Psychbgy of Wotiwrr @fnrterly, 22 (1998),623-636. Printed in
tlir
Unitrd States of America.
A MEDIATIONAL MODEL
LI NKI NG SELF-OBJ ECTlFICATION,
BODY SHAME, AND
DISORDERED EATING
Stephanie M. Noll
Duke University
Barbara L. Fredrickson
University of Michigan
This study tests a rnediational model of disordered eating derived from
objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). The model proposes that the emotion of body shame mediates the relationship between
self-objectification and disordered eating. Two samples of undergraduate
women ( n = 93, n = 1 1 1 ) completed self-report questionnaires assessing
self-objectification, body shame, anorexic and bulimic symptoms, and
dietary restraint. Findings in both samples supported the rnediational
model. Additionally, a direct relationship between self-objectification
and disordered eating was also observed. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
Part of the experience of being a woman involves being treated as a sexual object:
a body to be looked at and evaluated. Increasingly, feminist theorists and researchers
are exploring the profound negative consequencesof our culture’s pervasivepractice
of sexually objectifying women’s bodies ( e g , Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Kashak,
1992; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997) has recently been proposed as a framework for understanding the array of
psychological consequences facing girls and women simply by virtue of being
This research is part of the doctoral dissertation of the first author. We acknowledge Robert
Carson, Susan Head, Torni-Ann Roberts, and Robert Thompson for thoughtful comments and
feedback.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Barbara L. Fredrickson, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 E. University, 3006 East Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109. Email: [email protected].
Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843/98$9.50
623
624
NO11 AND
FREDRICKSON
raised in a culture that so persistently objectifies the female body. According to
objectification theory, the first psychological consequence is that women are socialized to view and treat themse1ve.s as objects, becoming preoccupied with their own
physical appearance, an effect Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) have termed “selfobjectification.”Self-objectificationin turn has a variety of emotional and behavioral
costs, which, over time, may contribute to women’s disproportionate risks for a
broad range of psychological disorders, including eating disorders, unipolar depression, and sexual dysfunction. The study reported here was designed to test one
aspect of objectification theory: the proposition that self-objectification increases
women’s experiences of body shame, which in turn may contribute to their increased
risk for disordered eating. A summary of this particular aspect of objectification
theory follows.
Self-Objectification
Past research indicates that individuals’ views of their bodies are multidimensional,
including both observable (e.g., weight, measurements, and sex appeal) and nonobsewable (e.g., health, strength, and fitness) physical characteristics ( e g , Cash,
Winstead, & Janda, 1986; Franzoi & Shields, 1984). Self-objectification is defined
as valuing one’s own body more from a third-person perspective, focusing on
Observable body attributes (e.g.,“How do I look?”), rather than from a first-person
perspective, focusing on privileged, or nonohservable body attributes (e.g., ‘What
am I capable of?” “How do I feel?”) (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Objectification
theory proposes that women vary in the degree to which they self-objectify and
that these individual differences can be quantified by having individuals rank the
importance they give to a set of body attributes that includes both observable,
appearance-based attributes and nonobservable, competence-based attributes.
Body Shame: One Emotional Cost of Self-objectification
Objectification theory proposes that self-objectification creates increased opportunities to experience shame, especially shame about one’s body. Theoretical accounts
of shame hold that this emotion occurs whenever individuals evaluate themselves
relative to internalized or cultural ideals and fail to meet these ideals. Moreover,
shame results from global attributions of failure (H. B. Lewis, 1971), that is, failure
is attributed to the self in its totality (e.g., “I am a bad person”), not just specific
actions of the self (e.g., “I did something b a d ) . Bodies-women’s bodies in particular--can be and often are scrutinized and evaluated in relation to cultural ideals
of attractiveness and/or thinness. In contemporary American society, these ideals
prescribe an ultra-thin body for women, one that is literally impossible for most
women to attain. It is not surprising, then, that empirical studies have shown that
many women experience a discrepancy between their actual body and their ideal
body (e.g., Fallon & Rozin, 1984; Silberstein, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin,
1988). These perceived failures often translate feeling fat or out of shape into a
unique form of shanie for women ( e g , Silberstein, Strirgel-Moore, & Rodin, 1987;
Silherstein et al., 1988).
