Hoover ThompsonDissertation

Women Who Self-Objectify and Objectify Other Women:
The Role of Self-Compassion
by
Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Radford University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Psychology in Counseling Psychology
in the Department of Psychology
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Sarah L. Hastings
May 2013
Copyright 2013, Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson
_______________________________ __________________________
Dr. Sarah L. Hastings Date
Dissertation Chair
_______________________________ __________________________
Dr. Tracy Cohn Date
Committee Member
_______________________________ __________________________
Dr. Thomas Pierce Date
Committee Member
ABSTRACT
Sexual objectification is harmful to women’s psychosocial health, as this form of
oppression leads to increased body surveillance, body shame and decreased self-esteem. The
construct of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a), and more specifically, the new concept of body or
physical self-compassion (Berry, Kowalski, Ferguson, & McHugh, 2010; Magnus, Kowalski, &
McHugh, 2010, respectively), has been found to mitigate this objectification. In addition,
Szymanski and Carr (2011) called for social justice initiatives surrounding empowerment of
female clients, and Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested the need for further research about women
who objectify other women. Although the professional literature has addressed self-compassion
and these findings suggest the positive influence of increased body self-compassion, the
literature has not extended a body self-compassion induction on women who experience self-
objectification and women who objectify other women. Utilizing an experimental design to
address this gap in the literature, I proposed this research study to examine the effects of a self-
compassion induction on both self-objectification and objectification of other women. Four
hundred and ten undergraduate female research participants were randomly assigned to a self-
compassion induction or control group. After completing the induction or the control writing
prompts, all participants completed the Self-Objectification Scale (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a
modified version of this scale to address objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and a demographics questionnaire developed by this researcher.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then conducted to determine whether there were differences
in self-objectification and objectification of other women between the self-compassion induction
group and the control group. Results concluded that the effect of group membership was not
ii
statistically significant for scores of self-objectification or objectification of other women.
Multiple regression was then used to find the unique contribution of the self-compassion
induction beyond what was accounted for by self-esteem. Results concluded that the self-
compassion induction did not account for a significant proportion of variability in scores for self-
or other-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem.
Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson, Psy.D.

Department of Psychology, 2013
Radford University
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract………………………………………………………………………ii-iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………….iv-viii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………ix
Chapter 1. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES.....................................................1
Importance of This Study…………………………………………. 1
Objectification Theory……………………………………………. 4
Self-Objectification………………………………………. 5
Objectification of Others…………………………………. 7
Self-Compassion…………………………………………………. 8
Self-Kindness…………………………………………….. 9
Common Humanity………………………………………. 10
Mindfulness………………………………………………. 10
Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem…………………..… 10
Body Image and Self-Esteem……………………. 12
Self-Compassion in the Literature………………………. 14
Self-Compassion and Body Image……………… 17
Research Questions………………..…………………………….. 19
Procedure………………………………………………………… 20
Self-Compassion Induction……………………………… 21
Control Group…………………………………………… 21
iv
Participants………………………………………………………. 22
Results…………………………………………………………… 23
Post-Hoc Analyses………………………………………. 24
Discussion……………………………………………………….. 25
Post-Hoc Analyses………………………………………. 27
Limitations and Future Research………………………………... 29
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................. 31
Importance of this Study…………………………………………. 31
Objectification Theory…………………………………………… 34
Self-Objectification……………………………………… 36
Objectification of Others………………………………… 38
Definition of Body Image………………………………………… 39
Transmission of Body Image……………………………………. 40
Media……………………………………………............ 40
Familial Transmission…………………………………… 44
Self-Compassion…………………………………………………. 45
Self-Kindness…………………………..………………… 46
Common Humanity……….……………………………… 46
Mindfulness………..……………………………………. 46
Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem……………………. 47
Body Image and Self-Esteem…………………….. 48
Self-Compassion in the Literature……………………….. 51
v
Self-Compassion and Body Image………………. 54
Conclusion and Research Questions……………………………… 55
3. METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 57
Participants……………………………………………………..… 57
Instruments………………………………………………………. 58
Self-Objectification Questionnaire………………………. 59
Objectification of Others Questionnaire…………………. 60
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale… ………………………… 60
Demographics …………………………………………… 61
Procedure………………………………………………………… 61
Self-Compassion Induction……….................................. 61
Control Group…………………………………………… 62
Data Analysis……………………………………………………. 62
Hypotheses………………………………………………………. 63
Conclusion………………………………………………………. 64
4. DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………… 66
Description of the Sample……………………………………….. 66
Sample Demographics…………………………………………… 67
Survey Results…………………………………………………… 70
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale……………………………. 70
Self-Objectification Questionnaire………………………. 70
Other-Objectification Questionnaire…………………….. 70
vi
Statistical Tests of Research Questions…………………………. 73
Research Question One…………………………………. 73
Research Question Two…………………………………. 75
Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion………………. 77
Post-Hoc Analyses………………………………………………. 80
Research Question One…………………………………. 78
Research Question Two………………………………… 84
Self-Esteem…………………………………………….. 86
Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion……………… 86
Conclusion……………………………………………………… 89
5. DISCUSSION………………………………………………….. 90
Research Summary…………………………………………….. 90
Discussion of the Results………………………………………. 91
Research Question One………………………………… 91
Research Question Two………………………………… 92
Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion……………… 94
Post-Hoc Analyses……………………………………… 95
Limitations and Future Research……………………………….. 96
Conclusion……………………………………………………… 97
References……………………………………………………………… 100
Appendix A: The Self-Objectification Questionnaire…..……………… 120
Appendix B: Objectification of Other Women………………………… 122
vii
Appendix C: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale……………………………. 123
Appendix D: Demographics Questionnaire……………………………... 124
Appendix E: Informed Consent for Mid-Sized State University…..……. 125
Appendix F: Informed Consent for Large State University……………. 126
Appendix G: Writing Prompt for All Participants………………………. 127
Appendix H: Self-Compassion Induction Writing Prompts…………….. 128
Appendix I: Control Group Writing Prompts…………………………….. 129
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 – Demographic Information of Participants…………………………….. 69
Table 4.2 – Descriptive Statistics of Measures……………………………………. 72
Table 4.3 – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification Scores….. 74
Table 4.4 – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Other-Objectification Scores... 76
Table 4.5 – Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Self-
Objectification………………………………………………………………………78
Table 4.6 – Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Other-
Objectification………………………………………………………………………79
Table 4.7 – Demographic Information of Post-Hoc Participants………………….. 81
Table 4.8 – Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification
Scores………………………………………………………………………………. 83
Table 4.9 – Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Other-Objectification
Scores………………………………………………………………………………. 85
Table 4.10 – Post-Hoc Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Self-Objectification………………………………………………………………… 87
Table 4.11 – Post-Hoc Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Other-Objectification………………………………………………………………. 88
ix
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES
This chapter provides an overview of this research study. It begins with an overview of
the need for this research and then details the theoretical framework supporting this research:
Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). This chapter examines relevant research
focusing on the self-objectification of women and women objectifying other women. It also
examines the literature identifying the construct of self-compassion, how it is measured, and its
relationship to body image and Objectification Theory. This chapter then details the procedures
used for this research, followed by a description of the participant sample and the results of this
study. It concludes with a discussion of the results, as well as limitations and future research
implications.
Importance of this Study
Female standards of beauty have been dictated by society throughout history. The
nineteenth century brought corsets to shrink women’s waists, accentuate their hips, and achieve
an hourglass figure. By the middle of the twentienth century, the curvy hourglass figure
dissolved into curveless bodies, subjected to girdles, self-mutilation, stomach stapling, and self-
starvation. Over time, the standards by which we judge the female body has changed
(Waterhouse,1997).
The 1960s and 1970s in the United States brought about a new culture of thinness in
women. A shift occurred in which voluptuous, curved figures gave way to the angular, lean
body that many women idealize today. The pervasiveness of dieting among women best
exemplified this shift (Garner, Garfinkel, Schwartz, & Thompson, 1980).
1
More recently, Cash and Henry (1995) found that 63% of adult women in the United
States were dissatisfied with their current weight and 49% reported preoccupation with their
body weight. Cash and Henry postulated that while women have made significant strides in
gender equality in the last century, there is “little evidence that the recent economic,
occupational, and political gains of women in the United States have brought improvements in
their body images” (p.26).
If modern women in the United States are making such great strides in gender equality,
why has the nature of the feminine body ideal shifted? Society barrages women with negative
body image messages through a multitude of outlets. The messages are seen on television, in
magazines, heard in the halls of schools and internally repeated each time women walk past
mirrors (Waterhouse, 1997). They are ingrained in culture, to the extent that the messages are
hardly noticed. “Though many women, spurred by the revival of the feminist movement, are
presenting themselves more proudly and confidently in public, in the privacy of their own minds
too few seem to have favorable images of themselves” (Sanford & Donovan, 1985, p.4).
The feminist movement sought to release women from the objectification of their bodies.
“How anyone experiences, fantasizes about, or internally represents her or his embodiment
grows from experience, learning and self-definition in the family and in the culture” (Chodorow,
1989, p. 101). The existence of a gendered and sexually organized world does not allow society
to experience embodiment as simply being in a body. Gender and sex differences create a
dichotomy of embodiment that dictates how women experience femininity and determines who
women are, what women do, and how women are perceived (Chodorow, 1989).
2
Body dissatisfaction can be explained by Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). The theory posits that women’s bodies are looked at, evaluated, and objectified. This
objectification means that women are simply treated as bodies that exist for the pleasure of
people around them, creating significant pressure for women to be preoccupied with their bodies.
Women internalize observers’ perspectives of their bodies leading to habitual self-conscious
body monitoring and self-objectification.
Utilizing this theory, Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) conducted a study on one hundred
thirty-two university students and their friends (64 women and 68 men) who completed three
questionnaires: the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), 2) a modified
version of that questionnaire that measured individuals’ objectification of others, and 3) the Body
Cathexis scale (Slade, Dewey, Newton, & Brodie, 1990). They found that women were more
likely than men to self-objectify, self-objectification was negatively related to body satisfaction
for women, and both men and women objectified other women more than they objectified men.
Self-esteem has often been linked with body satisfaction (Ben-Tovim, Walker, Murray, &
Chin, 1990; Sanford & Donovan, 1985; Usmiani & Daniluk, 1997). However, there have
recently been criticisms about self-esteem as a measure of psychological health (Baumeister,
Smart, & Boden, 1996; Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Crocker, Luhtanen,
Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). To
address these criticisms, Neff (2003a) proposed a new construct: self-compassion, which is an
alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude and relationship to oneself. This healthier
attitude has been linked to less self-judgment (Neff, 2003a) and less judgment of others (Brown,
1999). Therefore, one could argue that higher levels of self-compassion could lead to less self-
3
objectification and less objectification of others. The next section addresses this objectification
through a review of the theory, as well as a literature review of self-objectification and
objectification of others.
Objectification Theory
The physical body has traditionally been the defining characteristic used to distinguish
men from women. Anatomical, genetic, and hormonal influences on personality, experience,
and behavior have been routinely explored. This biological basis has long been criticized by
feminists, as they have argued that gender differences have little to do with the physical body
and more to do with the socialization of boys and girls. Bodies exist within social and cultural
contexts and are therefore constructed within sociocultural practices (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
Western culture is saturated with heterosexuality and the assumption that men may
sexualize women (Westkott, 1986). Within this sexual gazing, there exists the possibility for
sexual objectification, or women being treated as just bodies. The mass media has propagated
this sexual objectification through sexualized images of the female body, making these images
unavoidable in the American culture (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Research has indicated that
an unattainable standard of women’s physical beauty is what is depicted in the media. This
narrow view is often linked with a woman’s sexiness and worth (APA, 2007).
Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) sought to uncover why objectification occurs, with the
understanding that women exist in a culture in which their bodies are looked at and evaluated.
Objectification Theory “places female bodies in a sociocultural context with the aim of
illuminating the lived experiences and mental health risks of girls and women who encounter
4
sexual objectification” (p. 174). The researchers argued that sexual objectification is only one
form of gender oppression, but that it may perhaps act as a catalyst for other oppressions women
face.
Objectification Theory posits that girls and women treat themselves as objects to be
looked at and evaluated. This adoption of an observer’s perspective may be due to compliance
with external pressures (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Effective socialization begins with
compliance with external pressures, leading to interpersonal identification, and ending with
individuals claiming ownership of socialized values and attitudes. This ownership may result in
a new notion of self (Costanzo, 1992).
Self-Objectification
Women learn that their “looks” matter and that how they are viewed by observers can
determine how they are treated. Objectification Theory argues that women can adopt a “third-
person” view of themselves as a way to control how they are treated (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). Physical beauty can be powerful for women (Citrin, Roberts, & Fredrickson, 2004),
however, a majority of studies indicate negative psychological consequences of sexual
objectification (Moradi & Huang, 2008).
Utilizing Fredrickson and Roberts’ (1997) Objectification Theory, Frederick, Peplau, and
Lever (2006) studied correlates of body image in a sample of 52,677 heterosexual men and
women. The researchers examined associations of body satisfaction to age, height, gender, and
BMI and found that fewer men than women reported being too heavy (41% versus 61%) and
rated their body as being unattractive (11% versus 21%), consistent with Objectification Theory.
5
In addition, slender women (BMI = 14.5-22.49) reported more body satisfaction than most of the
other women, also consistent with Objectification Theory.
Mercurio and Landry (2008) investigated the impact of self-objectification on women’s
overall feelings of self-worth and their perceptions of their own well-being in terms of life
satisfaction. Two hundred twenty-seven female undergraduates completed the Objectified Body
Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The
researchers found that self-objectification impacted overall life satisfaction through its relation
with body shame and self-esteem.
Greenleaf and McGreer (2006) examined Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997) among physically active (N= 115) and sedentary (N= 70) female college students. The
women completed the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), the Body
Surveillance and Body Shame subscales of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale
(McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Appearance Anxiety Scale (Dion, Dion, & J. Keelan, 1990), a
flow experiences measure (Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), and the Eating Attitudes Test–26
(Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982). They found that self-objectification predicted
disordered eating in both groups of women and those women high in self-objectification reported
higher levels of body surveillance, body shame, appearance anxiety, and self-reported disordered
eating attitudes.
Rolnik, Engeln-Maddox, and Miller (2010) investigated the impact of sorority rush on
self-objectification and body image disturbance. First-year undergraduate women either
participating (n=68)or not participating (n=59) in sorority rush at a Midwestern university in the
6
U.S. completed the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Eating
Attitudes Test–26 (Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982), a demographics questionnaire
developed by the researchers, and a rush-specific questionnaire developed by the researchers.
The researchers found that women who dropped out of rush had significantly higher body mass
indexes (BMI’s) prior to beginning the rush process, as compared to those who completed the
rush process, and rushees’ BMI’s significantly predicted whether they would drop out of rush.
Consistent with previous findings that sorority women are especially likely to promote a thin
body ideal (Schulken, Pinciaro, Sawyer, Jensen, & Hoban, 1997), this research illustrated that
the further women’s bodies were from the culturally sanctioned thin ideal, the more negative
their experience of sorority rush was. The researchers also found that rush participants
evidenced increased levels of self-objectification and eating disordered behavior.
Objectification of Others
Not only do women self-objectify (Greenleaf & McGreer, 2006;Mercurio& Landry,
2008;Peplau& Lever, 2006; Rolnik, Engeln-Maddox, & Miller, 2010) but they objectify other
women (Bearman, Korobov, & Thorne, 2009; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). This objectification
of other women may take the form of comments or suggestions, glances, and other behaviors that
communicate the thin-ideal to which women should conform (Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr,
2011).
Tylka and Sabik (2010) studied Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) and self-
esteem as they were integrated into the framework of Objectification Theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997). Two hundred and seventy-four women from a Midwestern U.S. college
completed the Feedback on Physical Appearance Scale (Tantleff-Dunn, Thompson, & Dunn,
7
1995), the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the Body Surveillance subscale and
the Body Shame subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde,
1996), the Body Comparison Scale (Fisher & Thompson, 1998), and the Eating Attitudes Test-26
(Garner et al., 1982). The researchers found that women who are focused on their own bodies
are more attentive to the appearance of other women’s bodies and how they compare to their
own. This body comparison may act as a feedback loop to their own body, perpetuating
heightened body surveillance and objectification of other women’s bodies. The researchers also
found that self-esteem uniquely predicted body surveillance, body comparison, and body shame.
This finding illustrated the importance of including self-esteem as a variable within the
objectification framework.
