE), defined as difference between the ratings for a non-sexualized target and
the corresponding sexualized target. In the terminology of ANOVA, differences in the strength
of sexualization effects can be described in terms of the interaction of sexualization with other
factors in the design, under the assumption that interactions can be understood as tests of the dif-
ference of differences. We also present the results of planned pairwise comparisons of testing the
differences between pairs representing the sexualization effect, separately for male and female
participants and male and female targets.
Perceptions of Attractiveness/Sexualization
The three measures of how attractive a target was seen to be—attractiveness, desirability, and
sexuality—were not the focus of any hypotheses per se; they functioned primarily as manip-
ulation checks. Consistent with this conceptualization, there were significant main effects for
sexualization in the analyses of these three variables. Sexualized targets were seen as more attrac-
tive, desirable, and sexual. The results of significance tests and effect sizes (partial eta-squared)
and the means for these main effects are presented in Table 1. This table also contains the MSerror
at both the between and within subjects levels from each analysis.
Although not the focus of our hypotheses, we examined the fact that some of these main
effects were qualified by higher order interactions. The important pattern from these analyses
was a significant three-way interaction of participant gender, target gender, and sexualization in
the analyses of attractiveness and desirability (Fs(1,55) =8.43, 8.50; ps<.01; ηp2=.133, .134).
The means for these analyses are presented in Table 2.
These three-way interactions were due to the fact that the effects of sexualizing images varied
as a joint function of participant and target gender. Broadly speaking, the effect of sexualization
for female targets was greater for men than for women. Follow-up analyses found that for men,
the sexualization effect was greater for female targets than for male targets for both attractiveness
and desirability (Fs(1,27) =9.25, 16.73; ps <.01, ηp2=.255, .383). This interpretation is based
upon the significant sexualization effects for female targets and the lack of sexualization effects
for male targets. In contrast, for women, the sexualization effect did not vary between male and
female targets for either of these measures (Fs <1).
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

6THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1
Main Effects of Sexualization
Trait Not Sexualized Sexualized F-ratio Effect size Betw-MSerror With-MSerror
Attractive 5.94 7.31 14.1 ηp2=.203 3.95 1.39
Desirable 5.49 7.28 16.5 ηp2=.231 5.66 1.25
Sexual 5.14 7.95 65.1 ηp2=.542 3.56 1.07
Intelligent 5.71 4.31 12.7 ηp2=.187 4.57 .98
Self-respect 6.50 4.50 31.5 ηp2=.364 3.76 1.25
Strength 7.37 5.84 31.9 ηp2=.367 2.17 1.27
Capable 7.51 5.69 33.4 ηp2=.378 2.94 1.90
Determined 7.78 5.49 47.7 ηp2=.465 3.21 1.10
Note: All ps<.001.
TABLE 2
Perceptions of Attractiveness
Male participants
Male targets Female targets
Rating Not sex Sex SE Not sex Sex SE
Attractive 6.21 6.77 0.56 5.32 8.00 2.68∗∗
Desirable 5.96 6.47 0.51 5.00 8.23 3.23∗∗
Sexual 5.61 7.13 1.52∗4.93 8.50 3.57∗∗
Female participants
Male targets Female targets
Rating Not sex Sex SE Not sex Sex SE
Attractive 6.64 7.97 1.33∗5.57 6.50 0.93
Desirable 5.93 7.47 1.54∗5.07 6.94 1.87∗∗
Sexual 5.71 7.78 2.07∗∗ 4.29 8.38 4.09∗∗
Note: For test of the sexualization effect: ∗p<.05, ∗∗p<01, ap<.10.
Perceptions of Competence and Ability
We performed a similar set of analyses on our five measures of target competence/ability: intelli-
gence, self-respect, strength, capability, and determination. Consistent with objectification theory,
sexualized targets were also seen as less intelligent, strong, capable, determined, and as having
less self-respect. The means for these main effects and the results of significant tests are presented
in Table 1.