Self-Objectification, Shame, and Disordered Eating
625
Not inconsequentially, shame is often described as a moral emotion, used to
socialize important societal standards (e.g., H . B. Lewis, 1971). Some theorists
have argued that the mere anticipation of shame motivates conforniity to social
norms (Scheff, 1988). In our society, overweight individuals are perceived as lacking
in discipline and self-control (e.g., Crandall, 1994). Anecdotally, women talk about
“being b a d or “sinning when they eat a food that is high in calories and dieting
for many women is a metaphor for “being good (e.g., Silberstein et al., 1987).
These views suggest that body ideals are constructed as moral ideals, which elevates
their importance and amplifies the affective potency of failure to meet them.
Relations Between Body Shame and Disordered Eating
Emotion theorists contend that shanie motivates individuals to change those aspects
of the self that fail to live up to internalized ideals (H. B. Lewis, 1971; M. Lewis,
1992; Scheff, 1988). Based on this reasoning, objectification theory posits that body
shame can motivate dieting and binge-purge cycles that may be linked to women’s
increased risk for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). In this section, we expand on objectification theory, describing the possible
pathways for these effects.
Body Shnine and Dieting
Cultural assumptions about weight include the beliefs that individuals can control
their weight and choose the weight they want to be. Diets promise women relief
from the body shame arising from dissatisfaction with body size. Paradoxically,
weight loss practices such as restricted eating may amplify the experience of body
shame rather than alleviate it. In and of themselves, weight-loss practices lead
women to pay more attention to weight and shape, which can heighten and/or
increase the frequency of their awareness of their failure to meet phy
Failed weight-loss attempts or an inability to maintain weight loss may also increase
body shame. A vicious cycle may then ensue in which failure to meet body ideals
leads to body shame as well as weight-loss efforts that may compound the experience
of body shame.
Although actual experiences of body shame may lead to dieting, we suggest that
anticipated body shame, or the threat of experiencing body shame one day by not
meeting body ideals, may also contribute to dieting. Some women who self-objectify
might in fact be satisfiedwith their weight and appearance (despite their preoccupation with appearance) and thus do not experience body shame. These women may
nonetheless engage in disordered eating as a way to maintain their satisfaction. In
this sense, restricted and disordered eating may be fueled by the anticipation or
dread of the negative consequences of body shame. Along these lines, a recent
survey of 500 women ages 18 to 30 found 25% of women who were dieting did not
consider themselves to be overweight, suggesting they used dieting as a preventive
strategy (Points, 1996). Given the power that anticipated shame has to motivate
conformity to social norms (Scheff, 1988),we suggest that self-objectificationmight
also have a direct effect on disordered eating in which the contribution of experienced body shame is bypassed.
626
NOLL
AND
FREDRICKSON
Bodg Shame und Binge Eating
We also suggest that body shame may trigger binge-eating episodes or overeating
among chronic dieters and individuals with bulimia. Naturalistic, self-report studies
of individuals with bulimia as well as experimental studies of restrained eaters have
consistently found that negative affect serves to disinhibit eating and/or trigger
binge eating (see Polivy & Herman, 1993 for review). Empirical work suggests that
overeating may be particularly triggered by negative affect associated with selfperceptions of inadequacy or failure (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991). Shame, by
definition, follows from failure to meet ideals. Experiences of body shame, then,
are likely to be among those negative affects that trigger overeating.
In addition to the hypothesized direct link between body shame and binge eating,
body shame may also indirectly contribute to binge eating through dieting practices.
Empirical findings suggest that dieting may be a precondition and/or contributing
Factor for binge eating (Polivy & Herman, 1985). Body shame, then, may directly
fuel dieting, which may in turn contribute to binge eating.
To summarize, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) suggest that body shame resulting
from self-objectification may place women at risk for disordered eating. We push
this reasoning further by arguing that body shame may lead to restricted eating or
may trigger binge eating directly or indirectly, behaviors that may ultimately result
in even more body shame, creating a vicious cycle. This analysis places the emotion
of body shame as the mediator linking self-objectification on the one hand, to
disordered eating on the other.
Existing Empirical Evidence
Recent research by McKinley and Hyde (1996),although conducted independently,
provides indirect support for the associations among self-objectification, body
shame, and disordered eating that are proposed by objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Using a sample of young and middle-aged women, McKinley
and Hyde (1996) developed and validated their Objectified Body Consciousness
Scale. Two of its subscales are directly relevant to the ideas discussed here (a)
body surveillance, a construct conceptually similar to self-objectification (example
item: “I am more concerned with what my body can do than how it looks” reverse
coded); and (b) body shame (example item: “I would be ashamed for people to
know what I really weigh”). Across several samples, McKinley and Hyde (1996)
foiind that body surveillance was positively correlated with body shame ( r= .39 to
.66, p < .001), and that each of these constructs was positively correlated with
disordered eating ( r = .46 to .48,p < .001 and r = .60 to .68, p < .001, respectively).