Szymanski et al. (2011) argued that to “properly address women’s own contribution to
sexually objectifying environments, a great deal more research is needed to explore the ways
women objectify other women” (p. 29). Szymanski and Carr (2011) emphasized the need for
psychologists to empower therapy clients to address social problems such as sexual
objectification. They see this empowerment as a social justice initiative “given the harmful role
of external and internalized sexual objectification and other forms of oppression on individuals’
psychosocial health” (p.165). The following section will define the construct of self-
compassion, compare it with self-esteem, and explore the construct in the current literature.
Special attention will be paid to the constructs as they relate to body image.
Self-Compassion
Neff’s (2003a) construct of self-compassion represents a conceptualization of a healthy
attitude and relationship to oneself. Self-compassion allows individuals to see themselves with
8
the nonjudgmental understanding and sense of humanness that is often afforded to others. Neff
(2003a) defined self-compassion as:
being touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it,
generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself with kindness. Self-
compassion also involves offering nonjudgmental understanding to one’s pain,
inadequacies and failures, so that one’s experience is seen as part of the larger human
experience (p. 87).
As part of this definition, Neff (2003a) described three components of self-compassion that work
together for mutual enhancement:
(a) self-kindness – extending kindness and understanding to oneself rather than harsh
judgment and self-criticism, (b) common humanity – seeing one’s experiences as part of
the larger human experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating, and (c)
mindfulness – holding one’s painful thoughts and feelings in balanced awareness rather
than over-identifying with them (p.89).
Self-Kindness
The kindness component of self-compassion recognizes that humans experience
challenges in life and cannot be perfect. When one encounters suffering, feelings of inadequacy,
or failure, self-compassion encourages warmth and understanding toward oneself. When life’s
setbacks are denied, suffering occurs in the form of self-criticism. When they are accepted with
kindness, greater emotional balance may occur (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008).
9
Common Humanity
The recognition that all humans suffer allows one to see that suffering and failure are part
of the shared human experience and are something larger than the self. Existing as a human
means experiencing failure. This failure is one of the conditions which binds people to one
another. It is the denial of this common link that leads to a competitive mind-set and perpetuates
self-judgment and comparison to others (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008).
Mindfulness
Mindfulness allows individuals to observe their thoughts and emotions as they exist,
without attempting to suppress, change or deny them. In this way, mindfulness allows the
individual to be nonjudgmental toward the self (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008). Mindfulness does not
negate negative emotions or feelings, rather it allows for emotional balance that prevents the
individual from over identifying with an emotional state (Bishop et al., 2004).
Self-compassion tends to soften ego-protective barriers, allowing us to be kind to
ourselves, rather than just being kind to those around us. This self-kindness does not require an
inflated self-image and is available when self-esteem is not. It is available “when we fall flat on
our face, embarrass ourselves, or otherwise come in direct contact with the imperfection of life”
(Neff, 2011, p.6). The following section examines this difference between self-compassion and
self-esteem.
Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem
Rogers (1951) defined self-esteem as the extent to which an individual likes, values, and
accepts himself or herself. Self-esteem is central in everything one does. Having positive self-
esteem enhances one’s confidence, self-image, and overall happiness. Having negative self-
10
esteem creates negative thinking and leads one to believe negative comments made by others
(Perera, n.d.).
Self-esteem has routinely served as the marker of psychological well-being (Erikson,
1968; Rosenberg, 1979) to the extent that the self is seen as separate from shared human
experience. Within recent years, researchers have voiced concerns about self-esteem as a
measure of psychological health (Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister et al., 2003; Crocker et al.,
2003; Harter, 1999; Twenge et al., 2008). It was found that self-esteem is largely the outcome of
doing well, rather than the cause of doing well (Baumeister et al., 2003). It was also speculated
that the emphasis placed on self-esteem in our society has led to an increase in narcissism scores
of college students. Researchers found that 65% of recent college students scored higher in
narcissism than previous generations of students (Twenge et al., 2008). Finally, self-esteem may
be linked to inflated self-views, which could be problematic when it is contingent on a particular
outcome (Crocker et al., 2003).
Harter (1999) found that global self-esteem is shaped by evaluations of self-worth in
domains such as appearance, social approval, and academic/work performance. This means that
other potentially important life successes may be neglected in order to maintain high self-esteem.
It also means that one’s self-esteem is contingent upon recent successes and failures. Kernis
(2005) found that this contingent self-esteem makes people more vulnerable to depression and
reduced self-concept clarity. Further exemplifying this finding, the following section addresses
the link between body image and self-esteem and how this may be harmful to the individual.
11
Body image and self-esteem. Usmiani and Daniluk (1997) argued that “body image is formed
to a degree as a function of the culturally defined images of desirable bodily appearances for men
and women” (p. 47), and that from this perspective “a girls’ self-esteem may be influenced by
the degree to which she believes she meets cultural standards” (p. 47). A woman’s sense of who
she is may be defined through conformity within a culture. Women in the United States may
form their identity using a Westernized notion of feminine stereotypes that depict how a woman
is expected to look and act (Grogan, 2008).
In discussing their self-esteem enhancement groups, Sanford and Donovan (1985)
reported that nearly every female participant had a negative body image. The group members
summarized that it is “difficult to dislike your body or a specific part of your body and still like
yourself,” (p. 369). It is hard to discuss self-esteem without also including body image. For
some women, a poor body image leads to low self-esteem and for others, a low self-esteem lends
itself to poor body image.
Sanford and Donovan (1985) argued that parents’ self-acceptance influences a child’s
self-perception. Parents acting as role models can often be just as negative of an influence as
they are a positive influence. For example:
My mother was constantly concerned about her weight when I was a kid, and when I
reached puberty, she decided I looked “porky.” She dragged me to the gym with her,
which I hated, and we both went on the same diets, although I ate tremendous volumes at
school. I spent my allowance on hot lunches, in addition to eating the rabbit food she
sent along with me. She was always on me about how I looked, until I gave up and
withdrew. I stopped eating around her. This concerned her right away and she took me
12
to the doctor who told her I was the correct weight and that all my bulges were just
normal. After that, she left me alone (p. 369).
The researchers speculated that if the mother had a more positive self-concept, she may have
recognized that her daughter did not have a weight problem. If, in reality, the daughter did have
a weight problem, the mother could have demonstrated some reasonable and safe ways to
manage her weight.
Sanford and Donovan (1985) also argued that while some women do not see themselves
in an entirely negative light, they may still lack self-esteem. They may be well aware of their
good qualities, but have a hard time understanding that their good qualities matter as much as
their negative qualities or flaws. “Oh, I know I’ve got a nice face, that I’m pretty bright, a good
teacher, a kind person and all that,’ a woman might say. ‘But,’ she is quick to add, ‘I should lose
ten pounds,’”(p. 16).
Recent research suggests that self-compassion is more predictive of healthy self-related
functioning than is self-esteem (Neff & Vonk, 2006). Measures of self-compassion and global
self-esteem, as well as a number of self-related processes known to be maladaptive: self-esteem
instability and contingency, social comparison, narcissism, reactive anger, public self-
consciousness, and self-rumination were completed by the research participants. The researchers
found, after accounting for variance in outcomes attributable to self-esteem, self-compassion
predicted significant additional variance for self-esteem instability, self-esteem contingency,
social comparison, reactive anger, public self-consciousness, and self-rumination. Moreover, in
almost every case, self-compassion was a much stronger negative predictor of these outcomes
than was self-esteem.
13
Neff, Kirkpatrick, and Rude (2007) examined the relationship of self-compassion to
psychological health. Ninety-one undergraduates completed measures on self-compassion, self-
esteem, negative affectivity, and anxiety. They found that self-compassion, and not self-esteem,
buffered anxiety when participants were faced with an ego-threat in a laboratory setting.
Neff (2003a; 2009; 2011) argued that there is a way for people to feel good about
themselves without the positive or negative self-judgment or evaluation commonly associated
with self-esteem. Her research on the construct of self-compassion found that it offers similar
benefits to self-esteem, but without the pitfalls. She found that self-compassion is equally
relevant when suffering occurs either through external circumstances or one’s personal
inadequacies. Also, Neff (2004) suggested that because self-compassion does not require people
to adopt an unrealistic view of the self, it should be easier to raise than self-esteem. The
following section addresses self-compassion in the current literature.
Self-Compassion in the Literature
Research has helped establish the advantageous nature of self-compassion. Thus far,
most of the research on self-compassion has been conducted using the Self-Compassion Scale
(Neff, 2003a), which measures the degree to which individuals display self-kindness versus self-
judgment, common humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over identification.
Utilizing this scale, higher levels of self-compassion have been associated with greater life-
satisfaction, emotional intelligence, social connectedness, learning goals, wisdom, personal
initiative, curiosity, happiness, optimism, and positive affect, as well as less self-criticism,
depression, anxiety, fear of failure, thought suppression, perfectionism, performance goals, and
14
disordered eating behaviors (see Neff, 2009, for a review). Self-compassion recognizes that we
all have strengths and weaknesses and that we are “imperfect human beings” (Neff, 2011, p. 9).
Neff, Hsieh, and Dejitthirat, (2005) examined the link between self-compassion and
motivation among college students to determine whether self-compassion might be adaptive in
academic contexts. Using a sample size of 222 college students, the researchers found that self-
compassion was positively associated with mastery goals, which include the joy of learning for
its own sake, and negatively associated with performance goals, which involve defending or
enhancing one’s sense of self-worth through academic performances. These findings were
replicated (N= 110) with students who had recently failed a midterm examination and indicated
that self-compassionate students exhibited more adaptive ways of coping with failure.
In a similar study, Akin (2008) examined the relationship between self-compassion and
achievement goal orientation. Research participants included 646 university students in Turkey
who completed scales on self-compassion and achievement goal orientation. Results concluded
that self-compassion was positively related to learning approach and negatively related to
performance approach. Given the findings, the author called for educational settings to foster
self-compassion in students.
In a study designed to explore the relationships among self-compassion, positive
psychological functioning, and the Big Five personality traits in college students (N=177), Neff,
Rude, and Kirkpatrick (2007) found that self-compassion was associated with greater reflective
and affective wisdom, curiosity and exploration, happiness, optimism, positive affect,
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. It was found that self-compassion was
15
negatively associated with Neuroticism. They also found that self-compassion was linked to
personal initiative, which supports the notion that self-compassion leads to self-growth.
Neff and McGehee (2010) examined self-compassion among adolescents (N=235) and
young adults (N=287). Utilizing measures of self-compassion, depression, anxiety,
connectedness, maternal support, family functioning, attachment, and personal fable, the
researchers found that self-compassion was strongly associated with well-being for both age
groups. They also found that self-compassion contributed to well-being while controlling other
factors, suggesting that self-compassion’s mental health benefits were not confounded by family
influence or life stage. The authors argued that this finding may further support the notion that
self-compassion can be enhanced with practice (Gilbert and Proctor, 2006).
Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, and Hancock (2007) utilized five separate studies that
investigated the cognitive and emotional processes by which self-compassionate people deal
with unpleasant life events. In the first study, 117 undergraduate students reported on negative
life events. Results showed that self-compassion predicted emotional and cognitive reactions to
negative events. The second study asked 123 undergraduate students to respond to hypothetical
scenarios which elicited feelings of loss, failure, and humiliation. The researchers found that
self-compassion buffered people against negative emotions when imagining distressing social
events. In the third study, 66 undergraduate students disclosed personal information to another
individual and then received either positive or neutral feedback. Their emotional reactions and
judgments of the other person were then assessed. The results concluded that self-compassion
moderated negative emotions and receiving ambivalent feedback and this was especially true for
participants who scored low on self-esteem. The fourth study videotaped 102 undergraduate
16
students while they performed an awkward and mildly embarrassing task. The videotapes were
then either self-rated or rated by another participant. The results showed that low-self-
compassionate participants undervalued their own videotaped performances relative to observers.
The final study was designed to examine how self-compassion moderates reactions to
remembered life events and to examine if self-compassion could be experimentally induced
among the 115 undergraduate research participants. Results showed that self-compassion allows
individuals to acknowledge their role in negative events without feeling overwhelmed with
negative emotions and that self-compassion could be experimentally induced.
Continuing the use of a self-compassion manipulation, Zabelina and Robinson (2010)
studied 86 undergraduate students to better understand the use of a self-compassion manipulation
as it relates to original creative thinking. The researchers found that self-judgmental individuals
displayed lower levels of creative originality in the control condition, but equal levels of creative
originality in the self-compassion manipulation condition. They also further exemplified the
positive outcome of a self-compassion induction.
Self-compassion and body image. A pilot study conducted by Gilbert and Irons in 2004
found that self-critical thoughts were linked to many different social situations. Prior to a
compassionate mind training technique, participants were asked to keep diaries to explore self-
critical themes. When the participants were asked to describe the situations or events that
elicited self-criticism, they identified being at the gym and body image-related situations, among
others. Thus, while self-compassion has been conceptualized as a construct related to the overall
self, it could also be more relevant to specific self-perceptions of the physical self.
17
Investigating the outcome of inducing a state of self-compassion on restrained eating,
Leary and Adams (2007) asked 84 female undergraduate students to complete the Revised Rigid
Restraint Scale, designed by the researchers. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of
the experimental conditions: preload/self-compassion condition, preload/no self-compassion
condition, or no preload/control condition. The preload consisted of a set amount of food
presented to participants who performed a bogus taste test to measure eating behavior. They
then completed a self-evaluation. The researchers found that highly restrictive eaters felt worse
after eating the preload compared to the control condition, but those who completed the self-
compassion induction showed lower negative affect and reduced self-criticism.
Magnus et al., (2010) found that self-compassion was positively related to intrinsic
motivation and negatively related to external and introjected motivation, ego goal orientation,
social physique anxiety and exercising in ways that are harmful to the self. They found that self-
compassion may foster a healthy attitude towards the self and identified the need for physical
self-compassion as a potential construct for future exploration.
Furthering this idea, Berry, Kowalski, Ferguson, and McHugh (2010) proposed that body
self-compassion could be a sub-domain of global self-compassion. Using Neff’s (2003)
research, they defined body self-compassion as “a kind, understanding and non-judgmental
attitude individuals extend toward their body in response to their perceived physical
imperfections, limitations and failures” (p. 295). Using this new construct, the researchers
interviewed five young adult women using an empirical phenomenological method. Three
essential themes emerged as the women experienced more body self-compassion: appreciating
18
one’s unique body, taking ownership of one’s body, and engaging in less social comparison.
These findings suggest the benefits of increasing body self-compassion.
Research Questions
Sexual objectification is harmful to women’s psychosocial health. It leads to increased
body surveillance, body shame, and decreased self-esteem. For centuries, women’s worth has
been linked with physical attractiveness. Sexual objectification perpetuates social injustice,
depriving women of opportunities to feel comfortable in their bodies and to experience life
without the added strain of needing to monitor or enhance physical appearance. Szymanski and
Carr (2011) called for social justice initiatives surrounding empowerment of female clients and
Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested the need for further research about women who objectify
other women.
Recent critics of self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister et al., 2003; Crocker et
al., 2003; Harter, 1999; Twenge et al., 2008) have opened the doors to a new concept of a
healthy attitude and relationship to oneself in the construct of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a).
Given the recent research on self-compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011) and the new concept of
body or physical self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively), one can
hypothesize that women with higher self-compassion will be less likely to self-objectify and
objectify other women. We also know from the research that self-compassion can be
experimentally induced (Leary & Adams, 2007; Leary at al., 2007; Zabelina & Robinson, 2010).
Research has establish the advantages of self-compassion to include greater life-
19
disordered eating behaviors (Neff, 2009, for a review). Using body self-compassion, Berry et al.
(2010) used an empirical phenomenological approach to interview five women and found themes
that suggested that as women experienced more body self-compassion, they appreciated their
unique body, took ownership of their body and engaged in less social comparison. While these
findings suggest the positive influence of increased body self-compassion, the literature has not
extended a body self-compassion induction on women who experience self-objectification and
women who objectify other women.
Based on this review of the literature, it is evident that there is a gap in the literature with
respect to this extension of a self-compassion induction based on objectification. Therefore my
research questions were:
1. How does a self-compassion induction affect self-objectification?
2. How does a self-compassion induction affect objectification of other women?
Procedure
The purpose of this research study was to examine the influence of a body self-
compassion induction on college-aged women. Similar to Leary et al.’s (2007) Study 5,
participants wrote about a negative event from their past and answered questions about it.