All of these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction of target gender and sexu-
alization, and the results of these significance tests are presented in Table 3. As can be seen from
the means and sexualization effects presented in Table 4, consistent with our expectations, this
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NEZLEK ET AL. 7
TABLE 3
Interaction of Target Gender and Sexualization: Analyses of Competence/Ability
Rating F-ratio Effect size
Intelligent 32.7∗∗ ηp2=.373
Self-respect 22.9∗∗ ηp2=.295
Strength 24.6∗∗ ηp2=.309
Capable 5.33∗ηp2=.088
Determined 20.14∗∗ ηp2=.268
Note: ∗p<.05, ∗∗p<.01.
TABLE 4
Perceptions of Competence and Ability
Male participants
Male targets Female targets
Rating Not sex Sex SE Not sex Sex SE
Intelligent 5.57 4.77 −0.80 5.82 4.07 −1.75∗∗
Self-respect 6.75 5.20 −1.55∗6.29 4.37 −1.92∗∗
Strength 7.71 6.77 −0.94a6.82 4.33 −2.49∗∗
Capable 7.86 5.83 −2.03∗∗ 7.57 4.97 −2.60∗∗
Determined 7.82 6.00 −1.82∗∗ 7.79 4.90 −2.89∗∗
Female participants
Male targets Female targets
Rating Not sex Sex SE Not sex Sex SE
Intelligent 5.04 5.13 −0.09 6.39 3.25 −3.14∗∗
Self-respect 6.14 5.66 −0.48 6.82 2.75 −4.07∗∗
Strength 7.68 7.63 −0.05 7.25 4.61 −2.64∗∗
Capable 7.11 6.66 −0.45 7.50 5.28 −2.22∗∗
Determined 7.64 6.63 −1.01a7.86 4.44 −3.42∗∗
Note: For test of the sexualization effect: ∗p<.05, ∗∗p<.01, ap<.10.
interaction was due to the fact that the sexualization effect was larger for female targets than it
was for male targets. Collapsed across participant gender, the sexualization effects for female and
male and male targets were, respectively: intelligent, –2.45 vs. .45; self-respect, –4.07 vs. –1.02,
strength, –2.57 vs. –.50; capable, –2.41 vs. –1.24; and determined, –3.16 vs. –1.42.
There were also significant three-way interactions of participant gender, target gender, and sex-
ualization in the analyses of intelligence and self-respect (Fs(1,55) =9.73, and 15.21; ps<.01;
ηp2=.150, .217). For both measures, the difference between the sexualization effects for male
and female targets was smaller for men than it was for women (self-respect, .37 vs. 3.59; intelli-
gence, .90 vs. 3.05). It should also be noted that for self-respect, the sexualization effect was not
significant when women rated male targets, whereas it was when men rated male targets.
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

8THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
DISCUSSION
Consistent with our expectations, our results suggest that both male and female athletes can be
objectified through the type of clothing they wear. When both male and female athletes were
depicted in sexualized fashion through provocative dress, they were seen as more attractive, but
also as weaker, less capable, less determined, less intelligent, and having less self-respect than
when they were not depicted in a sexualized fashion. Moreover, female athletes were objecti-
fied more than male athletes were objectified. In particular, women objectified female athletes,
whereas they did not objectify male athletes, whereas men objectified both male and female
targets, albeit more so for female targets.
Implications for Objectification Theory
The results of the present study are consistent with various aspects of Objectification Theory
(e.g., Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). According to the theory, sexually provocative dress calls
attention to the physical body or physical features of a person, leading to a de-emphasis on other
personal characteristics, such as performance, and we found such effects. In turn, this emphasis on
physical features provides a basis for seeing an individual more as an object than as a person—i.e.,
objectification occurs.
Research and scholarship on Objectification Theory has focused much more on women, both
as targets and in terms of the impact of objectification on self-processes (e.g., self-evaluation)
than on men (e.g., Moradi & Huang, 2008). The present study was not designed to exam-
ine changes in self-objectification, and it is not likely that the brief exposure to a series of
photographs of sexualized athletes that occurred in the present study influenced participants’ self-
objectification. Nevertheless, an important potential precursor or cause of self-objectification is
exposure to objectified images, and within this context, the present results suggest that although
a greater emphasis on objectification among women versus among men is probably justified,
objectification among men should also be considered.