Although these findings provide valuable empirical support for proposed relations
among self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating, McKinley and
Hyde’s work does not articulate or test a causal or mediational model per se. In
contrast, objectification theory places these constructs in a causal order, and identifies body shame as the emotion that mediates the connection between a view of
self that Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) have termed self-objectification, and a
set of behaviors indicative of disordered eating.
Self-objectification, Shame, and Disordered Eating
627
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to test a mediational model of disordered eating based
on objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Based on this model, we
hypothesize that body shame partially mediates the relationship between selfobjectification and disordered-eating outcomes. We also hypothesize that there
may be an additional direct path between self-objectificationand disordered eating
based on anticipated body shame. Two samples of undergraduate women completed
self-report questionnaires assessing self-objectification, body shame, and disordered-eating symptoms. A college saniple was used because (a) a high prevalence
of disordered-eating behaviors has been found among female undergraduates and
many experience the onset or worsening of disordered eating during college ( e g ,
Halmi, Falk, & Schwartz, 1981; Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, Frensch, & Rodin,
1989); (b) female undergraduates are in the midst of issues that may contribute
to self-objectification, including developing feminine identities and establishing
intimate sexual relationships (Striegel-Moore, 1993);and (c)at this co-ed university,
female undergraduates are in an environment in which there are numerous opportunities for experiences of sexual objectification, (and, in turn, self-objectification)
such as contact with groups of undergraduate men who may visually scrutinize :i~id
implicitly or explicit1y"rate"the women based on their attractiveness, or experiences
of unwanted or forced sexual contact (e.g., Booher, 1997; Keohane, 1997). We test
the hypothesized niecliational model using multiple regression analyses following
procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986).
METHOD
Participants
This study included two samples of undergraduate women. Data from the second
sample provided an opportunity to replicate the findings from the first sample.
Sample 1
Participants in Sample 1 were 93 undergraduate women at Duke University enrolled
in introductory psychology courses who received course credit. Mean age was 18.8
years ( S D = .95), ranging from 16 to 21. Mean self-reported weight was 129 pounds
( S D = 17.4) ranging from 85 to 185 and mean self-reported height was 65.1 inches
( S D = 2.58), ranging from 58 to 71 inches. The ethnic composition of the sample
was as follows: 72% Caucasian, 14% African American, 8% Asian, 3% Hispanic,
and 3% of other nonspecified ethnicities.
2
Participants in Sample 2 were 111 undergraduate women at Duke University
enrolled in introductory psychology conrses who received course credit. Age ranged
from 17 to 21, with a mean of 18.3 years ( S D = 1.8). Self-reported weight ranged
from 92 to 190 pounds, with a mean of 128.5 ( S D = 19.1), and self-reported height
ranged from 58 to 75 inches, with a mean of 64.8 (SD = 3.0). The ethnic composition
SU17lpb
628
NOLL
AND FREDRICKSON
of the sample was as follows: 65% Caucasian, 9% African American, 14% Asian,
6% Hispanic, and 7% of other nonspecified ethnicities.
Self-Report Measures
Reoised Bulimia Test
The Revised BulimiaTest (BULIT-R;Thelen, Farmer, Wonderlich, & Smith, 1991)
is a measure of bulimic symptoms. The BULIT-R is avalid instrument for identifying
iridividuals meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIV) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for bulimia nervosa in both
clinical and nonclinical populations (Thelen, Mintz, & Vander Wal, 1996). It includes 28 multiple-choice format items (e.g. “In the last three months, how often
did you hinge eat?,” “How often do you intentionally vomit after eating?”). Itcms
are scored on a 5-point scale from the extreme bulimic response to the extreme
normal response. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .98 and the scale has satisfactory
test-retest reliability (r = .95) (Thelen et al., 1991, 1996). Although the BULIT-R
has been validated with cutoff scores, in this study it was used as a continuous
variable as we were interested in the full range of disordered-eating symptomatology.