Participants began by thinking about a negative event they experienced in high school or college
that made them feel badly about their bodies – something that involved failure, humiliation or
rejection. Participants were then asked to describe the event by including details regarding what
led to the event, who was present, what happened during the event, and how they felt and
20
behaved at the time. After writing about the event, participants were then randomly assigned to
one of two conditions: a) self-compassion induction or 2) control group.
Self-Compassion Induction
Participants in the self-compassion condition responded to three prompts which
instructed them to consider their negative event in a self-compassionate manner (Neff, 2003a).
The first prompt, designed to focus on the common humanity element of self-compassion, asked
participants to list ways in which other women have experienced a similar event. The second
prompt, designed to focus on self-kindness, asked participants to write how they would express
understanding, kindness and concern to themselves in the same way they might express concern
to a friend who had lived the same experience. The final prompt asked participants to describe
their feelings about the event in an objective and unemotional way, which is designed to induce a
mindful perspective on the event.
Control Group
Participants in the control condition also responded to three prompts to make the control
condition as similar to the self-compassion condition as possible. The first prompt asked
participants to describe the factors they considered in their college choice. The second prompt
asked participants to describe their favorite college class. The final prompt asked participants to
write about their least favorite college class. The prompts were designed to be neutral, so as to
not further induce negative or positive feelings regarding body image.
Following the writing prompts, all participants completed the Self-Objectification
Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of the Self-Objectification
21
Questionnaire used to determine objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and a demographics questionnaire.
Participants
Data was collected at the end of the Fall semester and beginning of the Spring semester.
Participants in this study consisted of undergraduate women from one mid-sized state university
and one large state university in the Southeastern United States. Participants from the mid-sized
state university received research credit in their course and participants from the large state
university were eligible to enter a drawing for a gift card. There were initially 584 participants in
this research study, but participants who had missing responses or incomplete answers were
removed during data cleaning. Following data cleaning, 382 women from the mid-sized
university and 28 women from the large university remained in the research sample. The end
result was a sample of 410 undergraduate women who completed this research study. Of those,
220 were randomly assigned to the control group and 190 were randomly assigned to the self-
compassion induction group.
The ages of the research participants ranged from 18 to 50 years (M=19.30; SD= 2.22).
Two-hundred and twenty-five participants (54.9%) identified themselves as freshman, 81
(19.8%) identified themselves as sophomores, 50 (12.2%) identified themselves as juniors, and
54 (13.2%) identified themselves as seniors. Three hundred and thirty-six students (82%) self-
identified as Caucasian, three (0.7%) self-identified as Native American/American Indian, 42
(10.2%) self-identified as African American, three (0.7%) self-identified as Pacific Islander, five
(1.2%) self-identified as Asian, 11 (2.7%) self-identified as multi-ethnic, and 10 (2.4%) self-
identified as “other.” Ten participants (2.4%) responded that they had been diagnosed with an
22
eating disorder, while 400 (97.6%) responded that they had never been diagnosed with an eating
disorder. Each participant’s reported height and weight were used to calculate a BMI. BMI
values ranged from 15.66 to 40.35(M = 23.40, SD = 4.11).
Results
Self-esteem scores ranged from 4 to 30, with a mean score of 20.05 and a standard
deviation of 4.94. Self-Objectification Questionnaire scores ranged from -25 to 25, with a mean
of 3.16 and a standard deviation of 12.79. Other-Objectification Questionnaire scores ranged
from -25 to 25, with a mean of 9.31 and a standard deviation of 13.41. It is interesting to note
that the mean score for objectification of other women was significantly higher than the mean
score for self-objectification, (F(1, 409) = 69.04, p< .001).
Research question one sought to identify how a self-compassion induction affects self-
objectification of women. The effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not
statistically significant (p=.572).
Research question two sought to identify how a self-compassion induction affects how
women objectify other women. The effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was
not statistically significant (p=.478).
The results of Tylka and Sabik’s (2010) study indicated the need to find the unique
contribution of the self-compassion induction beyond what was accounted for by self-esteem.
Self-compassion induction did not account for a significant proportion of variability in scores for
self-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem (R2 Change < .001, F(1,
407) = .03, p=.86). The self-compassion induction did not account for a significant proportion of
23
variability in scores for other-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem
(R2 Change = .001, F(1, 407) = .29, p=.59).
Post Hoc Analyses
Previous research has focused on the differences between college students who
participate in research early in the semester versus late in the semester. Early semester
participants have been found to be more socially responsible (Holden &Reddon, 1987), more
intrinsically motivated (Hom, 1987), more compliant (Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne, 1981), more
academically and achievement oriented with higher ACT and GPA scores, and to possess a more
internal academic locus of control (Evans & Donnerstein, 1974). Given these differences in
motivation and personality attributes, a post-hoc analysis combining data from early semester
participants from the mid-sized university and the sample from the large university, because they
were not participating for credit and were therefore more intrinsically motivated to complete the
study, was conducted. The control group had 89 participants and the self-compassion induction
had 83 participants. The total number of participants in this post-hoc analysis was 172.
objectification of women. The effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not
significant (p=.145).
women objectify other women. The effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was
not significant (p= .461).
A post-hoc analysis found significant differences among self-esteem scores between the
self-compassion induction and control groups (p = .031, R2Change = .027). Self-esteem scores
24
for the self-compassion induction group were significantly higher than the self-esteem scores for
the control group.
self-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem (R2 Change = .005, F(1,
169) = .94, p =.33). Self-compassion induction did not account for a significant proportion of
(R2 Change = .002, F(1, 169) = .34, p = .56).
Discussion
The recent research on self-compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011) and the new concept
of body or physical self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) has
demonstrated that women with higher levels of self-compassion are kinder to themselves. It was
hypothesized that this kindness toward self can be generalized to kindness toward one’s body
and therefore, women with higher levels of self-compassion would be less likely to self-
objectify. It may be the case that this new concept of body or physical self-compassion (Berry
et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) cannot be raised using a traditional self-
compassion induction. It may also be the case that the online data collection method, used by
the researcher, did not result in a true self-compassion induction for all of the participants, as
some of them may not have adequately thought about their responses in a self-compassionate
manner.
25
It was hypothesized that women who complete a self-compassion induction would report
lower scores in the modified version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, as compared to
the control group. This present study found that the effect of group membership (self-
compassion induction vs. control) was not significant with respect to scores on the modified
version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire. However, it was found that the mean score
for objectification of other women was higher than the mean score for self-objectification for the
total sample. This meant that women were objectifying other women more than they were self-
objectifying.
A 2010 study by Tylka and Sabik found that women who are focused on their own bodies
are more attentive to the appearance of other women’s bodies. This body comparison may act as
a feedback loop to their own body, perpetuating heightened body surveillance and objectification
of other women’s bodies. Given the research on the positive outcomes of increasing one’s self-
compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011), especially related to body self-kindness (Berry et al.,
2010; Magnus et al., 2010), it was hypothesized that a self-compassion induction would not only
lead to less self-objectification but also less objectification of other women. Similar to the
results from the first research question, it may be that this new concept of body or physical self-
compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) cannot be raised using a
traditional self-compassion induction or that the online data collection method did not actually
raise self-compassion. If the self-compassion induction did not significantly impact self-
objectification, it would naturally be the case that it would not significantly impact the
26
The finding that women were objectifying other women more than they were self-
objectifying was consistent with the findings of Stelan and Hargreaves (2005). This may
indicate that women place more importance on the appearance of other women than they do on
their own appearance. Women are constantly bombarded with body image messages
emphasizing the thin-ideal (Waterhouse, 1997) and deflecting these messages onto others may
serve as a protective factor for women.
contribution of the self-compassion induction beyond what was accounted for by self-esteem. In
this research sample, no significant effect was found when controlling for self-esteem with
respect to self-objectification or objectification of other women. Similar to the findings above
for the two research questions, we may hypothesize that this new concept of body or physical
self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) cannot be raised using a
traditional self-compassion induction or that the online data collection method did not result in a
true self-compassion induction for the participants. In either case, self-compassion could not
account for anything significant beyond what was already accounted for by self-esteem.
Post-Hoc Analyses
This research study was conducted at the end of the Fall 2011 semester and the beginning
of the Spring 2012 semester. It was hypothesized that there may be differences in motivation
and personality factors between the students who completed the study at the end of the semester
versus the beginning of the semester. The literature points to differences which include: early
semester participants have been found to be more socially responsible (Holden & Reddon, 1987),
more intrinsically motivated (Hom, 1987), more compliant (Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne, 1981),
27
more academically and achievement oriented with higher ACT and GPA scores, and a more
internal academic locus of control (Evans & Donnerstein, 1974).
Because the students completing the study from the large university did not have the
same class or extra credit, large university participants remained in the post-hoc sample. The
control group had 89 participants and the self-compassion induction had 83 participants. The
total number of participants in this post-hoc analysis was 172.
The same analyses for research questions one and two were conducted using this new
sample. Again, no significant differences were found between the self-compassion and control
groups, similar to the results using the full research sample. It is believed that the same reasons,
as previously described, can account for these findings.
Interestingly, a post-hoc analysis found significant differences among self-esteem scores
between the self-compassion induction and control groups. This meant that self-esteem scores
for the self-compassion induction group were significantly different from and higher than the
self-esteem scores of the control group. Results were inconsistent with Neff’s (2004) suggestion
that because self-compassion does not require people to adopt an unrealistic view of the self, it
should be easier to raise than self-esteem. Given the emphasis that society has placed on raising
self-esteem (Twenge et al., 2008), it may have been the case that the college student sample was
primed to increase self-esteem more than they were self-compassion. It may also have been the
case that this research sample had higher levels of self-esteem prior to participation in this
research study, consistent with the personality and motivation factors previously discussed
(Evans & Donnerstein, 1974; Holden & Reddon, 1987; Hom, 1987; Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne,
1981). The initial writing prompt, which asked participants to write about a negative body
28
image experience, may have temporarily lowered self-esteem. Those women who participated
in the self-compassion induction may then have counterbalanced that lowering of self-esteem,
returning them to their normal level of self-esteem. Those women who participated in the
control group may not have returned to their normal levels of self-esteem, showing a significant
difference in levels of self-esteem between the two groups.
Limitations and Future Research
There were several major limitations to this research. First, while women from two
universities were represented in this study, the universities are still in the same geographic region
and the sample was comprised of only undergraduate women. Therefore, this study design did
not allow for an accurate representation of all women within the sampled age groups. Future
research should include research participants in a variety of urban and rural populations.
Another major limitation was that this study did not include a manipulation check
meaning that self-compassion was not measured following the self-compassion induction to see
if the induction actually increased self-compassion. The researcher chose to not include a self-
compassion questionnaire because of concern for the time requirements of participation in this
research. Future research should include either a pre- and post-induction evaluation of self-
compassion or at least measure the difference among self-compassion scores between the self-
compassion induction and the control group, regardless of the amount of time required to
complete the extra questionnaire.
Finally, it was hypothesized that the methodology used for data collection was not
adequate to induce self-compassion among all group participants. Due to the nature of online
data collection, some of the research participants in the self-compassion induction group may not
29
have spent enough time thinking about and then writing about the three components of self-
compassion (Neff, 2003a). This may have prevented a true self-compassion induction from
taking place. Future research should restrict this methodology to in-person data collection to
ensure that participants are spending adequate amounts of time on the self-compassion writing
prompts.
30
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines the current literature with respect to this research study. It begins
with an overview of the need for this research and then details the theoretical framework
supporting this research: Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Second, this
chapter examines relevant research focusing on the self-objectification of women and women
objectifying other women. Third, there is an examination of the literature identifying the
construct of self-compassion, how it is measured, and its relationship to body image and
Objectification Theory. Finally, the chapter concludes with the research questions posed by this
study.
Importance of this Study
Female standards of beauty have been dictated by society throughout history. The
nineteenth century brought corsets to shrink women’s waists, accentuate their hips, and achieve
an hourglass figure. By the middle of the twentienth century, the curvy hourglass figure
dissolved into curveless bodies, subjected to girdles, self-mutilation, stomach stapling, and self-
starvation. What happened to change the standard of the ideal female body (Waterhouse,
1997)?
The 1960s and 1970s in the United States brought about a new culture of thinness in
women. A shift occurred in which voluptuous, curved figures gave way to the angular, lean
body that many women idealize today. The pervasiveness of dieting among women best
exemplified this shift (Garner, Garfinkel, Schwartz, & Thompson, 1980).
31
More recently, Cash and Henry (1995) found that 63% of adult women in the United
States were dissatisfied with their current weight and 49% reported preoccupation with their
body weight. Cash and Henry postulated that while women have made significant strides in
gender equality in the last century, there is “little evidence that the recent economic,
occupational, and political gains of women in the United States have brought improvements in
their body images” (p.26).
If modern women in the United States are making such great strides in gender equality,
why has the feminine body ideal shifted? Society barrages women with negative body image
messages through a multitude of outlets. The messages are seen on television, in magazines,
heard in the halls of schools and every time women walk past mirrors (Waterhouse, 1997). They
are ingrained in culture, to the extent that the messages are hardly noticed. “Though many
women, spurred by the revival of the feminist movement, are presenting themselves more
proudly and confidently in public, in the privacy of their own minds too few seem to have
favorable images of themselves” (Sanford & Donovan, 1985, p.4).
The feminist movement sought to release women from the objectification of their bodies.
“How anyone experiences, fantasizes about, or internally represents her or his embodiment
grows from experience, learning and self-definition in the family and in the culture” (Chodorow,
1989, p. 101). The existence of a gendered and sexually organized world does not allow society
to experience embodiment as simply being in a body. Gender and sex differences create a
dichotomy of embodiment that dictates how women experience femininity and determines who
women are, what women do, and how women are perceived (Chodorow, 1989).
32
Sanford and Donovan (1985) argued that “none of the ideal standards by which we judge
ourselves was with us at birth” (p.8). Women learn how to judge themselves through their
culture and family unit. Various components of one’s images and beliefs of self are assembled
like a collage, depicting an identity and sense of self.
It is as if "women are locked into a generational cycle of female body insecurity and
devaluation” (Clarke & Giffin, 2007, p. 715). Women are constantly bombarded with body
image messages from their mothers and the basic ideas women have about themselves were
acquired prior to adulthood (Archibald, Graber, & Brooks-Gunn, 1999; Clarke & Griffin, 2007;
Francis & Birch, 2005; Liechty, Freeman, & Zabriskie, 2006). It has been argued that dieting
has become a national epidemic and binds mothers and daughters (Waterhouse, 1997).
This vicious cycle of body dissatisfaction can be explained by Objectification Theory
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). The theory posited that women’s bodies are looked at,
evaluated, and objectified. This objectification means that women are simply treated as bodies
that exist for the pleasure of people around them. There is significant pressure for women to be
preoccupied with their bodies. Women internalize observers’ perspectives of their bodies
leading to habitual self-conscious body monitoring and self-objectification.
Utilizing this theory, Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) conducted a study on one hundred
thirty-two university students and their friends (64 women and 68 men) who completed three
questionnaires: the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), 2) a modified
version of that questionnaire that measured individuals’ objectification of others, and 3) the Body
Cathexis scale (Slade, Dewey, Newton, & Brodie, 1990). They found that women were more
33
likely than men to self-objectify, self-objectification was negatively related to body satisfaction
for women, and both men and women objectified other women more than they objectified men.
Self-esteem has often been linked with body satisfaction (Ben-Tovim, Walker, Murray, &
Chin, 1990; Sanford & Donovan, 1985; Usmiani & Daniluk, 1997). However, there have
recently been a lot of criticisms about self-esteem as a measure of psychological health
(Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Crocker,
Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008).
To address these criticisms, Neff (2003a) proposed a new construct, self-compassion, which is an
alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude and relationship to oneself. This healthier
attitude has been linked to less self-judgment (Neff, 2003a) and less judgment of others (Brown,
1999). Therefore, one could argue that higher levels of self-compassion could lead to less self-
objectification and less objectification of others. The next section addresses this objectification
through a review of the theory, as well as a literature review of self-objectification and
Objectification Theory
The physical body has traditionally been the defining characteristic used to distinguish
men from women. Anatomical, genetic, and hormonal influences on personality, experience,
and behavior have been routinely explored. This biological basis has long been criticized by
feminists, as they have argued that gender differences have little to do with the physical body
and more to do with the socialization of boys and girls. Bodies exist within social and cultural
contexts and are therefore constructed within sociocultural practices (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997).
