“That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Differences in Self-Objectification,

Restrained Eating, and Math Performance”

Melissa Eells

• Objectification Theory– “…women, more so than men, are portrayed as

though their bodies were capable of representing them.”• [Duncan, 1990; Fromme &Beam, 1974; Gardner, 1980; Goffman,

1979; Soley &Kurzbard, 1986; Frederickson & Roberts, 1997; Van Zoonen, 1994; Bartkey, 1990; Henley, 1977]

– …posits that these objectifying views are internalized, and, in anticipation of external judgement, women learn to judge themselves. This is called:

SELF-OBJECTIFICATION

Self-Objectification can be either:– TRAIT• Personality trait, e.g. how chronically focused on

appearance are you?

– STATE • When a specific context causes you to be self-

conscious, in an evaluative way

The Problem! Consequences of Self-Objectification

• this vigilant self-monitoring drains mental energy and consumes attentional resources from important activities

• manifested in diminished mental performance

• Increased shame and anxiety

• Disordered eating

Experiment 1: HypothesisSelf-Objectification produces BODY SHAME, which in turn predicts RESTRAINED EATING

1. Trait self-objectification measured to determine individual baseline

2. State self-objectification manipulated by randomly assigning participants to experimental condition (either swimsuit or sweater)

3. BODY SHAME measured in disguised questionnaire

4. RESTRAINED EATING measured in “consumer report taste test”

N = 72 (all women)

BODY SHAME

Variables•Explanatory

•Categorical: trait self-objectification and experimental condition•Response

•Quantitative: body shame

RESTRAINED EATING

• Given 2 cookies and asked to evaluate.– Experimenters wanted to measure how much

participants ate to determine relationship between self-objectification, shame and eating.

• Results - three response categories– True restraint (ate less than ½ of 1 cookie)

– Symbolic restraint (more than ½, but still less than 1)

– No restraint (more than 1)

Before we can look at the relationship between s-o, body shame, and eating…

• Potential Confounding Variable?– People who liked the cookie more would eat

more?– To avoid this, researchers needed to show that

there is no relationship between amount eaten and how much they cookie was liked

• Mean liking of cookie (µ) = 7• I = 3 (restraint, symbolic restraint, no restraint)• N = 72• Null Hypothesis

• µr = µs = µn

• Alternative Hypothesis• Not all the µ are equal

• P(2, 69) = 2.5, p = .0895

P(2, 69) = 2.5, p = .0895

• Can we reject the Null Hypothesis?– No!

• So we accept µr = µs = µn

• Since there is no relationship between µ, we can rule out mean liking as a confounding variable

• Conclude that amount consumed is due to other factors (body shame)

Results

• Highest body shame level most often predicted (57%) symbolic restraint group

Experiment 2: Hypothesis Self-Objectification diminishes math

performance

• Direct Response to Experiment 1– Replicate findings– Extend tests into domain of attention and mental

performance– Address bias (of not representing whole

population) by testing men

Experiment 2: Hypothesis Self-Objectification diminishes math

performance

1. Trait self-objectification measured to determine individual baseline

2. State self-objectification manipulated by randomly assigning participants to experimental condition (either swimsuit or sweater)

3. Body Shame measured in disguised questionnaire

4. NEW: test of math performance (GMAT)

N = 82 (40 men, 42 women)

Results

State Self-Objectification• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) used to

determine validity of relationship between experimental condition and self-objectification.

• F(1, 73) = 8.15, p < .01– Is there a relationship?• YES!

Results

Body Shame• ANCOVA again (BMI covariate)• Categorical explanatory variables

– Experimental condition– Trait self-objectification– sex

• Significant relationships established between each three variables and body shame

Significant relationships established between the explanatory variables and body shame

• Self-objectification as explanatory variable– F(1, 73) = 4.50 and p < .05

• Experimental Condition as explanatory variable– F(1, 73) = 6.58 and p < .05

• Gender split– For Men, trait self-objectification was explanatory

• F(1, 35) = 7.19 and p < .05– For Women, most significant relationship found between

experimental condition and body shame• F(1, 37) = 5.83 and p < .05

Math Performance

• To test the hypothesis that self-objectification would lead to performance decreases, they analyzed math scores using ANCOVA

Results• No significant relationship between experimental condition and

math score emerged for men.

• For relationship between experimental condition and math score for women

•F(1, 32) = 3.94, p = .056I = 2; What are the 2 groups?

» Sweater or swimsuit• Do we reject Null Hyp. and conclude that there is a relationship?

» YES!

• Women in the swimsuit condition performed significantly worse on the math test than women in the sweater.

• “The men in Experiment 2 served as a comparison group to help establish that consequences of self-objectification are not part of human nature more generally but rather are specific to women”

Consequences of Type I Error

• For relationship between experimental condition and math score for women

• F(1, 32) = 3.94, p = .056• We rejected the Null Hypothesis and concluded that

there is a relationship

• BUT if there is no relationship…– Incorrect research conclusion, misleading

Consequences of Type II Error• Cookie liking test

• P(2, 69) = 2.5, p = .0895– Did not reject Null Hypothesis– Concluded there was no relationship between amount of cookie eaten and how much they

liked the cookie

• If Type II Error had occurred, and the researchers failed to reject the Null Hypothesis even thought it was false, then– Cookie liking would have been a confounding variable– Possible incorrect conclusions to entire study!

• Amount eaten would not have been due to body shame, but to how much they liked the cookie!

BIAS?

• Participants were undergraduates at the University of Michigan and Duke University– Non-representative of the larger population?