Eating Attitudes Test
The Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979) is a 40-item measure
of a broad range of behaviors and attitudes common in anorexia nervosa (e.g. “I
find myself preoccupied with food,” “I am aware of the calorie content of food I
eat”). Participants respond on a 6-point Likert scale from always to necer. The
test-retest reliability of the EAT is .88; a = .94 (Gamer & Garfinkel, 1979). This
measure too has been validated with cutoff scores but was used in this study as a
continuous variable to examine the continuum of disordered eating.
Revised Restraint Scale
The Revised Restraint Scale (Polivy, Herman, & Howard, 1988) is a 10-item
questionnaire assessing weight fluctuations, degree of chronic dieting, and related
attitudes toward weight and eating (e.g., “How often are you dieting?,” “Do you
give too much time and thought to food?”). It was developed to identify individuals
who are chronically concerned about their weight and who attempt to control or
reduce it through dieting. The 1-week test-retest reliability of the scale is .93, and
item-to-total correlations for female participants range from .41 to .78 (Polivy et
al., 1988). Although the scale has been used in clinical populations, it has most
often been used to identify “normal” college students who exhibit “normative”
eating behavior. The Revised Restraint Scale was administered to Sample 2 only.
Self-Objectijication Questionnaire
The Self-objectification Questionnaire quantifies individual differences in selfobjectification. It assesses the extent to which individuals view their bodies in
observable, appearance-based (objectified) terms versus nonobservable, competence-based (nonobjectified) terms. The measure is based on objectification theory
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and partially on work with the Body Esteem Scale
Self-Objectification, Shame, and Disordered Eating
629
(Franzoi & Shields, 1984), which found that the components of women’s body
esteem were physical attractiveness, weight control, and general physical condition
(Franzoi & Shields, 1984). The Self-objectification Questionnaire departs from
the Body Esteem Scale, however, in that it does not examine respondents’ satisfaction with their bodies. Instead it taps into how concerned respondents are with
their own appearance without a judgmental or evaluative component. This is an
important distinction. Objectification theory suggests the consequences of selfobjectification occur solely as a result of being concerned with physical appearance,
regardless of individuals’ level of satisfaction with their physical appearance. That
is, women who are satisfiedwith their bodies as well as those who are dissatisfiedwith
their bodies may each experience the negative consequences of self-objectification
simply because they are concerned with their appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
The Self-objectification Questionnaire asks respondents to rank a list of body
attributes in ascending order of how important each is to their physical self-concept,
from that which has the most impact (rank = 1)to least impact (rank = 12). Twelve
body attributes are listed: six that are appearance based (physical attractiveness,
coloring, weight, sex appeal, measurements, and muscle tone) and six that are
competence based (muscular strength, physical coordination, stamina, health, physical fitness, and physical energy level). All competence attributes were drawn from
the Body Esteem Scale (Franzoi & Shields, 1984). Scores were computed by
summing the ranks for the appearance and competence attributes separately, then
computing a difference score. Scores range from -36 to 36, with higher scores
reflecting a greater emphasis on appearance, which we interpret as greater selfobjectification.
The Self-objectification Questionnaire demonstrates satisfactory construct validity (Noll, 1996). Scores on the questionnaire were shown to correlate positively
with scores on (a) the Appearance Anxiety Questionnaire (Dion, Dion, & Keelan,
1990), which assesses preoccupation with observable aspects of the physical
self ( r = .52, p < .01); and (b) the Body Image Assessment (Williamson, Davis,
Bennett, Goreczny, & Gleaves, 1985), a measure of individuals’ body-size dissatisfaction ( r = .46, p < .01) (Noll, 1996). These correlations suggest that the
Self-objectification Questionnaire does indeed tap into preoccupation with
appearance, yet is not equivalent to these related constructs. In particular, the
moderate correlation with body dissatisfaction is consistent with the assertion that
self-objectificationis not limited to women who are dissatisfied with their physical
appearance.
Body Shame Questionnaire
Body shame is inferred from participants’ reported desire to change various body
partslattributes and the reported intensity and frequency of their desire for these
changes. We devised an indirect measure of body shame because emotion theorists
have argued that shame is difficult to assess directly, in part because individuals
may feel ashamed of being ashamed (H. B. Lewis, 1971; see also Harder, 1995;
Scheff, 1988).To circumvent this difficulty, our questionnaire targets one phenomenological experience that is part and parcel of experiencing shame: the desire to
change the failed aspects of the self (H. B. Lewis, 1971; M . Lewis, 1992). Harder
630
NOLL
A N D FREDRICKSON
(1995) suggests that by tapping into the phenomenological experience of shame,
respondents can leave the fully upsetting shame “meaning” of the feelings unstated.