34
Western culture is saturated with heterosexuality and the assumption that men may
sexualize women (Westkott, 1986). Within this sexual gazing, there exists the possibility for
sexual objectification, or women being treated as just bodies. The mass media has propagated
this sexual objectification through sexualized images of the female body, making these images
unavoidable in the American culture (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Research has indicated that
an unattainable standard of women’s physical beauty is what is depicted in the media. This
narrow view is often linked with a woman’s sexiness and worth (APA, 2007).
Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) sought to uncover why objectification occurs, with the
understanding that women exist in a culture in which their bodies are looked at and evaluated.
Objectification Theory “places female bodies in a sociocultural context with the aim of
illuminating the lived experiences and mental health risks of girls and women who encounter
sexual objectification” (p. 174). The researchers argued that sexual objectification is only one
form of gender oppression, but that it may perhaps act as a catalyst for other oppressions women
face.
Objectification Theory posited that girls and women treat themselves as objects to be
looked at and evaluated. This adoption of an observer’s perspective may be due to compliance
with external pressures (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Effective socialization begins with
compliance with external pressures, leading to interpersonal identification, and ending with
individuals claiming ownership of socialized values and attitudes. This ownership may result in
a new notion of self (Costanzo, 1992).
35
Self-Objectification
Women learn that their “looks” matter and that how they are viewed by observers can
determine how they are treated. Objectification Theory argued that women can adopt a “third-
person” view of themselves as a way to control how they are treated (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). Physical beauty can be powerful for women (Citrin, Roberts, & Fredrickson, 2004, p.
208); however, a majority of studies indicated negative psychological consequences of sexual
objectification (Moradi & Huang, 2008).
Utilizing Fredrickson & Roberts’ (1997) Objectification Theory, Frederick, Peplau, and
Lever (2006) studied correlates of body image in a sample of 52,677 heterosexual men and
women. The researchers examined associations of body satisfaction to age, height, gender, and
BMI and found that fewer men than women reported being too heavy (41% versus 61%) and
rated their body as being unattractive (11% versus 21%), consistent with Objectification Theory.
In addition, slender women (BMI = 14.5-22.49) reported more body satisfaction than most of the
other women, also consistent with Objectification Theory.
Mercurio and Landry (2008) investigated the impact of self-objectification on women’s
overall feelings of self-worth and their perceptions of their own well-being in terms of life
satisfaction. Two hundred twenty-seven female undergraduates completed the Objectified Body
Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The
researchers found that self-objectification impacts overall life satisfaction through its relation
with body shame and self-esteem.
36
Greenleaf and McGreer (2006) examined Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997) among physically active (N= 115) and sedentary (N= 70) female college students. The
women completed the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), the Body
Surveillance and Body Shame subscales of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale
(McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Appearance Anxiety Scale (Dion, Dion, & J. Keelan, 1990), a
flow experiences measure (Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), and the Eating Attitudes Test–26
(Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982). They found that self-objectification predicted
disordered eating in both groups of women and those women high in self-objectification reported
higher levels of body surveillance, body shame, appearance anxiety, and self-reported disordered
eating attitudes.
Rolnik, Engeln-Maddox, and Miller (2010) investigated the impact of sorority rush on
self-objectification and body image disturbance. First-year undergraduate women either
participating (n=68) or not participating (n=59) in sorority rush at a U.S. Midwestern university
completed the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), the Eating
Attitudes Test–26 (Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982), a demographics questionnaire
developed by the researchers, and a rush-specific questionnaire developed by the researchers.
The researchers found that women who dropped out of rush had significantly higher body mass
indexes (BMI’s) prior to beginning the rush process, as compared to those who completed the
rush process, and rushees’ BMI’s significantly predicted whether they would drop out of rush.
Consistent with previous findings that sorority women are especially likely to promote a thin
body ideal (Schulken, Pinciaro, Sawyer, Jensen, & Hoban, 1997), this research illustrated that
the further women’s bodies were from the culturally sanctioned thin ideal, the more negative
37
their experience of sorority rush was. The researchers also found that rush participants
evidenced increased levels of self-objectification and eating disordered behavior.
Objectification of Others
Not only do women self-objectify (Greenleaf & McGreer, 2006;Mercurio& Landry,
2008;Peplau& Lever, 2006; Rolnik, Engeln-Maddox, & Miller, 2010) but they objectify other
women (Bearman, Korobov, & Thorne, 2009; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). This objectification
of other women may take the form of comments or suggestions, glances, and other behaviors that
communicate the thin-ideal to which women should conform (Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr,
2011).
Tylka and Sabik (2010) studied Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) and self-
esteem as they were integrated into the framework of Objectification Theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997). Two hundred and seventy-four women from a Midwestern U.S. college
completed the Feedback on Physical Appearance Scale (Tantleff-Dunn, Thompson, & Dunn,
1995), the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the Body Surveillance subscale and
the Body Shame subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde,
1996), the Body Comparison Scale (Fisher & Thompson, 1998), and the Eating Attitudes Test-26
(Garner et al., 1982). The researchers found that women who are focused on their own bodies
are more attentive to the appearance of other women’s bodies and how they compare to their
own. This body comparison may act as a feedback loop to their own body, perpetuating
heightened body surveillance and objectification of other women’s bodies. The researchers also
found that self-esteem uniquely predicted body surveillance, body comparison, and body shame.
38
This finding illustrated the importance of including self-esteem as a variable within the
objectification framework.
Szymanski et al. (2011) argued that to “properly address women’s own contribution to
sexually objectifying environments, a great deal more research is needed to explore the ways
women objectify other women,” (p. 29). Szymanski and Carr (2011) emphasized the need for
psychologists to empower therapy clients to address social problems such as sexual
objectification. They see this empowerment as a social justice initiative “given the harmful role
of external and internalized sexual objectification and other forms of oppression on individuals’
psychosocial health,” (p.165).
Definition of Body Image
We cannot fully understand the power of objectification without first understanding body
image (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Body image is difficult to clearly define, but there is a
general agreement within the literature that it is multidimensional and complex and involves
biological, psychological, and social factors (Blyth, Simmons, &Zakin, 1985; Petersen,
Schulenberg, Abramobcwitz, Offer, & Jarcho, 1984). Hutchinson (1982) suggested:
Body image is not the same as body, but is rather what the mind does to the body
in translating the experience of embodiment into its mental representation. This
translation from body to body image and from there to body- cathexis is a
complex and emotionally charged process (p. 59).
In this context, body- cathexis was defined as body esteem or body satisfaction.
39
Transmission of Body Image
Body image ideals are transmitted through a variety of sources. The media tells women
what a normal body should look like (Bandura, 1977; Becker, 1994; Harper & Tiggemann, 2008;
Jhally, 2001; Sanford & Donovan, 1985; Strahan et al., 2008). In addition to the media, familial
influence begins at an early age and shapes the way women view their bodies through
socialization, modeling, and encouragement.
Media
An abundant source of social learning is the symbolic modeling provided by television,
films, and other visual media. Bandura (1977) stated:
During the course of their daily lives, people have direct contact with only a small
sector of the environment. Consequently, their perceptions of social reality are
heavily influenced by vicarious experiences- what they see, hear, and read in the
mass media (p.40).
The Internet, another vehicle of mass visual media, is widely used among college students. The
Pew Internet and American Life Project found that young adults are much more likely to spend
time online than the general population. Personal computers, home broadband access and the
use of cell phones make internet access easy for college students (Smith, Rainie, & Zickuhr,
2011).
Sanford and Donovan (1985) found that advertising, television, and fashion magazines
promote cultural ideals becoming the teacher of normalcy for a woman’s body when other
sources of information are lacking. In Killing Us Softly 3 (Jhally, 2001), a film on media
influence on women, the lecturer, Jean Kilbourne, quoted, “What does advertising tell us today
40
about women? It tells us, just as it did 10 and 20 and 30 years ago, that what’s most important
about women is how we look.”
Western societies value a slim body for women, and nonconformity to this value leads to
negative social consequences. “Being overweight is linked to laziness, lack of willpower, and
being out of control” (Grogan, 2008, p.9). It is understood in western societies that women
should change their body shape and size to conform to current trends. These changes may be the
result of dieting, exercise, and body modification such as surgery (Grogan, 2008).
Becker (2004), an anthropologist and psychiatrist, collected narrative data via semi-
structured interviews with Fijian adolescent girls regarding the impact of the introduction of
television in their culture. Traditional Fijian cultural norms strongly support robust bodies and
appetites. This was, in part, due to the reflection of a large body being capable of hard work and
care and nurturing from a dense social network. After the introduction of television in 1995, the
Fijian youth have been affected on multiple levels. Becker stated:
The ensuing changes in self and body image are multifaceted. On the most
superficial and concrete level, television appeared to redefine local aesthetic
ideals for bodily appearance and presentation. Television scenarios appeared to
stimulate desire to acquire elements of the lifestyles portrayed, including the body
shape perceived to be best suited for obtaining a job. Subjects explicitly reported
modeling behavior and appearance on television characters. (p. 540)
With the introduction of television, Becker found an increased prevalence of disordered eating in
ethnic Fijian school girls. Becker concluded:
It is a logical and frightening conclusion that vulnerable girls and women across
41
diverse populations who feel marginalized from the locally dominant culture’s
sources of prestige and status may anchor their identities in widely recognized
cultural symbols of prestige popularized by media-imported ideas, values, and
images. (p. 555)
Strahan et al. (2008) conducted a two part study in which sociocultural norms were
challenged in search of a basis for self-worth. Study one exposed undergraduate women to
media images (commercials) that strongly conveyed cultural norms for ideal appearance (thin,
attractive women). Participants completed a shortened version of the Contingencies of Self-
Worth Scale (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), a shortened version of the State Self-Esteem Scale
(Heatherton &Polivy, 1991), and seven items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein,
Scheier, & Buss, 1975). In addition, participants were also asked their height and were weighed
to determine their BMI. Researchers found that exposure to images reflecting these cultural
norms led participants to base their self-worth more strongly on their appearance, which led to
more dissatisfaction with their bodies.
The second part of the study conducted by Strahan et al. (2008) involved an intervention
reducing the impact of sociocultural norms conducted at local public schools. Researchers
utilized activities designed to challenge norms for ideal appearance that convey the notion that
“people need to look like the unattainable ideals portrayed in the media to be accepted and
successful in life” (p. 293). The adolescents who participated completed a two-item measure of
perceived legitimacy of norms (Strahan et al., 2008), the internalization component the
Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ) (Heinberg, Thompson, &
Stormer, 1995), a shortened version of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (Crocker & Wolfe,
42
2001), a shortened version of the State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991), and three
items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Researchers found that
adolescent girls who received the challenge to the norm intervention based their self-worth less
strongly on appearance, which led to more body satisfaction and less concerns with others’
perceptions.
Harper and Tiggemann (2008) examined whether viewing media images would increase
self-objectification, negative affect, and body dissatisfaction in young Australian women. Ninety
undergraduate women were randomly assigned to view advertisements that depicted a thin
woman, a thin woman with an attractive man, or one that did not feature any people (product
control advertisement). Participants then completed a Media Consumption Questionnaire
developed by the researchers, a Consumer Response Questionnaire, adapted from Mills, Polivy,
Herman, & Tiggemann (2002), a modified version of the Twenty Statements Test (Fredrickson
et al., 1998), the Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety Scale (Reed, Thompson,
Brannick, & Sacco, 1991), the Visual Analogue Scales (Heinberg & Thompson, 1995), and the
Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). Researchers concluded that
women who viewed advertisements featuring a thin-idealized woman reported greater self-
objectification, weight-related appearance anxiety, negative mood, and body dissatisfaction than
participants who viewed product control advertisements. These advertisements were not
explicitly directed to the attention of the participants’ bodies, but rather modeled the thin-ideal.
These results demonstrated that women tended to model the Western notion of beauty, which is a
thin woman.
43
Familial Transmission
Several models of eating and weight related values and behaviors, between parent and
child, were assessed by Wertheim, Martin, Prior, Sanson, and Smart (2002). Six hundred and
nineteen parent-daughter pairs completed a demographics questionnaire, the Eating Disorders
Inventory (Garner, 1991; Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983), Body Figure Rating Scales for
Children (Collins, 1991) and dieting self-reports. The mean age of the girls was 12.81 (SD=
.23). The researchers found that the daughters’ drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction were
related to encouragement to diet from both parents, though mothers were found to be more
influential than fathers. They also found that menstrual girls had higher BMIs, greater body
dissatisfaction and higher levels of disordered eating.
Neumark-Sztainer, Bauer, Friend, Hannan, Story, and Berge (2010) examined the
associations between family variables including: parents weight talk, parent dieting, and family
weight-teasing and adolescent girls’ weight status, body satisfaction, and disordered eating
behaviors. Forty-five percent of the girls reported that their mothers encouraged them to diet and
fifty-eight percent reported that their family members teased them because of their weight.
Researchers found that weight-teasing was strongly associated with higher BMI, body
dissatisfaction, and unhealthy weight control behaviors. Parent weight talk, especially by
mothers, was associated with disordered eating among the adolescent girls and mother dieting
was associated with girls’ unhealthy weight control behaviors.
Research has suggested that for girls, mothers are primary agents of socialization about
the body and may act as a vehicle for carrying messages about body image from one generation
to the next (Archibald, Graber, & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Clarke & Griffin, 2007; Francis & Birch,
44
2005; Liechty, Freeman, & Zabriskie, 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2010; Wertheim, 2002).
However, the role of the father and other family members has also been associated with
adolescent girls’ body dissatisfaction and weight control behaviors (Neumark-Sztainer et al.,
2010; Wertheim, 2002). Objectification Theory stated that women’s bodies are continuously
looked at and evaluated by others and consequently objectification is internalized and leads to
habitual body monitoring. Women are critical of their bodies and this self-criticism directs their
weight control behaviors (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
This section defined body image and addressed the transmission of the construct to
include media, culture and family. The following section will define the construct of self-
compassion, compare it with self-esteem, and explore the construct in the current literature.
Special attention will be paid to the constructs as they relate to body image.
Self-Compassion
Neff’s (2003a) construct of self-compassion is a conceptualization of a healthy attitude and
relationship to oneself. Self-compassion allows individuals to see themselves with the
nonjudgmental understanding, and sense of humanness, that is often afforded to others. Neff
(2003a) defined self-compassion as:
being touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it,
generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself with kindness. Self-
compassion also involves offering nonjudgmental understanding to one’s pain,
inadequacies and failures, so that one’s experience is seen as part of the larger human
experience (p. 87)
45
As part of this definition, Neff (2003a) described three components of self-compassion that work
together for mutual enhancement:
(a) self-kindness – extending kindness and understanding to oneself rather than harsh
judgment and self-criticism, (b) common humanity – seeing one’s experiences as part of
the larger human experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating, and (c)
mindfulness – holding one’s painful thoughts and feelings in balanced awareness rather
than over-identifying with them (p.89).
Self-Kindness
The kindness component of self-compassion recognizes that humans experience
challenges in life and cannot be perfect. When one encounters suffering, feelings of inadequacy,
or failure, self-compassion encourages warmth and understanding toward oneself. When life’s
realities are denied, suffering occurs in the form of self-criticism. When they are accepted with
kindness, greater emotional balance may occur (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008).
Common Humanity
The recognition that all humans suffer allows one to see that suffering and failure are part
of the shared human experience and are something larger than the self. These shared experiences
leave little room for a separate self-perspective, or failure in isolation.
It is this isolation that perpetuates a competitive mind-set that leads to self-judgment and
comparison to others (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008).
Mindfulness
Mindfulness allows individuals to observe their thoughts and emotions as they exist,
without attempting to suppress, change or deny them. In this way, mindfulness allows the
46
individual to be nonjudgmental toward the self (Neff, 2003a; Neff, 2008). Mindfulness does not
negate negative emotions or feelings, rather it allows for emotional balance that prevents the
individual from overly identifying with an emotional state (Bishop et al., 2004).
Self-compassion tends to soften ego-protective barriers, allowing us to be kind to
ourselves, rather than just being kind to those around us. This self-kindness does not require an
inflated self-image and is available when self-esteem is not. It is available “when we fall flat on
our face, embarrass ourselves, or otherwise come in direct contact with the imperfection of life”
(Neff, 2011, p.6). The following section examines this difference between self-compassion and
self-esteem.
Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem
Rogers (1951) defined self-esteem as the extent to which an individual likes, values, and
accepts himself or herself. Self-esteem is central in everything that one does. Having positive
self-esteem enhances one’s confidence, self-image, and overall happiness. Having negative self-
esteem creates negative thinking and leads one to believe negative comments made by others
(Perera, n.d.).