Consistent with the emphasis on women in research and scholarship on Objectification Theory,
we found that although sexualizing an image led to decreases in the perceived competence and
ability of both male and female targets, this effect was somewhat stronger for female targets.
Moreover, considering only the reactions of female participants (as is the case in many studies of
objectification that have only women as participants), would lead to the conclusion that men are
not objectified. There were no significant sexualization effects when women rated male targets,
although one rating, determined, was significant at p<.10.
Nevertheless, the results of our study involving male participants are somewhat inconsistent
with the emphasis on women of existing research and scholarship on Objectification Theory.
Assuming that same-sex targets are the most relevant for the types of processes with which
Objectification Theory is concerned, we found that sexualizing a male target led men to objectify
that target. The sexualization effect was significant for three of the five measures (self-respect,
capable and determined), and it was marginally significant (p<.10) for strength.
Admittedly, objectifying media images may not necessarily lead to self-objectification, which
is the negative outcome with which many are concerned. Other factors, such as broad social
norms, may come into play. Regardless, the present results suggest that sexualized images
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NEZLEK ET AL. 9
of men may have similar implications for self-processes among men that sexualized images
of women have for the self-processes of women, a possibility that is consistent with some
existing research (e.g., Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2013). Moreover, there is increasing aware-
ness that self-objectification occurs in men and may be a precursor to other problems (e.g.,
Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). Clearly, such possibilities require research explicitly designed to
understand them.
Implications for Advertising
In addition to possible implications for understanding objectification, although the present study
is limited in scope, the present results may also have implications for advertising. Athletes are role
models, particularly for young people (e.g., Bush, Martin, & Bush, 2004), and they are commonly
used in advertising. The present results suggest that how they are portrayed in advertising may
have implications for their effectiveness.
Star athletes, such as those we portrayed in the present study, are used in advertisements
because they are successful—strong, capable, determined, and so forth. Yet, when athletes are
sexualized, we found that these positive attributes are diminished, particularly for female ath-
letes. Such a negative effect has been found in other studies. For example, Antil, Burton, and
Robinson (2012) found that sexually focused advertisements featuring women athletes were
viewed less positively by women than non-sexually focused advertisements. See Bushman (2007)
for a discussion of the potential negative effects of sexuality (and violence) on the effectiveness
of advertisements.
As noted by Gurung and Chrouser (2007), much of the research on objectification has
concerned the impact of self-objectification, and assuming that objectifying others leads to self-
objectification, more needs to be known about the circumstances that lead people to objectify
others. Moreover, it appears that how men and women are portrayed in the media (broadly
defined) may be a particularly important influence on self-objectification. As media exposure
increases, and the availability of images increases through the use of various types of devices
(e.g., handheld devices that can display movies), it would seem to be particularly important to
understand how such images are interpreted and evaluated.
Assuming sexually focused media images engender self-objectification (regardless if it is more
among women than men), raises interesting questions for society at large. “Sex sells” is a tru-
ism among advertisers, and many athletes enjoy international reputations and appeal particularly
to younger segments of the market. From a marketer’s perspective, sexy athletes combine two
very powerful characteristics and make a good “package.” For example, since 2009, ESPN–The
Magazine has featured a “body issue” that contains pictures of nude athletes.
The exposure to the images in our study was (by design) too brief to create changes in trait
levels of self-objectification, but it is quite possible that repeated exposure to such images does
change such characteristics. Although sexy athletes may be a boon for advertising campaigns,
they may have negative consequences for the psychological development of young people, partic-
ularly it seems, for women. As a society, we should consider the possible negative consequences
(however unintended) of exposing people to images that attract their attention while undermining
their perception of people (themselves included) as individuals rather than as objects. See Grabe
and Hyde (2009) for a study supporting this possibility.