The Body Shame Questionnaire lists 28 different body parts and physical attributes (e.g., weight, coloring, shape of legs, hips). For each, participants are asked
to report whether they would like to change that particular aspect of their body
(yes or no), as well as both the intensity of their desire for change and how frequently
they think about the desired changes. Intensity ratings range from 1 to 9, with 1
indicating very mild desire for change and 9 indicating very intense desire; likewise,
frequency ratings range from 1 to 9, with 1 indicating participants seldom thought
of change and 9 indicating that they very often thought of change. The intensity
and frequency ratings were intended to index the affective potency of and degree
of psychological preoccupation with the desire for body change. Because the Body
Shame Questionnaire captures how emotionally charged the issue of body change
is for individual respondents, it can be differentiated from measures of body dissatisfaction, which simply quantify the magnitude of an individual’s perceived discrepancy from her ideal body sizekhape.
Three scores were derived from the Body Shame Questionnaire (a) total number
of body partshttributes participants desire to change, (b) total intensity of desires,
and (c) total frequency of thoughts. As these scores were highly intercorrelated
(correlations ranging from r = .88 to r = .98, p < .Ol), we combined them into a
single composite body-shame score. This composite score was created by separately
standardizing each of these three scores, then summing these standardized scores.
No11 (1996) examined validity of the Body Shame Questionnaire. Construct
validity was demonstrated by correlations among scores on the Body Shame Questionnaire and (a) neuroticism, measured by the Neuroticism scale of the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992);(b) general shame
proneness, measured by the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA; Tangney,
Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989); (c) body-size dissatisfaction, measured by the Body
Image Assessment (BIA; Williamson et al., 1985); and (d) a single item that asked
participants to rate “Overall, how ashamed are you of your body’s physical appearance?” Moderate positive correlations were obtained between scores on our Body
Shame Questionnaire and neuroticism ( r = .59, p < .Ol), general shame proneness
( r = .47, p < .Ol), and body-size dissatisfaction (r = .46, p < .01). A strong positive
correlation was found between scores on the Body Shame Questionnaire and the
single-item assessment of body shame ( r = .75, p < .01).
Predictive validity of this scale was demonstrated by exploring whether the
Body Shame Questionnaire would contribute unique variance in disordered-eating
symptoms beyond that accounted for by existing/traditional measures. In hierarchical regression analyses, body shame accounted for 11% of the variance in disorderedeating symptoms assessed by the EAT above and beyond the 12% accounted for
by neuroticism and general shame proneness; and body shame accounted for 7%
of the variance in disordered-eating symptoms assessed by the BULIT-R above
and beyond the 30% accounted for by neuroticism and general shame proneness.
Body shame accounted for an additional 18% and 16% of variance in EAT and
BULIT-R scores, respectively, beyond the 8% and 21% accounted for by bodysize dissatisfaction. Taken together, these findings suggest that the Body Shame
631
Self-Objectification, Shame, and Disordered Eating
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations For Samples 1 and 2
M (SD)
Measti rc
Selfobjectification
Body shame
EAT
BULIT-R
Restraint
M
(SD)
Snmplc 1"
Sample 2"
SelfObjectification
7.7 (17.6)
.18 (2.8)
17.7 (10.5)
59.6 (17.9)
5.7 (18.4)
.01 (2.9)
17.8 (11.1)
50.2 (19.5)
12.9 (5.8)
.29
.31
.37
.32
-
Body
Shomne EAT BULIT-R
51
52
.68
.62
.36
.52
.75
.68
.43
.57
.61
.80
Note. Correlations for Sample 1 tire presented abo\e the didgoid, correlations for Sample 2 are presented helo\\. the
diagonal. Dashes indicate data on this questionnaire were not available for Sample 1
" N = 93.
"s=I l l .
All correlations are significant at p < .01.
Questionnaire measures a construct that is distinctly different from, although related
to, neuroticism, general shame proneness, and body dissatisfaction, thereby deinonstrating the measure's validity and utility.
Procedure
Participants in Sample 1 were tested in same-gender groups of up to 25 students
and completed the following self-report measures in counterbalanced order (a)
Self-objectification Questionnaire, (b) Body Shame Questionnaire, (c) BULIT-R,
(d) EAT, and (e) demographic information.
Participants in Sample 2 completed these same measures in a large, mixed-gender
group testing session of about 200 students. Additionally, Sample 2 participants
completed the Revised Restraint Scale.