Self-esteem has routinely been the marker of psychological well-being (Erikson, 1968;
Rosenberg, 1979) to the extent that the self is seen as separate from shared human experience.
Within recent years, there have also been a lot of criticisms about self-esteem as a measure of
psychological health (Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister et al., 2003; Crocker et al., 2003;
Harter, 1999; Twenge et al., 2008). It was found that self-esteem is largely the outcome of doing
well, rather than the cause of doing well (Baumeister et al., 2003). It was also found that the
emphasis placed on self-esteem in our society has led to an increase in narcissism scores of
47
college students. Researchers found that 65% of recent college students scored higher in
narcissism than previous generations of students (Twenge et al., 2008). Finally, self-esteem may
be linked to inflated self-views, which could be problematic when it is contingent on a particular
outcome (Crocker et al., 2003).
Harter (1999) found that global self-esteem is shaped by evaluations of self-worth in
domains such as appearance, social approval, and academic/work performance. This means that
other potentially important life successes may be neglected in order to maintain high self-esteem.
It also means that one’s self-esteem is contingent upon recent successes and failures. Kernis
(2005) found that this contingent self-esteem makes people more vulnerable to depression and
reduced self-concept clarity. Further exemplifying this finding, the following section addresses
the link between body image and self-esteem and how this may be harmful to the individual.
Body image and self-esteem. Usmiani and Daniluk (1997) argued that “body image is formed
to a degree as a function of the culturally defined images of desirable bodily appearances for men
and women” (p. 47) and that from this perspective “a girls’ self-esteem may be influenced by
the degree to which she believes she meets cultural standards” (p. 47). A woman’s sense of who
she is may be defined through conformity within a culture. Women in the United States may
form their identity using a Westernized notion of feminine stereotypes that depict how a woman
is expected to look and act (Grogan, 2008).
Discussing their self-esteem enhancement groups, Sanford and Donovan (1985) found
that nearly every woman in their self-esteem enhancement groups had a negative body image.
The group concluded that it is “difficult to dislike your body or a specific part of your body and
still like yourself,” (p. 369). It is hard to discuss self-esteem without also including body image.
48
For some women, a poor body image leads to low self-esteem and for others, a low self-esteem
lends itself to poor body image.
Sanford and Donovan (1985) argued that parents’ self-acceptance influences a child’s
self-perception. Parents acting as role models can often be just as negative of an influence as
they are a positive influence.
My mother was constantly concerned about her weight when I was a kid, and when I
reached puberty, she decided I looked “porky.” She dragged me to the gym with her,
which I hated, and we both went on the same diets, although I ate tremendous volumes at
school. I spent my allowance on hot lunches, in addition to eating the rabbit food she
sent along with me. She was always on me about how I looked, until I gave up and
withdrew. I stopped eating around her. This concerned her right away and she took me
to the doctor who told her I was the correct weight and that all my bulges were just
normal. After that, she left me alone (p. 369).
The researchers speculated that if the mother had a more positive self-concept, she may have
recognized that her daughter did not have a weight problem. If, in reality, the daughter did have
a weight problem, the mother could have demonstrated some reasonable and safe ways to
manage her weight.
Sanford and Donovan (1985) also argued that while some women do not see themselves
in an entirely negative light, they may still lack self-esteem. They may be well aware of their
good qualities, but have a hard time understanding that their good qualities matter as much as
their negative qualities or flaws. “‘Oh, I know I’ve got a nice face, that I’m pretty bright, a good
49
teacher, a kind person and all that,’ a woman might say. ‘But,’ she is quick to add, ‘I should lose
ten pounds,’”(p. 16).
Recent research suggests that self-compassion is more predictive of healthy self-related
functioning than is self-esteem (Neff & Vonk, 2006). Measures of self-compassion and global
self-esteem, as well as a number of self-related processes known to be maladaptive: self-esteem
instability and contingency, social comparison, narcissism, reactive anger, public self-
consciousness, and self-rumination were completed by the research participants. The researchers
found, after accounting for variance in outcomes attributable to self-esteem, self-compassion
predicted significant additional variance for self-esteem instability, self-esteem contingency,
social comparison, reactive anger, public self-consciousness, and self-rumination. Moreover, in
almost every case, self-compassion was a much stronger negative predictor of these outcomes
than was self-esteem.
Neff, Kirkpatrick, and Rude (2007) examined the relationship of self-compassion to
psychological health. Ninety-one undergraduates completed measures on self-compassion, self-
esteem, negative affectivity, anxiety. They found that self-compassion, and not self-esteem,
buffered anxiety when participants were faced with an ego-threat in a laboratory setting.
Neff (2003a; 2009; 2011) argued that there is a way for us to feel good about ourselves
without the positive or negative self-judgment or evaluation commonly associated with self-
esteem. Her research on the construct of self-compassion found that it offers similar benefits to
self-esteem, but without the pitfalls. She found that self-compassion is equally relevant when
suffering occurs either through external circumstances or one’s personal inadequacies. Also,
Neff (2004) suggested that because self-compassion does not require people to adopt an
50
unrealistic view of the self, it should be easier to raise than self-esteem. The following section
addresses self-compassion in the current literature.
Self-Compassion in the Literature
Research has helped establish the advantageous nature of self-compassion. Thus far,
most of the research on self-compassion has been conducted using the Self-Compassion Scale
(Neff, 2003a), which measures the degree to which individuals display self-kindness versus self-
judgment, common humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over identification.
Utilizing this scale, higher levels of self-compassion have been associated with greater life-
disordered eating behaviors (Neff, 2009, for a review). Self-compassion recognizes that we all
have strengths and weaknesses and that we are “imperfect human beings” (Neff, 2011, p. 9).
Neff, Hsieh, and Dejitthirat, (2005) examined the link between self-compassion and
motivation among college students to determine whether self-compassion might be adaptive in
academic contexts. Using a sample size of 222 college students, the researchers found that self-
compassion was positively associated with mastery goals, which include the joy of learning for
its own sake, and negatively associated with performance goals, which involve defending or
enhancing one’s sense of self-worth through academic performances. These findings were
replicated (N= 110) with students who had recently failed a midterm examination and indicated
that self-compassionate students exhibited more adaptive ways of coping with failure.
51
In a similar study, Akin (2008) examined the relationship between self-compassion and
achievement goal orientation. Research participants included 646 university students in Turkey
who completed scales on self-compassion and achievement goal orientation. Results concluded
that self-compassion was positively related to learning approach and negatively related to
performance approach. Given the findings, the author called for educational settings to foster
self-compassion in students.
In a study designed to explore the relationships among self-compassion, positive
psychological functioning, and the Big Five personality traits in college students (N=177), Neff,
Rude, and Kirkpatrick (2007) found that self-compassion was associated with greater reflective
and affective wisdom, curiosity and exploration, happiness, optimism, positive affect,
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. It was found that self-compassion was
negatively associated with Neuroticism. They also found that self-compassion was linked to
personal initiative, which supports the notion that self-compassion leads to self-growth.
Neff and McGehee (2010) examined self-compassion among adolescents (N=235) and
young adults (N=287). Utilizing measures of self-compassion, depression, anxiety,
connectedness, maternal support, family functioning, attachment, and personal fable, the
researchers found that self-compassion was strongly associated with well-being for both age
groups. They also found that self-compassion contributed to well-being while controlling other
factors, suggesting that self-compassion’s mental health benefits were not confounded by family
influence or life stage. The authors argued that this finding may further support the notion that
self-passion can be enhanced with practice (Gilbert and Proctor, 2006).
52
Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, and Hancock (2007) utilized five separate studies that
investigated the cognitive and emotional processes by which self-compassionate people deal
with unpleasant life events. In the first study, 117 undergraduate students reported on negative
life events. Results showed that self-compassion predicted emotional and cognitive reactions to
negative events. The second study asked 123 undergraduate students to respond to hypothetical
scenarios which elicited feelings of loss, failure, and humiliation. The researchers found that
self-compassion buffered people against negative emotions self-feelings when imagining
distressing social events. In the third study, 66 undergraduate students disclosed personal
information to another individual and then received either positive or neutral feedback. Their
emotional reactions and judgments of the other person were then assessed. The results
concluded that self-compassion moderated negative emotions and receiving ambivalent feedback
and this was especially true for participants who scored low on self-esteem. The fourth study
videotaped 102 undergraduate students while they performed an awkward and mildly
embarrassing task. The videotapes were then either self-rated or rated by another participant.
The results showed that low-self-compassionate participants undervalued their own videotaped
performances relative to observers. The final study was designed to examine how self-
compassion moderates reactions to remembered life events and to examine if self-compassion
could be experimentally induced among the 115 undergraduate research participants. Results
showed that self-compassion allows individuals to acknowledge their role in negative events
without feeling overwhelmed with negative emotions and that self-compassion could be
experimentally induced.
53
Continuing the use of a self-compassion manipulation, Zabelina and Robinson (2010)
studied 86 undergraduate students to better understand the use of a self-compassion manipulation
as it relates to original creative thinking. The researchers found that self-judgmental individuals
displayed lower levels of creative originality in the control condition, but equal levels of creative
originality in the self-compassion manipulation condition. They also further exemplified the
positive outcome of a self-compassion induction.
Self-compassion and body image. A pilot study conducted by Gilbert and Irons in 2004
found that self-critical thoughts were linked to many different social situations. Prior to a
compassionate mind training technique, participants were asked to keep diaries to explore self-
critical themes. When the participants were asked to describe the situations or events that
elicited self-criticism, they identified being at the gym and body image-related situations, among
others. Thus, while self-compassion has been conceptualized as a construct related to the overall
self, it could also be more relevant to specific self-perceptions of the physical self.
Investigating the outcome of inducing a state of self-compassion on restrained eating,
Leary and Adams (2007) asked 84 female undergraduate students to complete the Revised Rigid
Restraint Scale, designed by the researchers. They were then randomly assigned to one of the
experimental condition: preload/self-compassion condition, preload/no self-compassion
condition, or no preload/control condition. The preload consisted of a set amount of food and
then all participants performed a bogus taste test to measure eating behavior and completed a
self-evaluation. The researchers found that highly restrictive eaters felt worse after eating the
preload compared to the control condition, but those who completed the self-compassion
induction showed lower negative affect and reduced self-criticism.
54
Magnus et al., (2010) found that self-compassion was positively related to intrinsic
motivation and negatively related to external and introjected motivation, ego goal orientation,
social physique anxiety and exercising in ways that are harmful to the self. They found that self-
compassion may foster a healthy attitude towards the self and identified the need for physical
self-compassion as a potential construct for future exploration.
Furthering this idea, Berry, Kowalski, Ferguson, and McHugh (2010) proposed that body
self-compassion could be a sub-domain of global self-compassion. Using Neff’s (2003)
research, they defined body self-compassion as “a kind, understanding and non-judgmental
attitude individuals extend toward their body in response to their perceived physical
imperfections, limitations and failures” (p. 295). Using this new construct, the researchers
interviewed five young adult women using an empirical phenomenological method. Three
essential themes emerged as the women experienced more body self-compassion: appreciating
one’s unique body, taking ownership of one’s body and engaging in less social comparison.
These findings suggest the benefits of increasing body self-compassion.
Conclusion and Research Questions
Sexual objectification is harmful to women’s psychosocial health and is a social justice
issue. This form of oppression leads to increased body surveillance, body shame and decreased
self-esteem. Szymanski and Carr (2011) called for social justice initiatives surrounding
empowerment of female clients and Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested the need for further
research about women who objectify other women.
al., 2003; Harter, 1999; Twenge et al., 2008) have opened the doors to a new conceptualization
55
of a healthy attitude and relationship to oneself in the construct of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a).
Given the recent research on self-compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011) and the new construct of
experimentally induced (Leary & Adams, 2007; Leary at al., 2007; Zabelina & Robinson, 2010).
Based on this review of the literature, it was evident that there was a gap in the literature
with respect to this extension of a self-compassion induction based on objectification. Therefore,
this was the focus of my project. My research questions were:
56
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Sexual objectification has been found to be harmful to women’s psychosocial health, as
this form of oppression leads to increased body surveillance, body shame and decreased self-
esteem. The concept of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a), and more specifically, the new concept
of body or physical self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively), has
been found to mitigate this objectification. Szymanski and Carr (2011) called for social justice
initiatives surrounding empowerment of female clients and Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested
the need for further research about women who objectify other women.
This chapter examines the methodology that was used to address this gap in the research
literature. Utilizing an experimental design, this study examined the effects of a self-compassion
induction on both self-objectification and objectification of other women. Research participants
completed the Self-Objectification Scale (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of this
scale to address objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965) and a demographics questionnaire developed by the researcher.
Participants
Women in undergraduate psychology classes at a mid-sized state university and two
undergraduate, online health classes at a large state university were recruited to participate in this
study. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained for this study and all participants
provided their informed consent prior to participation. All psychology undergraduate students at
the mid-sized university have access to a research participant scheduling system (SONA),
through which they can register to participate in university research studies. The SONA website
57
will direct participants to complete a series of surveys using Qualtrics survey software. Female
students in the two online, undergraduate health classes at the large university were also
recruited to participate in this research through email. The professor of the class forwarded the
email containing a link to the Qualtrics survey software website to all students in her class. As
an incentive for participating, research participants from the large university were entered into a
drawing to receive an Amazon.com gift card.
Data was collected at the end of the Fall semester and beginning of the Spring semester.
Participants in this study consisted of undergraduate women from one mid-sized state university
and one large state university in the Southeastern United States. There were initially 584
participants in this research study; however, participants who had missing responses or
incomplete answers were removed during data cleaning. Following data cleaning, 382 women
from the mid-sized university and 28 women from the large university remained in the research
sample. The end result was a sample of 410 undergraduate women who completed this research
study. Of those, 220 were randomly assigned to the control group and 190 were randomly
assigned to the self-compassion induction group. See Chapter 4 for a more detailed description
of the research participants.
Instruments
Four instruments were used in this study. The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll &
Fredrickson, 1998) is a ten-item rank order survey used to assess importance of different body
attributes (Appendix A). A modified version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire was used
to assess objectification of other women (Appendix B). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
58
(Rosenberg, 1965) is a ten-item Likert scale used to assess general self-esteem (Appendix C).
Finally, a demographics questionnaire was completed by each participant (Appendix D).
Self-Objectification Questionnaire
The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) consisted of ten rank-
ordered items. Each item identifies a different body attribute and participants ranked them from
1 (least important) to 10 (most important) with respect to their physical self-perception. Five of
the items were competence-based (strength, physical coordination, energy level, health and
physical fitness) and five were appearance-based (weight, sex appeal, physical attractiveness,
firm/sculpted muscles and body measurements). Scores may range from -25 to 25, with higher
scores indicating higher levels of self-objectification.
Given the scoring system for the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, the ipsative, ordinal
nature of rank-ordered data, traditional internal consistency estimates cannot be given
(Vanleeuwen & Mandabach, 2002). Reliability is thus determined by correlating the sum of the
appearance ranks and the sum of the competence ranks (Hill & Fischer, 2008). If participants
rank the appearance-based attributes as more important, then the competence-based attributes
must be ranked as less important which creates a negative correlation between the two sets of
attributes. In a study by Colagero and Jost (2011), a strong negative correlation was
demonstrated between appearance and competence rankings, indicating good reliability (r = -
.88). A similar study by Hill and Fischer (2008) also found good reliability (r = -.81). Using a
sample of undergraduate women, Noll (1996) demonstrated construct validity of the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire showing that it positively correlated (r = .52, p<.01) with scores on
the Appearance Anxiety Questionnaire (Dion, Dion, & Keelan, 1990).
59
Objectification of Others Questionnaire
Objectification of other women was measured using a modified version of the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), consistent with a study conducted by
Strelan and Hargreaves (2005). The instructions for the questionnaire read “This section is
concerned with how women think about other women’s bodies. Listed below are ten different
body attributes. When you think about, or look at other women, which of these body attributes
are most important? Please rank the attributes in order from 1 (least important) to 10 (most
important) in other women.” The participants were then presented with the same ten attributes
listed on the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) and the modified
version of the scale was scored in the same way, with possible scores ranging from -25 to 25.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a ten-item self-report scale that measures global self-
esteem. Ten questionnaires were asked on the scale, half of which are phrased as positive
statements and the other half phrased as negative statements of self. Answers were based on a
four point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree (Rosenberg, 1965). An
overall score of self-esteem was calculated by averaging participants’ scores across items, with a
high score indicating a high level of overall self-esteem.