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

10 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Limitations and Future Research
As is the case with any individual study, ours has its limitations. Similar to much of the research
on this topic, our participants were collegians, and they were collegians living in a western, indus-
trialized, society. It would be interesting to determine if the types of objectification effects we
found characterized individuals who were in a different stage of their lives or living in a different
culture. For example, more mature adults might not be influenced as much by media portrayals
as younger adults, who might be more involved with contemporary media.
In addition, we examined the objectification of athletes only. Although athletes are prominent
in contemporary media, individuals from all walks of life appear in contemporary media. We can-
not be certain if the objectification effects we found would occur if another occupation or social
role were examined, for example, news commentators. Also, we examined the effects of sexu-
alizing four specific individuals. Although we have no reason to suspect that there was anything
idiosyncratic about the athletes we used as target stimuli that qualified our results, other athletes
may have led to different results. Finally, objectification can occur through various means, and
we examined objectification specifically as engendered by provocative dress depicted visually.
Would verbal descriptions have similar effects?
Regardless, our study meaningfully extends existing research on the effects of sexualizing
media images. Our results suggest that men and women objectify both same- and opposite-sex
others, albeit to different degrees. At the least, our results suggest that future researchers may
want to consider expanding the scope of their studies to include men and women in all aspects of
their studies.
NOTE
1. Although it was possible to compare evaluations within the sexualized and non-sexualized conditions (e.g., sexualized
males vs. sexualized females), we did not. Given that we had only two male and two female images (arbitrarily
selected), if we had found differences between the ratings of male and female targets, we could not be certain if such
differences reflected gender differences per se or if they were differences due to the specific targets we chose (i.e.,
the individual athletes). The analyses on which we focused (i.e., differences between sexualized and non-sexualized
images) controlled for whatever differences existed among our targets per se.
AUTHOR NOTES
John B. Nezlek is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, College of William & Mary, and with the University
of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty in Poznan. William Krohn is affiliated with the Department of Psychology,
College of William & Mary. Dannon Wilson is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, College of William &
Mary. Laura Maruskin is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.
REFERENCES
Antil, J. H., Burton, R., & Robinson, M. (2012). Exploring the challenges facing female athletes as endorsers. Journal of
Brand Strategy,1, 292–307.
Bragg, M. A., Yanamadala, S., Roberto, C. A., Harris, J. L. & Brownell, K. D. (2013). Athlete endorsements in food
marketing. Pediatrics,132, 1–6. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0093
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NEZLEK ET AL. 11
Bush, A. J., Martin, C. A., & Bush, V. D. (2004). Sports celebrity influence on the behavioral intentions of Generation Y.
Journal of Advertising Research,44(1), 108–118. doi:10.1017/S0021849904040206
Bushman, B. J. (2007). That was a great commercial, but what were they selling? Effects of violence and sex on memory
for products in television commercials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,37, 1784–1796.
Daniels, E. A. (2009). Sex objects, athletes, and sexy athletes: How media representations of women athletes can impact
adolescent girls and college women. Journal of Adolescent Research,24, 399–422. doi:10.1177/0743558409336748
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences
and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly,21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body objectification, MTV, and psychological outcomes among female adolescents.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,39, 2840–2858. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00552.x
Gurung, R. A. R., & Chrouser, C. J. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer
characteristics matter? Sex Roles,57, 91–99. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z
Knight, J. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2001). He’s a Laker; She’s a “Looker”: The consequences of gender-stereotypical
portrayals of male and female athletes by the print media. Sex Roles,45, 217–229. doi:10.1023/A:1013553811620
Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in women. The Journal of
Social Psychology,141, 443–456. doi:10.1080/00224540109600564
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future
directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Reasons for exercise and body esteem: Men’s responses to self-objectification. Sex
Roles,53, 495–503. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7137-5
Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2013). Sexualization of adolescent boys: Media exposure and boys’ internal-
ization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance. Men and Masculinities,16, 283–306.
doi:10.1177/1097184X13477866
Received June 24, 2013
Accepted August 12, 2014
Downloaded by [College of William & Mary] at 06:01 03 March 2015