RESULTS
Sample 1
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among self-objectification, body
shame, and disordered-eating variables are shown,in Table 1. Self-objectification
correlated positively with body shame, bulimic symptoms, and anorexic symptoms;
and body shame correlated positively with both bulimic and anorexic symptoms
(see Table 1). These correlations replicate the basic findings reported by McKinley
and Hyde (1996).
Next we tested the mediational hypothesis using each of the disordered eating
criterion variables separately. Following procedures for testing mediation proposed
by Baron and Kenny (1986),three separate regression equations were estimated.
In the first equation, the hypothesized mediator, body shame, was regressed on
NO11 AND FREDRICKSON
632
SelfObjectification
p = .M*
BdY
Shame
p = .18*
FIGURE
1. Beta coefficients for the pathways among self-objectification, body shame, and bulimic symptoms ('p < .01).
self-objectification. In the second equation, disordered eating was regressed on
self-objectification. In the third equation, disordered eating was regressed on the
predictor, self-objectification,and the hypothesized mediator, body shame. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), for a significant mediating relationship to be
established, self-objectification must predict body shame in the first equation and
must predict disordered eating in the second equation; and body shame must
predict disordered eating in the third equation. Furthermore, the effect of selfObjectification on disordered eating must be less in the third equation than in the
second. Body mass index, calculated from self-reported weight and height, was
forced into all regression equations first to covary out level of obesity. Other than
this, no hierarchical or stepwise regression was used, as recommended by Baron
and Kenny (1986). Figure 1 shows the results of a series of regression equations
computed for BULIT-R scores.
When body shame was regressed on self-objectification in the first equation,
self-objectification was a significant predictor of body shame, accounting for 25%
of the variance ( p < .01). When bulimic symptoms were regressed on self-objectification in the second equation, self-objectification was a significant predictor of
bulimic symptoms, accounting for 18% of the variance ( p < .01).When both body
shanie and self-objectification were regressed on bulimic symptoms in the third
equation, the aniount of variance in bulimic symptoms accounted for by selfobjectification dropped from 18% to 2%, whereas body shame accounted for 29%
of the variance ( p < .01).Consistent with our hypothesis, these findings demonstrate
that body shame mediates the relationship between self-objectification and disordered eating. The mediational model accounted for 35%of the variance in bulimic
symptoms ( p < .01). In addition to the effects of self-objectification mediated by
body shame, self-objectification also contributed to variance in disordered eating
directly, as predicted. Self-objectification continued to explain a small (2%) yet
statistically significant amount of variance of bulimic symptoms ( p < .O1).
The same pattern of results illustrated in Figure 1 for bulimic symptoms was
also observed for anorexic symptoms, with the exception that there was no direct
effect for self-objectification. This mediational model accounted for 27% of the
variance in anorexic symptoms ( p < .01).
Self-objectification, Shame, and Disordered Eating
633
Sample 2
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for self-objectification, body
shame, and disordered eating scores are presented in Table 1. These correlations
replicate those obtained with Sample 1, as well as those reported by McKinley and
Hyde ( 1996):Self-objectificationwas positively correlated with body shame, bulimic
symptoms, anorexic symptoms, and dietary restraint; body shame was positively
correlated with bulimic and anorexic symptoms and dietary restraint.
Mediation was tested as in Sample 1. The exact mediational pattern of results
observed in Sample 1 (and illustrated in Figure 1) emerged in Sample 2 for each
of the disordered eating criterion variables. The mediational model accounted for
51% of the variance in bulimic symptoms ( p < . O l ) , 30% of the variance in anorexic
symptoms ( p < .Ol), and 47% of the variance in dietary restraint ( p < .01). In
addition to the mediated effects of self-objectification,direct effects of self-objectification on disordered eating were also observed for all criterion variables (accounting
for 4%, 3%, and 5% of the variance, respectively).
DISCUSSION
Objectification theory asserts that our culture socializes girls and women to adopt
an observer’s perspective on their own bodies, and that this self-objectification has
important consequences for women’s emotional experiences and mental health
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). This study examined relations among views of self
predominated by physical appearance, experiences of body shame, and behaviors
indicative of disordered eating. Drawing from objectification theory, we proposed
a mediational model in which the emotion of body shame mediates the relationship
between self-objectificationon the one hand, and disordered eating on the other. We
found strong support for this model in two independent samples of undergraduate
women.