A review of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale showed good internal reliability, with
Cronbach’s alpha levels ranging from .72 to .87 and test-retest reliability ranging from .85 to .88.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has also been found to relate to other measures of self-esteem,
such as the Coopersmith’s Self-Esteem Inventory (Wylie, 1989). The Rosenberg scale has been
used for a wide variety of populations and is a widely utilized self-esteem scale in research
60
studies (Brown, 2008; Forbes, Jobe, & Richardson, 2006; Hahn-Smith & Smith, 2001; Hatcher,
2007; Mercurio & Landry, 2008).
Demographics
The demographic questionnaire was designed by this researcher and was used to obtain
biographical information about the research participants. It included questions pertaining to age,
ethnicity, class year, weight, height and history of an eating disorder. Each participant’s reported
height and weight was used to calculate a Body Mass Index (BMI). Engel (n.d.) stated the
formula used for this calculation:
BMI = ( _________Weight in Pounds_________ ) x 703

(Height in inches) x (Height in inches)
Procedure
Similar to Leary et al.’s (2007) Study 5, participants wrote about a negative event from
their past and answer questions about it. After viewing an informed consent document
(Appendix E& F) and clicking a box indicating consent, participants were asked to think about a
negative event they experienced in high school or college that made them feel badly about their
bodies – something that involved failure, humiliation or rejection. Participants were then asked
to describe the event by including details regarding what led to the event, who was present, what
happened during the event, and how they felt and behaved at the time (Appendix G). After
writing about the event, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a) self-
compassion induction or 2) control group.
Self-Compassion Induction
Participants in the self-compassion condition (Appendix H) responded to three prompts
which instructed them to consider their negative event in a self-compassion manner (Neff,
61
2003a). The first prompt, designed to focus on the common humanity element of self-
compassion, asked participants to list ways in which other women have experienced a similar
event. The second prompt, designed to focus on self-kindness, asked participants to write how
they would express understanding, kindness and concern to themselves in the same way they
might express concern to a friend who had lived the same experience. The final prompt asked
participants to describe their feelings about the event in an objective and unemotional way,
which was designed to induce a mindful perspective on the event.
Control Group
Participants in the control condition also responded to three prompts to make the control
condition as similar to the self-compassion condition as possible (Appendix I). The first prompt
asked participants to describe the factors they considered in their college choice. The second
prompt asked participants to describe their favorite college class. The final prompt asked
participants to write about their least favorite college class. The prompts were designed to be
neutral, so as to not further induce negative or positive feelings regarding body image.
Following the writing prompts, all participants completed the Self-Objectification
Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of the Self-Objectification
Questionnaire used to determine objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and the demographics questionnaire.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using SPSS for Windows 18.0. Descriptive statistics were reported
for age, year in college, ethnicity, eating disorder history and BMI. Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there was a difference of scores for self-objectification
62
and objectification of other women between the two groups. Given the results found by Tylka
and Sabik (2010), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used to find the unique contribution of
the self-compassion induction beyond what is accounted for by self-esteem.
Hypotheses
Utilizing Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), the current literature on
self-compassion ((Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011), the new concept of body or physical self-
compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively), and body image (Demarest &
Allen, 2000; Fallon & Rozin, 1985; Frederick, Peplau, & Lever, 2006; Sanford & Donovan,
1985; Usmiani & Daniluk, 1997), two hypotheses existed for this research.
and therefore, women with higher levels self-compassion will be less likely to self-objectify.
Women objectify other women (Bearman, Korobov, & Thorne, 2009; Strelan &
Hargreaves, 2005). This objectification of other women may take the form of comments or
suggestions, glances, and other behaviors that communicate the thin-ideal to which women
should conform (Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr, 2011). In a 2010 study by Tylka and Sabik, the
researchers found that women who are focused on their own bodies are more attentive to the
appearance of other women’s bodies. This body comparison may act as a feedback loop to their
own body, perpetuating heightened body surveillance and objectification of other women’s
bodies. Given the research on the positive outcomes of increasing one’s self-compassion (Neff,
63
2003a; 2009, 2011), especially related to body self-kindness (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al.,
2010), one can hypothesize that a self-compassion induction will not only lead to less self-
objectification but also less objectification of other women.
Thus, it was hypothesized that:
H1: Women who complete a self-compassion induction will show lower scores on the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire, as compared to the control group.
H2: Women who complete a self-compassion induction will show lower scores on the modified
version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, measuring objectification of other women, as
compared to the control group.
Conclusion
Previous research has illuminated the positive influence of increased body self-
compassion (Berry et al., 2010), but the literature has not incorporated a body self-compassion
induction to assess its effects on women who experience self-objectification and women who
objectify other women. There has been a call for social justice initiatives surrounding
empowerment of female clients (Szymanski & Carr, 2011) and there is a need for further
research about the factors that lead to objectification of other women (Szymanksi et al., 2011).
This chapter examined the methodology that was used to complete this research study. Utilizing
experimental and control groups, self-objectification and objectification of other women were
examined in this study. Research participants from Radford University and Virginia Tech
completed the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version
of this questionnaire to address objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965) and a demographics questionnaire developed by the researcher. The data
64
were then analyzed to assess the effects of a self-compassion induction on self-objectification
and objectification of other women.
65
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of this research study was to examine the influence of a body self-
compassion induction on college-aged women. Research participants completed a writing
prompt about a negative body image experience and were then randomly assigned to either a
self-compassion induction or control group. The self-compassion induction group answered
three writing prompts meant to mimic the three components of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a),
while the control group answered three writing prompts related to college choice. Following the
writing prompts, all research participants completed the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll
& Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of this questionnaire to address objectification of other
women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and a demographics questionnaire
developed by the researcher. The data were then analyzed to assess the effects of a self-
compassion induction on self-objectification and objectification of other women.
Description of the Sample
Participants in this study consisted of undergraduate women from a mid-sized state
university and a large state university. All psychology undergraduate students at the mid-sized
state university had access to a research participant scheduling system (SONA), through which
they may register to participate in university research studies. The SONA website directed
participants to complete the research using Qualtrics survey software. A total of 499 students
from this university participated in the research.
Female students in two online, undergraduate health classes at a large state university
were recruited, through email, to participate in this research. The researcher sent an email to the
66
professor of the classes and she distributed it to students. The email contained a link to the
Qualtrics survey software website. A total of 85 students from the large state university
participated in the research.
There were initially 584 participants in this research study. Participants who had
missing responses or incomplete answers were removed during data cleaning. Following data
cleaning, 382 women from the mid-sized university and 28 women from the large state
university remained in the research sample. The end result was a sample of 410 undergraduate
women who completed this research study. Of those, 220 were randomly assigned to the control
group and 190 were randomly assigned to the self-compassion induction group. The following
section details this sample.
Sample Demographics
Age, year in college, ethnicity, eating disorder history and BMI were reported using a
demographic survey. Ranges, means and standard deviations are reported for the age and BMI
variables. Frequencies and percentages are reported for the variables of year in college,
ethnicity and eating disorder history. Scores on the three measures: Self-Objectification
Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of this questionnaire to address
objectification of other women and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) are also
reported as frequencies and percentages.
Age, at the time of the study, was reported using the demographic survey. The ages of
the research participants ranged from 18 to 50 years (M=19.30; SD= 2.22). Forty-three percent
of the research participants identified themselves as 18 years of age.
67
Research participants also reported their year in college, at the time of participation.
Two-hundred and twenty-five participants (54.9%) identified themselves as freshman, 81
(19.8%) identified themselves as sophomores, 50 (12.2%) identified themselves as juniors, and
54 (13.2%) identified themselves as seniors.
Ethnicity was also reported using the demographic survey. Three hundred and thirty-six
students (82%) self-identified as Caucasian, three (0.7%) self-identified as Native
American/American Indian, 42 (10.2%) self-identified as African American, three (0.7%) self-
identified as Pacific Islander, five (1.2%) self-identified as Asian, 11 (2.7%) self-identified as
multi-ethnic, and 10 (2.4%) self-identified as “other.”
Research participants were also asked if they had ever been diagnosed with an eating
disorder by a medical or mental health professional. Ten participants (2.4%) responded that
they had been diagnosed with an eating disorder, while 400 (97.6%) responded that they had
never been diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Each participant’s reported height and weight were used to calculate a BMI.
BMI ranged from 15.66 to 40.35, with a mean of 23.40 and a standard deviation of 4.11. Weight
status descriptors from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) were used. BMI
below 18.5 is considered underweight; BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered normal weight;
BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 is considered overweight; and BMI above 30.0 is considered obese.
See Table 4.1 for details of sample demographics
68
Table 4.1
Demographic Information of Participants
Variable N Percentage
Age
18 175 42.7
19 108 26.3
20 52 12.7
21 44 10.7
22 17 4.1
23 and older 14 3.5
Ethnicity
Caucasian 336 82.0
African American 42 10.2
Asian 5 1.2
Native American/ 3 0.7
American Indian
Pacific Islander 3 0.7
Multi-Ethnic 11 2.7
Other 10 2.4
Year in School
Freshman 225 54.9
Sophomore 81 19.8
Junior 50 12.2
Senior 54 13.2
Body Mass Index (BMI)

Underweight 20 4.9
Normal Weight 275 67.1
Overweight 85 20.7
Obese 30 7.3
Eating Disorder History

Eating Disorder Diagnosis 10 2.4
No Diagnosis 400 97.6
69
Survey Results
Rosenberg self-esteem scale. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a ten-item self-report
scale that measures global self-esteem. Ten questions are asked on the scale, half of which are
phrased as positive statements and the other half phrased as negative statements of self.
Responses are based on a four point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores range from 0 (lowest possible self-esteem)
to 30 (highest possible self-esteem) (Rosenberg, 1965). An overall score of self-esteem was
calculated by averaging participant’s scores across items. Self-esteem scores ranged from 4 to
30, with a mean score of 20.05 and a standard deviation of 4.94.
Self-objectification questionnaire. The Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll &
Fredrickson, 1998) consists of ten rank ordered items. Each item identifies a different body
attribute and participants rank them from 1 (least important) to 10 (most important) with respect
to their physical self-perception. Five of the items are competence-based (strength, physical
coordination, energy level, health and physical fitness) and five are appearance-based (weight,
sex appeal, physical attractiveness, firm/sculpted muscles and body measurements). Scores
ranged from -25 to 25, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-objectification. Self-
Objectification Questionnaire scores ranged from -25 to 25, with a mean of 3.16 and a standard
deviation of 12.79.
Objectification of others. Objectification of other women was measured using a
modified version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998),
consistent with a study conducted by Strelan and Hargreaves (2005). The instructions for the
questionnaire read “This section is concerned with how women think about other women’s
70
bodies. Listed below are ten different body attributes. When you think about, or look at other
women, which of these body attributes are most important? Please rank the attributes in order
from 1 (least important) to 10 (most important) in other women.” The participants were
presented with the same ten attributes listed on the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll &
Fredrickson, 1998) and the modified version of the scale was scored in the same way, with
scores ranging from -25 to 25. Higher scores indicated higher levels of objectification. Other-
Objectification Questionnaire scores ranged from -25 to 25, with a mean of 9.32 and a standard
deviation of 13.41. See Table 4.2 for survey results. It is interesting to note that the mean score
for objectification of other women was significantly higher than the mean score for self-
objectification, (F(1, 409) = 69.04, p< .001).
71
Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics of Measures

Measure N Mean SD Range Min Max
Self 410 3.16 12.79 50.00 -25.00 25.00

Other 410 9.32 13.41 50.00 -25.00 25.00
Rosenberg 410 20.05 4.94 26.00 4.00 30.00
72
Statistical Tests of Research Questions
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the self-compassion induction
and control groups differed significantly in mean levels of both self- and other-objectification.
Given the results found by Tylka and Sabik (2010), multiple regression was used to determine
whether the self- or other-objectification variables contributed significant unique proportions of
variability beyond that accounted for by the scores from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. All
analyses were run using SPSS for Windows 18.0.
Research Question One
objectification of women. ANOVA was used to assess this effect and results concluded that the
effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not statistically significant (p=.572).
See Table 4.3 for details.
73
Table 4.3
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification Scores (N = 410).
Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig
Corrected Model 52.445a 1 52.445 .320 .572
Intercept 4001.089 1 4001.089 24.400 .000
Group 52.445 1 52.445 .320 .572
Error 66902.250 408 163.976
Total 71045.000 410
Corrected Total 66954.695 409
a. R Squared = .001 (Adjusted R Squared = -.002)
74
Research Question Two
women objectify other women. ANOVA was used to assess this effect and results concluded
that the effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not statistically significant
(p=.478). See Table 4.4 for details.
75
Table 4.4
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Other-Objectification Scores (N = 410).
Type III Sum

Intercept 35138.700 1 35138.700 195.109 .000
Group 90.856 1 90.856 .504 .478
Error 73479.924 408 180.098
Total 109162.000 410
76
Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion
Multiple regression was used to determine whether the self- or other-objectification variables
contributed significant unique proportions of variability beyond that accounted for by the scores
from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Scores from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were
entered into Step 1 and group membership was entered into Step 2. Results concluded that the
self-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem (R2 Change < .001, F(1,
407) = .03, p=.86). See Table 4.5 for details. Results also concluded that the Self-compassion
induction did not account for a significant proportion of variability in scores for other-
objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem (R2 Change = .001, F(1, 407) =
.29, p=.59). See Table 4.6 for details.
77
Table 4.5
Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Self-Objectification (N = 410).
Independent df F R2 Change p
Variables
Step 1 Self-Esteem 408 21.168 .049 .000
Step 2 Group 407 .029 .000 .864
Note. * = p< 0.05
78
Table 4.6
Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Other-Objectification (N = 410).
Variables
Step 1 Self-Esteem 408 3.915 .010 .049
Step 2 Group 407 .290 .001 .590
Note. * = p< 0.05
79
Post-Hoc Analyses
Previous research has focused on the differences between college students who
participate in research early in the semester versus late in the semester. Early semester
participants have been found to be more socially responsible (Holden & Reddon, 1987), more
intrinsically motivated (Hom, 1987), more compliant (Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne, 1981), more
academically and achievement oriented with higher ACT and GPA scores, and to possess a more
internal academic locus of control (Evans & Donnerstein, 1974). Given these differences in
motivation and personality attributes, a post-hoc analysis combining data from early semester
participants from Radford University and the sample from Virginia Tech, because they were not
participating for credit, was conducted. The control group had 89 participants and the self-
compassion induction had 83 participants. The total number of participants in this post-hoc
analysis was 172. See Table 4.7 for sample demographics of the post-hoc sample.
80
Table 4.7
Demographic Information of Post-Hoc Participants
Variable N Percentage
Age
18 73 42.4
19 46 26.7
20 24 14.0
21 16 9.3
22 8 4.7
23 and older 5 2.9
Ethnicity
Caucasian 144 83.7
African American 12 7.0
Asian 5 2.9
Native American/ 2 1.2
American Indian
Pacific Islander 1 0.6
Multi-Ethnic 4 2.3
Other 4 2.3
Year in School
Freshman 101 58.7
Sophomore 29 16.9
Junior 23 13.4
Senior 19 11.0
Body Mass Index (BMI)

Underweight 9 5.2
Normal Weight 123 71.5
Overweight 28 16.3
Obese 12 7.0
Eating Disorder History

Eating Disorder Diagnosis 4 2.3
No Diagnosis 168 97.7
81
objectification of women. ANOVA was used to assess this effect and results concluded that the
effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not significant (p=.145). See Table
4.8 for details.
82
Table 4.8
Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification Scores (N = 172).
Type III Sum

Corrected Model 335.877a 1 335.877 2.149 .145
Intercept 630.877 1 630.877 4.036 .046
Group 335.877 1 335.877 2.149 .145
Error 26571.914 170 156.305
Total 27572.000 172
a. R Squared = .012 (Adjusted R Squared = .007)
83
women objectify other women. ANOVA was used to assess this effect and results concluded
that the effect of the group membership (induction vs. control) was not significant (p= .461). See
Table 4.9 for details.
84
Table 4.9
Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification Scores (N = 172).
Type III Sum

Intercept 14409.975 1 14409.975 74.395 .000
Group 105.906 1 105.906 .547 .461
Error 32928.141 170 193.695
Total 47548.000 172
85
Self-Esteem
A post-hoc analysis found significant differences among self-esteem scores between the
self-compassion induction and control groups (p = .031, R2 Change = .027). Self-esteem scores
for the self-compassion induction group were significantly different from and higher than the
self-esteem scores for the control group.
Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion
Scores from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were entered into step 1 and group membership
was entered into step 2. Results concluded that the self-compassion induction did not account
for a significant proportion of variability in scores for self-objectification beyond that already
accounted for by self-esteem (R2 Change = .005, F(1, 169) = .94, p=.33). See Table 4.10 for
details. The self-compassion induction also did not account for a significant proportion of
(R2 Change = .002, F(1, 169) = .34, p = .56). See Table 4.11 for details.
86
Table 4.10
Post-Hoc Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Self-Objectification (N = 172).
Variables
Step 1 Self-Esteem 170 11.029 .061 .001
Step 2 Group 169 .943 .005 .333
Note. * = p< 0.05
87
Table 4.11
Post-Hoc Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Other-Objectification (N = 172).
Variables
Step 1 Self-Esteem 170 .957 .006 .329
Step 2 Group 169 .334 .002 .558
Note. * = p< 0.05
88
Conclusion
This chapter presented the sample demographics and documented the survey results for
the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of this
questionnaire that addressed objectification of other women and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). This chapter then reported the tests of a priori research questions of
the effects of a self-compassion induction on both self- and other-objectification. There were no
significant findings for the two research questions. The chapter concluded with post-hoc
analyses, in which there was no significant effect for either research question; however, there
was a significant difference in self-esteem scores between the two groups.
89
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides the discussion and conclusion for this research study. The purpose
of this chapter is to relate the findings of this research study to the research findings in the
current literature and to provide a direction for future research. This chapter begins with a
summary and discussion of this study and ends with conclusions that may be drawn from the
research.
Research Summary
The purpose of this research study was to examine the impact of a self-compassion
induction on the self-objectification of women and how women objectify other women. Sexual
objectification has been found to be harmful to women’s psychosocial health, as this form of
oppression leads to increased body surveillance, body shame and decreased self-esteem. The
concept of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a), and more specifically, the new concept of body or
physical self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively), was found to
mitigate this objectification. Szymanski and Carr (2011) called for social justice initiatives
surrounding empowerment of female clients and Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested the need for
further research about women who objectify other women.
Utilizing an experimental design, undergraduate women from Radford University and
Virginia Tech completed a writing prompt related to a negative body image experience. The
participants were then randomly assigned to either a self-compassion induction or a control
group. The self-compassion induction group responded to three writing prompts meant to
mimic the three components of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a), while the control group answered
90
three writing prompts related to college choice. All participants then completed the Self-
Objectification Scale (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), a modified version of this scale to address
objectification of other women, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and a
demographics questionnaire developed by the researcher. Objectification theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997) provided the theoretical framework for this research.
This research study was directed by two research questions:
Discussion of the Results
This section will address the findings for the two research questions, as well as the
findings for the unique contribution of self-compassion beyond what can be accounted for by
self-esteem. It will also address the findings from the post-hoc analyses and discuss why such
analyses were conducted.
Research question one sought to identify how a self-compassion induction would affect
self-objectification. It was hypothesized that women who completed a self-compassion
induction would show lower scores on the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, as compared to the
control group. This research study found no significant difference among self-objectification
scores between the self-compassion and control groups.
91
and therefore, women with higher levels of self-compassion would be less likely to self-
objectify. It may be the case that this new concept of body or physical self-compassion (Berry
et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) cannot be raised using a traditional self-
compassion induction. It may also be the case that the online data collection method, used by
the researcher, did not result in a true self-compassion induction for all of the participants, as
some of them may not have adequately thought about their responses in a self-compassionate
manner.
These findings impact how future research should be conducted on this research topic.
Future research should restrict this methodology to in-person data collection to ensure that
participants are spending adequate amounts of time on the self-compassion writing prompts.
Future research should also include a manipulation check to assess if self-compassion was
significantly different between the induction and control groups following the writing prompts.
Research question two sought to identify how a self-compassion induction would affect
how women objectify other women. It was hypothesized that women who complete a self-
compassion induction would show lower scores in the modified version of the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire, as compared to the control group. This research study found that
the effect of group membership (self-compassion induction vs. control) was not significant with
respect to scores on the modified version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire. However, it
was found that the mean score for objectification of other women was higher than the mean score
92
for self-objectification for the total sample. This meant that women were objectifying other
women more than they were self-objectifying.
A 2010 study by Tylka and Sabik found that women who are focused on their own bodies
are more attentive to the appearance of other women’s bodies. This body comparison may act as
a feedback loop to their own body, perpetuating heightened body surveillance and objectification
of other women’s bodies. Given the research on the positive outcomes of increasing one’s self-
compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011), especially related to body self-kindness (Berry et al.,
2010; Magnus et al., 2010), it was hypothesized that a self-compassion induction would not only
lead to less self-objectification but also less objectification of other women. Similar to the
results from the first research question, it may be that this new concept of body or physical self-
compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010, respectively) cannot be raised using a
traditional self-compassion induction or that the online data collection method did not actually
raise self-compassion. If the self-compassion induction did not significantly impact self-
objectification, it would naturally be the case that it would not significantly impact the
The finding that women were objectifying other women more than they were self-
objectifying was consistent with the findings of Stelan and Hargreaves (2005). This may
indicate that women place more importance on the appearance of other women than they do on
their own appearance. Women are constantly bombarded with body image messages
emphasizing the thin-ideal (Waterhouse, 1997) and deflecting these messages onto others may
serve as a protective factor for women.
93
Similar to research question one, future research implications may be found for this
research question. Future research should restrict this methodology to in-person data collection
to ensure that participants are spending adequate amounts of time on the self-compassion writing
prompts, as one must increase self-compassion before we see compassion for other women.
significantly different between the induction and control groups. Again, if women are not
experiencing higher levels of self-compassion, we know that they will not experience higher
levels of compassion for other women (Tylka & Sabik, 2010).
Unique Contribution of Self- Compassion
contribution of the self-compassion induction beyond what was accounted for by self-esteem. In
this research sample, no significant effect was found when controlling for self-esteem in self-
objectification or objectification of other women.
Similar to the findings above for the two research questions, we may hypothesize that this
new concept of body or physical self-compassion (Berry et al., 2010; Magnus et al., 2010,
respectively) cannot be raised using a traditional self-compassion induction or that the online
data collection method did not result in a true self-compassion induction for the participants. In
either case, self-compassion could not account for anything significant beyond what was already
accounted for by self-esteem.
Again, these findings impact how future research should be conducted on this research
topic. Future research should restrict this methodology to in-person data collection to ensure that
participants are spending adequate amounts of time on the self-compassion writing prompts.
94
significantly different between the induction and control groups.
Post-Hoc Analyses
This research study was conducted at the end of the Fall 2011 semester and the beginning
of the Spring 2012 semester. It was hypothesized that there may be differences in motivation and
personality factors between the students who completed the study at the end of the semester
versus the beginning of the semester. The literature points to differences which include: early
semester participants have been found to be more socially responsible (Holden &Reddon, 1987),
more intrinsically motivated (Hom, 1987), more compliant (Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne, 1981),
more academically and achievement oriented with higher ACT and GPA scores, and a more
internal academic locus of control (Evans &Donnerstein, 1974).
Because the students completing the study from the large state university did not have the
same class or extra credit motivation for completing the research as the students from mid-sized
state university, the large state university participants remained in the post-hoc sample. The
control group had 89 participants and the self-compassion induction had 83 participants. The
total number of participants in this post-hoc analysis was 172.
The same analyses for research questions one and two were run using this new sample.
Again, no significant differences were found between the self-compassion and control groups,
similar to the results using the full research sample. It is believed that the same reasons, as
previously described, can account for these findings.
Interestingly, a post-hoc analysis found significant differences among self-esteem scores
between the self-compassion induction and control groups. This meant that self-esteem scores
95
for the self-compassion induction group were significantly different and higher than the self-
esteem scores for the control group. Results were inconsistent with Neff’s (2004) suggestion
that because self-compassion does not require people to adopt an unrealistic view of the self, it
should be easier to raise than self-esteem. Given the emphasis that society has placed on raising
self-esteem (Twenge et al., 2008), it may have been the case that the college student sample was
primed to increase self-esteem more than they were self-compassion. It may also have been the
case that this research sample had higher levels of self-esteem prior to participation in this
research study, consistent with the personality and motivation factors previously discussed
(Evans & Donnerstein, 1974; Holden & Reddon, 1987; Hom, 1987; Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne,
1981). The initial writing prompt, which asked participants to write about a negative body image
experience, may have temporarily lowered self-esteem. Those women who participated in the
self-compassion induction may then have counterbalanced that lowering of self-esteem,
returning them to their normal level of self-esteem. Those women who participated in the
control group may not have returned to their normal levels of self-esteem, showing a significant
difference in levels of self-esteem between the two groups.
Limitations and Future Research
There were several major limitations to this research. First, while women from two
universities were represented in this study, the universities are still in the same geographic area
and the sample was comprised of only undergraduate women. Therefore, this study design did
not allow for an accurate representation of all women within the sampled age groups. Future
research should include research participants in a variety of urban and rural populations.
96
Another major limitation was that this study did not include a manipulation check
meaning that self-compassion was not measured following the self-compassion induction to see
if the induction actually increased self-compassion. The researcher chose to not include a self-
compassion questionnaire because of concern for the time requirements of participation in this
research. Future research should include either a pre- and post-induction evaluation of self-
compassion or at least measure the difference among self-compassion scores between the self-
compassion induction and the control group, regardless of the amount of time required to
complete the extra questionnaire.
Finally, it was hypothesized that the methodology used for data collection was not
adequate to induce self-compassion among all group participants. Due to the nature of online
data collection, some of the research participants in the self-compassion induction group may not
have spent enough time thinking about and then writing about the three components of self-
compassion (Neff, 2003a). This may have prevented a true self-compassion induction from
taking place. Future research should restrict this methodology to in-person data collection to
ensure that participants are spending adequate amounts of time on the self-compassion writing
prompts.
Conclusion
Sexual objectification is harmful to women’s psychosocial health. It leads to increased
body surveillance, body shame, and decreased self-esteem. For centuries, women’s worth has
been linked with physical attractiveness. Sexual objectification perpetuates social injustice,
depriving women of opportunities to feel comfortable in their bodies and to experience life
without the added strain of needing to monitor or enhance physical appearance. Szymanski and
97
Carr (2011) called for social justice initiatives surrounding empowerment of female clients and
Szymanksi et al. (2011) suggested the need for further research about women who objectify
other women.
al., 2003; Harter, 1999; Twenge et al., 2008) have opened the doors to a new concept of a
healthy attitude and relationship to oneself in the construct of self-compassion (Neff, 2003a).
Given the recent research on self-compassion (Neff, 2003a; 2009, 2011) and the new concept of
experimentally induced (Leary & Adams, 2007; Leary at al., 2007; Zabelina& Robinson, 2010).
98
The purpose of this research study was to examine the impact of a self-compassion
induction on the self-objectification of women and how women objectify other women. This
research study found that there was no significant difference between the self-compassion and
control groups with respect to self-objectification or objectification of other women. Post-hoc
analyses found similar findings with respect to the two research questions, but the smaller
research sample had significant differences among self-esteem scores between the self-
compassion induction and control groups.
This chapter discussed the two research questions, with an explanation of the research
findings. Post-hoc analyses were then discussed. Limitations of this research study were
identified and suggestions for future research were examined.
99
References
Adams, C. E., & Leary, M. R. (2007). Promoting self-compassionate attitudes toward
eating among restrictive and guilty eaters. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 26(10), 1120-1144. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.10.1120
American Psychological Association (2007). Guidelines for psychological practice with
girls and women. American Psychologist, 62, 949-979.
Archibald, A. B., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). Associations among parent-
adolescent relationships, pubertal growth, dieting, and body image in young
adolescent girls: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 9(4), 395-415. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0904_2
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., &Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high
self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or
healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest,4(1), 1–44.
doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., &Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103(1), 5-33. doi:10.1037/0033295X.103.1.5
Bearman, S., Korobov, N., & Thorne, A. (2009). The fabric of internalized sexism.
Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 1, 10-47.
100
Becker, A. (1994). Nurturing and Negligence: Working on Other’s Bodies in Fiji. In
T. Csordas (Ed.), Embodiment and experience. (pp. 100-115). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Becker, A. (2004). Television, disordered eating, and young women in Fiji: Negotiating
body image and identity during rapid social change. Culture, Medicine and
Psychiatry 28, 533-559. doi:10.1007/s11013-004-1067-5
Benedikt, R., Wertheim, E. H., & Love, A. (1998). Eating attitudes and weight-loss
attempts in female adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 27(1), 43-57. doi:10.1023/A:1022876715005
Berry, K., Kowalski, K. C., Ferguson, L. J., & McHugh, T. F. (2010). An empirical
phenomenology of younbg adult women exercisers’ body self-compassion. Qualitative
Research in Sport and Exercise, 2(3), 293-312. doi:10.1080/19398441.2010.517035
Birch, L. L., Fisher, J. O., Grimm-Thomas, K., Markey, C. N., Sawyer, R., & Johnson,
S. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Child Feeding Questionnaire:
A measure of parental attitudes, beliefs and practices about child feeding and
obesity proneness. Appetite, 36, 201-210. doi:10.1006/appe.2001.0398
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004).
Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 11, 191-206. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077
Block, K. & Block, J. H. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the
organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child
psychology (pp. 39-101). New York: Erlbaum.
101
Blythe, D. A., Simmon, R. G., &Zakin, D. F. (1985). Satisfaction with body image
for early adolescent females: The impact of pubertal timing within different
school environments. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 207-223.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family theory in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Brown, B. (1999). Soul without shame: A guide to liberating yourself from the judge
within. Boston: Shambala.
Bulik, C. M., Wade, T. D., Heath, A. C., Martin, N. G., Stunkard, A. J., Eaves, L. J.
(2001). Relating body mass index to figural stimuli: Population based normative
data for Caucasians. International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic
Disorders 25(10), 1517-1524. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801742
Calogero, R. M., &Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to
sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to
avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 211-228.
doi: 10.1037/a0021864
Cash, T. F. & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women’s body images: The results of a national
survey in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33(1/2), 19-28. doi:10.1007/BF01547933
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., &Janda, J. H. (1986). Body image survey report: The
great American shape-up. Psychology Today, April, 30-37.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Healthy weight- it’s not a diet, it’s a
lifestyle! Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
102
Childress, A. C., Brewerton, T. D., Hodges, E. L., & Jarrell, M. P. (1993). The Kids’
Eating Disorder Survey (KEDS): A study of middle school students. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 843-850.
doi:10.1097/00004583-199307000-00021
Chodorow, N. J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Citrin, L. B., Roberts, T. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004) Objectification theory and
emotion: A feminist psychological perspective on gendered affect. In L. Z.
Tiedens& C. W. Leach (Eds.) The social life of emotions (pp. 203-223).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, L. H., & Griffin, M. (2007). Becoming and being gendered through the body:
Older women, their mothers and body image. Ageing & Society, 27, 701-718.
doi:10.1017/S0144686X0700623X
Collins, M. E. (1991). Body figure perceptions and preferences among preadolescent
children. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10, 199–208.
doi:10.1002/1098-108X(199103)10:2<199::AID-EAT2260100209>3.0.CO;2-D
Cooley, E., Toray, T. (2001). Disordered eating in college freshman women: A
prospective study. Journal of American College Health, 49, 229-235.
doi:10.1080/07448480109596308
Cooley, E., Toray, T., Wang, M. C., & Valdez, N. N. (2008). Maternal effects on
daughters’ eating pathology and body image. Eating Behaviors, 9, 52-61.
doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007.03.001
103
Cooper, P., Taylor, M., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. (1987). The development and
validation of the Body Shape Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 6, 485-494. doi:10.1002/1098-108X(198707)6:4<485::AID-
EAT2260060405>3.0.CO;2-O
Costanzo, P. R. (1992) External socialization and the development of adaptive
individuation and social connection. In D. N. Ruble, P.R. Costanzo, & M. E.
Oliveri (Eds.) The social psychology of mental health (pp. 55-80). New York:
Guilford.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., &Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of
selfworth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological
Review, 108, 593-623. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.593
Davison, K. K., Markey, C. N., & Birch, L. L. (2000). Etiology of body
dissatisfaction and weight among 5-year-old girls. Appetite 35(2), 143-151.
doi:10.1006/appe.2000.0349
Demarest, J. & Allen, R. (2000). Body image: Gender, ethnic, and age differences. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 140(4), 465-472. doi:10.1080/00224540009600485
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 89-97.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
104
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., &Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance anxiety as a dimension
of social-evaluative anxiety: Exploring the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary
Social Psychology, 14, 220–225.