In addition to mediational effects, we also found that self-objectification contributed to disordered eating directly. This direct path is consistent with our hypothesis
that anticipated body shame motivates women who self-objectify and are satisfied
with their weight to engage in disordered eating in an effort to maintain their
satisfaction and thereby avoid the dreaded experience of body shame. The idea
that experiences of body shame may be bypassed is consistent with objectification
theory, which suggests that the negative consequences of self-objectification may
occur regardless ofhowsatisfiedwomen are with their physicalappearance (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
Several avenues for future research are suggested by these findings. First, associations between our Self-objectification and Body Shame Questionnaires and other
related constnicts and measures, such as McKinley and Hyde’s (1996) Objectified
Body Consciousness Scale should be examined. Data on test-retest reliability are
also needed. Second, although this study provides evidence for relations among
self-objectification,body shame, and disordered eating, the nature of this evidence
is correlational and as such firm conclusions about the causal order proposed by
634
NO11 AND
FREDRICKSON
objectification theory cannot be established solely on the basis of these data.
Experimental dataand prospective studies are needed to provide stronger empirical
tests of the proposed causal order. Third, the samples in this study were fairly
homogeneous in terms of age, ethnicity, and, most likely, socioeconomic status.
Empirical work by Fredrickson and colleagues is undenvay to examine potential
variations in self-objectification and its consequences across diverse subgroups of
women. Finally, research on other aspects of objectification theory is needed.
Pursuing this avenue, Fredrickson and colleagues have begun a program of research
to assess situational triggers of self-objectificationand have found that self-objectification induced in the laboratory is associated with increases in body shame and
restricted eating as well as disruptions in cognitive performance (Fredrickson,
Roberts, Noll, Quinn & Twenge, 1998). Links between self-objectification and the
other emotional and mental health consequences proposed by Fredrickson and
Roberts (1997) should also be tested empirically.
The present study is notable in that it links disordered eating to broader sociocultural factors. Previous studies of disordered eating have often maintained the focus
on the individual or the family, often implicating the individual’s degree of body
dissatisfaction. The construct of self-objectification is our attempt to provide ;I
sociocultural analysis of the origins of body dissatisfaction, recasting the focus
toward cultural practices of sexually objectifying the female body. Fredrickson and
Roberts (1997) have argued that practices of sexual objectification lead girls and
women to value their own bodies more from a third-person perspective than from
a first-person perspective, which is a peculiar and costly view of self. The data
reported here demonstrate that individual variation in self-objectification can be
measured, and that such differences account for individual variation in disordered
eating, an effect largely mediated by experiences of body shame. Self-objectification,
then, can be viewed as a risk factor for the development of disordered eating.
In summary, this study supports the claims of Fredrickson and Roberts (1997)that
our culture’s practices of sexually objectifylng the female body can have profound
negative effects on women’s sense of self, their emotional experiences, and their
risks for psychological disorders. Empirical and clinical psychology need to take
the psychological repercussions of these cultural practices seriously. Clearly these
issues warrant further empirical study, in large part because they suggest concrete
prevention strategies. One such strategy would be to modify school-based eatingdisorder curricula to cover variations in views of self and body, and to describe
the psychological and physical dangers of self-objectification. Another strategy
would be to diversify the images of women in the visual mass media to move
beyond the sexually objectified, ultra-thin women who establish the body ideals
internalized by so many. In time, such diversification should deflate the body shame
that we suggest fuels disordered eating. Although feminists have already identified
and initiated such strategies, the findings of the present study underscore the need
for such interventions not only to prevent disordered eating but also to allow women
to become connected to and accepting of their bodies.
Initial subininsion: June 26, 1997
Initial acceptance: August 8, 1997
Final acceptance: October 22, 1997
Self-Objectification, Shame, and Disordered fating
635
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical irlanual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington. DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considrrations. Journal ofPersoirality mid Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Booher, B. (1997, July/August). A move toward moderation: Drinking at Duke. Duke hlagaziiie,
pp. 14-19, 53.
Cash, T. F., U’instead, B. A., & Janda, L. €1. (1986). The great American shape up: Body image
sun’ey report. Psychology Today, 20, 3 0 3 7 .
Costa, P. T., & McRde, R. R. (1992).Professional mncial: Revised NEO Personality Inuentor (NEOPI-R) and IL’EO Fir(, Factor Inoentonj JNEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Crandall, C. S. (1994).Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest.Jotrmo1of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance anxiety as a dimension of socialevaluative anxiet).: Exploring the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary Social Psychology,
14, 220-224.
Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1984). Sex differences in perceptions of desirable body shape.]o~rrrlol
of Abnonrml Psychology, 94, 102-105.
Franzoi, S. I,.. & Shields. S. A. (1984). The Body Esteem Scale: Multidimensional stnicture and
sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality A.s.sessnlunt, 48, 173-178.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: An explanation for women’s
lived rxprrieiice and mental health risks. Pkychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 172-206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A,, Noll, S. N., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That
swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Jnrrnial of Per,soncility mid Social Psychology, 75, 269-284.
Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test An index of synrptoins of
anorexia nervosa. P,sychological Medicine, 9, 1-7.
Halini, K. A,, Falk, J. R.. & Schwartz, E. (1981). Binge-eating and vomiting: A survey of college
population. Psychological Medicine, 11, 697-706.
Hartfrr, D. W. (1995).Shame and guilt assessment and relationships of s h a m - and guilt-proneness
to psychopathology In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), SeZfconscious eirmtion.~.?he
p~sycliologyof shamc, guilt, and pride (pp. 368-392). New York: Cuilford.
Heathrrton, T. F., & Bannreister, R. F. (1991). Binge-eating as escape from self-awareness.
P.rychologica1B d e t i n , 110, 86108.
Kashak, E. (1992). Engetidcred 1iue.s: A new psychology of wonten’s experience. New York: Basic
Books.
Keohane, N . (1997, Jnly/August). Seasons of change. Dike Magazine, pp. 20, 55.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Sharm~and guilt in neuro.yis. New York: International Universities Press.
T R V ~ S , M. (1992). S h n n i ~ The
: exposed ,se(f. New York: Free Press.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996).The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Devrlopnient
and validation. Psycholog!/ of Wonluri Vuartcrly, 20, 181-216.
Noll, S. M. (1996). The rehtionship between sexrial objectijlcation and disordered eating. Correlatiorial and expcrimmierital tests of body shame as a nwdiator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Duke University, Durham, NC.
Points, D. (1996, May). Thigh anxiety? Five-hundred women say what they love and hate about
their bodies. Madenioiselb, 81, 150-153.
Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1985).Dieting and bingeing: A causal analysis. Arericari Psychologist,
40, 193-201.
PoliT, J., & Herman, C. P. (1993). Etiology of binge eating: Psychological mechanisms. In C. 6.
Fairburn & G. T. Wilson (Eds.),Bingeeating: Nature, assessment, andtreatment (pp. 173-205).
New York: Cuilford.
636
NOLLAND FREDRICKSON
Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., & Howard, K. (1988). The Restraint Scale: Assessment of dieting. In
M. Herscn & A. S. B&ck (Eds.), Dictionary of behatiioral a.ssessienl techniques (pp.
377480). New York: Pergamon.
Scheff, T. J. (1988). Sliamr and conformity: The deference-emotion system. American Sociological
Review, 53, 395406.
Silberstein, L. K., Striegel-Moore, K. H., & Rodin, J. (1987). Feeling fat: A woman’s shame. In
H. B. Lewis (Ed.), The role of shame in symptom f o m t i o n (pp. 89-108). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Silberstein, L. R., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodm, J. (1988).Behaxioral and psychological
implications of body dissatisfaction: Do men and women mffcr? SPX Roles, 19, 219-231.
Striegel-Moorr, R. (1993). Etiology of binge rating: A developmental perspective. In C. G. Fairbum & 6. T. Wilson (Eds.),Binge eating: Nature, assessment, and treatment (pp. 144-172).
New York: Guilford.
Striegel-Moorr, R. H., Silbrrstrin, L. R., Frensch, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). A prospective study
of disordered eating among college students. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8,
499-509.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The test of self-conscious afiect. Unpublished
manuscript, George Mawn University, Fairfax, VA.
Thelen, M. H.,Farmer, J., Wonderlich, S., & Smith, M . (1991). A revision of the Bulimia Test:
The BULIT-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 119-124.
Thelen, M . H., Mintx, L. B., & Vander Wal, J. S. (1996). The Bulimia Test-Revised: Validation
with DSM-IV criteria for bulimia nenosa. P,sychologicaZ Assessnunt, 8, 219-221.
Williamson, D. A., Da\.is. C. J., Bennett, S. M., Goreczny, A. J., & Gleaves, D. H. (1985).
Devclopnient of a simple procedure for assessing body image disturbance. Behatjioral As.sessnwnt, I I , 4.33-446.