Engel, M. (n.d.) BMI formula. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from
http://www.epic4health.com/bmiformula.html.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Evans , R. Donnerstein , E. (1974). Some implications for psychological research of
early versus late term participation by college students. Journal of Research in
Personality, 8, 102-109.
Fallon, A. E., &Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in perception of desirable shape.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 102-105. doi:10.1037//0021-843X.94.1.102
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 522-527. doi:10.1037/h0076760
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Fisher, E. & Thompson, J. K. (1998). Social comparison and body image: An
investigation of body comparison processes using multidimensional scaling.
Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida.
105
Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., & Richardson, R. N. (2006). Associations between having
a boyfriend and the body satisfaction and self-esteem of college women: An
extension of the Lin and Kulik Hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology,
146(3), 381-384. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.3.381-384
Fraenkel, J. R. &Wallen, N. E., (2009). How to design and evaluate research in
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Francis, L. A. & Birch, L. L. (2005). Maternal influences on daughters’ restrained
eating behavior. Health Psychology, 24(6), 548-554. doi:10.1037/0278- 6133.24.6.548
Frederick, D. A., Peplau, L. A., & Lever, J. (2006). The swimsuit issue: Correlates of
body image in a sample of 52,677 heterosexual adults. Body Image, 3, 413-419.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.08.002
Fredrickson, B. L. & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Towards women’s
lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M. Quinn, D. M., &Twenge, J. M.
(1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification,
restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75,269-284. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.269
Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorders Inventory- 2. Odessa, FL: Psychology
Assessment Resources.
106
Garner, D. M., &Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the
symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 10, 647-656.
doi:10.1017/S0033291700030762
Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural
expectations of thinness in women. Psychological Reports, 47, 483-491.
doi:10.1017/S0033291700054945
Garner, D. M. & Olmsted, M. P. (1984). Manual for Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI).
Odessa, FL: Psychology Assessment Resources.
Garner, D. M., Olmsted, M. P., Bohr, Y., &Garfinkel, P. (1982). The Eating Attitudes
Test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12,
871-878. doi:10.1017/S0033291700049163
Greenleaf, C., &McGreer, R. (2006). Disordered eating attitudes and self-
objectification among physically active and sedentary female college students. The
Journal of Psychology, 2006, 140(3), 187–198. doi:10.3200/JRLP.140.3.187-198
Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high
shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. doi:10.1002/cpp.507
Grogan S. (2008). Body Image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and
children (second edition). New York: Routledge.
107
Hahn-Smith, A. M. and Smith, J. E. (2001). The positive influence of maternal
identification on body image, eating attitudes, and self-esteem of Hispanic and
Anglo girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29(4), 429-440.
doi:10.1002/eat.1039
Harper, B., &Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s
self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58, 649-657.
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9379-x
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hatcher, J. (2007). The state of measurement of self-esteem of African American
women. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 18(3), 224-232.
doi:10.1177/1043659607301299
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. doi:10.1521/jscp.1995.14.4.325
Heinberg, L., Thompson, J., &Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the
Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81-89. doi:10.1002/1098- 108X(199501)17:1<81::AID-
EAT2260170111>3.0.CO;2-Y
Heatherton, T. F., &Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for
measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
895-910. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.895
108
Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2008). Examining objectification theory: Lesbian and
heterosexual women’s experiences with sexual and self-objectification. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36, 745–776. doi:10.1177/0011000007301669
Holden , R. R. Reddon , R. R. (1987). Temporal personality variations among
participants from a university subject pool. Psychological Reports, 60, 1247-1254.
Hom , H. J. , Jr. (1987). A methodological note: time of participation effects on
intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 210-215.
Howard, J. A. & Hollander, J. (1997). Gendered situations, gendered selves.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hutchinson, M. (1982). Transforming body image. Women and Therapy, 1, 59-67.
Jhally, S. (2001). Killing us softly 3: Advertising’s image of women. Northampton,
MA: Media Education Foundation.
Kernis, M. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of
self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73, 1–37.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00359.x
Kerr, M. E. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen
theory. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
109
Killen, J. D., Taylor, C. B., Hayward, C., Wilson, D. M., Haydel, F., Hammer L. D.,
Simmonds, B., Robinson, T. N., Litt, I., Varady, A., & Kraemer, H. (1994).
Pursuit of thinness and onset of eating disorder symptoms in a community sample
of adolescent girls: A three-year prospective analysis. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 16(3), 227-238. doi:10.1002/1098-
108X(199411)16:3<227::AID-EAT2260160303>3.0.CO;2-L
Killen, J. D., Taylor, C. B., Hayward, C., Haydel, Wilson, D. M., F., Hammer L. D.,
Kraemer, H., Blair-Greiner, A., Strachowski, D. (1996). Weight concerns
influence the development of eating disorders: A 4-year prospective study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 936-940. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.64.5.936
Klemchuk, H. P., Hutchinson, C. B., & Frank, R. I. (1990). Body dissatisfaction and
eating-related problems on the college campus: Usefulness of the Eating Disorder
Inventory with a nonclinical population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37,
297-305. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.37.3.297
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self–
compassion and reactions to unpleasant self–relevant events: The implications of
treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 887–
904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887
Liechty, T., Freeman, P. A., &Zabriskie, R. B. (2006). Body image and beliefs about
appearance: Constraints on the leisure of college-age and middle-age women.
Leisure Sciences, 28, 311-330. doi:10.1080/01490400600745845
110
Magnus, C. M. R, Kowalski, K. C., & McHugh, T. F. (2010). The role of self-
compassion in women's self-determined motives to exercise and exercise-related
outcomes. Self and Identity 9(4), 363-382. doi:10.1080/15298860903135073
Maloney, M., J., McGuire, J., Daniels, S. R. (1988). Reliability testing of a children’s
version of the Eating Attitudes Test. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 541-543. doi:10.1097/00004583-198809000-00004
Maloney, M., J., McGuire, J., Daniels, S. R., &Specker, B. (1989). Dieting behavior
and eating attitudes in children. Pediatrics, 84, 482-487.
Marshall W. A., Tanner J. M. (1969) Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 44, 291–303. doi:10.1136/adc.44.235.291
Masling , J.,O'Neill , R. Jayne , C. (1981). Orality and latency of volunteering to serve
as experimental subjects. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 20-22.
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
Media. (2009). Dictionary.com. Lexico Publishing Group. Retrieved March 2, 2009,
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media
Mendelson, B. K., & White, D. R. (1982). Relation between body-esteem and self-
esteem of obese and normal children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 899-905.
Mercurio, A. E.&Landrey, 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
111
Mills, J. S., Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., &Tiggemann, M. (2002). Effects of exposure to
thin media images: Evidence of self-enhancement among restrained eaters.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687-1699.
doi:10.1177/014616702237650
Moradi, B., & Huang, Y., (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A
decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,
277-398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude
toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85-101. doi:10.1080/15298860309032
Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion.
Self and Identity, 2, 223-250. doi:10.1080/15298860309027
Neff, K. D. (2004). Self-compassion and psychological well-being. Constructivism in the
Human Sciences, 9, 27-37.
Neff, K. D. (in press). Self-compassion. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of
Individual Differences in Social Behavior. Guilford Press.
Neff, K. D. (2008). Self-compassion: Moving beyond the pitfalls of a separate self-
concept. In J. Bauer & H. A. Wayment (Eds.) Transcending Self-Interest:
Psychological Explorations of the Quiet Ego (pp. 95 – 106). APA Books,
Washington DC. doi:10.1037/11771-009
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality
Compass, 5, 1-12. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x
112
Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y., &Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and
coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263-287.
doi:10.1080/13576500444000317
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive
psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 139-154.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004
Neff, K. D. &McGeehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among
adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9, 225-240.
doi:10.1080/15298860902979307
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in
relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research
in Personality, 41, 908-916. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002
Neff, K. D., &Vonk, R. (2006). Self-compassion: A healthier alternative to high self-esteem.
Paper presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Baltimore.
Neff, K. D. &Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways
of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23-50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00537.x
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Bauer, K. W., Friend, S., Hannan, P. J., Story, M., & Berge, J. M.
(2010). Family weight talk and dieting: How much do they matter for body
dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors in adolescent girls? Journal of
Adolescent Health, 47, 270-276. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.02.001
113
NHLBI Expert Panel. (1998). Classification of overweight and obesity. Retrieved
from http://www.sparrow.org/weightmanagement/NHLBIguidelines.pdf
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
Park, J. & Beaudet, M. P. (2007). Eating attitudes and their correlates among Canadian
women concerned about their weight. European eating disorders review, 15,
311-320. doi:10.1002/erv.741
Pennebaker, J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K. (1990). Accelerating the coping process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 528–537. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.58.3.528
Perera, K. (n.d.) What is self-esteem? Retrieved March 2, 2009, from
http://www.more-selfesteem.com/whatisselfesteem.htm
Petersen, A. C., Schulenberg, J. E., Abramowitz, R. H., Offer, D., & Jarcho, H. D.
(1984). A self-image questionnaire for young adolescents (SIQYA): Reliability
and validity studies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 93-111
doi:10.1007/BF02089104
Piers, E. V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Reed, D. L., Thompson, J. K., Brannick, M. T., & Sacco, W. P. (1991). Development and
validation of the Physical Appearance State and Trait Anxiety Scale (PASTAS).
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 5, 323-332. doi:10.1016/0887-6185(91)90032-O
114
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rolnik, A., Engeln-Maddox, R., & Miller, S.A. (2010). Here’s looking at you: Self-
objectification, body image disturbance, and sorority rush. Sex Roles. 63, 6-17.
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9745-y
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sanford, L. T. & Donovan, M. E. (1985). Women & self-esteem: Understanding and
improving the way we think and feel about ourselves. Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania: R.R.
Donnelley & Sons Company.
Sanftner, J. L., Crowther, J. H., Crawford, P. A., & Watts, D. D. (1996). Maternal
influences (or lack thereof) on daughters’ eating attitudes and behaviors. Eating
Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 4(2), 147-159.
doi:10.1080/10640269608249182
Schulken, E. D., Pinciaro, P. J., Sawyer, R. G., Jensen, J. G., & Hoban, M. T.
(1997). Sorority women’s body size perceptions and their weight-related
attitudes and behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 46 (2), 69-
74. doi:10.1080/07448489709595590
Shisslak, C., Renger, R., Sharpe, T., Crago, M., McKnight, K., Gray, N., et al. (1999).
Development and evaluation of the McKnight Risk Factor Survey for assessing
potential risk and protective factors for disordered eating in preadolescent and
adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25(2), 195-214.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199903)25:2<195::AID-EAT9>3.0.CO;2-B
115
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1974) About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Smith, A., Rainie, L., &Zickuhr (2011). College students and technology. Retrieved
from the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-technology/Report.aspx
Spangler, D. L. &Stice, E. (2001). Validation of the beliefs about appearance scale.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 813-827. doi:10.1023/A:1012931709434
Strahan, E. J., Lafrance, A., Wilson, A. E., Ethier, N., Spencer, S. J., &Zanna, M. P.
(2008). Victoria’s dirty little secret: How sociocultural norms influence
adolescent girls and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(4),
288-301.
Stunkard, A. J., &Messick, S. (1985). The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure
dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
29,71-83.
Stunkard, A. J., Sorenson, T., &Schlusinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption
register for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R. L.
Sidman, & S. W. Matthysse (Eds.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric
disorders (pp. 115-120). New York: Raven Press.
Szymanski, D. M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Underscoring the need for social justice
initiatives concerning the sexual objectification of women. The Counseling
Psychologist, 39(1), 164-170. doi: 10.1177/0011000010384512
116
Szymanski, D. M., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification of women:
Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 6-38. doi:
10.1177/0011000010378402
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. doi:10.1080/10640269508250063
Thompson, M. A., & Gray, J. J. (1995). Development and validation of a new body-
image scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 258-269.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6402_6
Tiggemann, M. & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women:
The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243-253.
doi:10.1037//0012-1649.37.2.243
Tiggemann, M., &Slater,A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers
and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57–63. doi:10.1111/1471-
6402.00007
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008).
Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic
personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875-902. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00507.x
117
Tylka, T. L., &Sabik, N. J. (2010). Integrating Social Comparison Theory and self-
esteem within Objectification Theory to predict women’s disordered eating. Sex Roles,
63, 18-31. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9785-3
Usmiani, S. &Daniluk, J. (1997). Mothers and their adolescent daughters: Relationship
between self-esteem, gender role identity, and body image. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 26(1), 45-62. doi:10.10232/A:1024588112108
Van Strien, T., Fritjers, J. E., Bergers, G. P. A., &Defares, P. B. (1986). The Dutch
Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional,
and external eating behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 295-
315. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(198602)
Waterhouse, D. (1997). Like mother, like daughter: How women are influenced by their
mothers’ relationship with food- and how to break the pattern.. New York:
Hyperion.
Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wertheim, E. H., Martin, G., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Smart, D. (2002). Parent
influences in the transmission of eating and weight related values and behaviors.
Eating Disorders, 10, 321-331. doi: 10.1080/10640260214507
Westkott, M. (1986). The feminist legacy of Karen Horney. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
118
Zabelina, D. L., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). Don't be so hard on yourself: Self-
compassion facilitates creative originality among self-judgmental individuals.
Creativity Research Journal, 22(3),288-293. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.
503538
Zion, L. C. (1965). Body concept as it relates to self-concept. Research Quarterly,
36(4), 490-495.
119
APPENDIX A
The Self-Objectification Questionnaire
We are interested in how people think about their bodies. The questions below identify 10
different body attributes. We would like you to rank order these body attributes from that which
has the greatest impact on your physical self-concept (rank this a "9"), to that which has the least
impact on your physical self-concept(rank this a "0").
Note: It does not matter how you describe yourself in terms of each attribute. For example,
fitness level can have a great impact on your physical self-concept regardless of whether you
consider yourself to be physically fit, not physically fit, or any level in between.
Please first consider all attributes simultaneously, and record your rank ordering by writing the
ranks in the rightmost column.
IMPORTANT: Do Not Assign The Same Rank To More Than One Attribute!
9 = greatest impact
8 = next greatest impact
When considering your physical self-concept . . . 1 = next to least impact
0 = least impact
1 . . . .what rank do you assign to physical coordination? _____

2. . . .what rank do you assign to health? _____
3. . . .what rank do you assign to weight? _____
4. . . .what rank do you assign to strength? _____
5. . . .what rank do you assign to sex appeal? _____
6. . . .what rank do you assign to physical attractiveness? _____
7. . . .what rank do you assign to energy level (e.g., stamina)? _____
8. . . .what rank do you assign to firm/sculpted muscles? _____
9. . . .what rank do you assign to physical fitness level? _____
10. . . .what rank do you assign to measurements (e.g., chest, waist, hips)? _____
In administering the measure, the title is not included. Scores are obtained by separately
summing the ranks for appearance-based items (3, 5, 6, 8 and 10) and competence-based items
(1, 2, 4, 7 and 9), and then subtracting the sum of competence ranks from the sum of appearance
ranks. Scores may range from -25to 25, with higher scores indicating a greater emphasis on
appearance, interpreted as higher trait self-objectification.
Copyright 1998 by Barbara L. Fredrickson. Individuals who wish to reprint all or part of the
Self-Objectification Questionnaire should contact Barbara L. Fredrickson.
120
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M. Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That
swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269-284.
121
APPENDIX B
Objectification of Other Women
This section is concerned with how women think about other women’s bodies. Listed below are
ten different body attributes. When you think about, or look at other women, which of these
body attributes are most important? Please rank the attributes in order from 1 (least important)
to 10 (most important) in other women.
1 . . . .what rank do you assign to physical coordination? _____

2. . . .what rank do you assign to health? _____
3. . . .what rank do you assign to weight? _____
4. . . .what rank do you assign to strength? _____
5. . . .what rank do you assign to sex appeal? _____
6. . . .what rank do you assign to physical attractiveness? _____
7. . . .what rank do you assign to energy level (e.g., stamina)? _____
8. . . .what rank do you assign to firm/sculpted muscles? _____
9. . . .what rank do you assign to physical fitness level? _____
10. . . .what rank do you assign to measurements (e.g., chest, waist, hips)? _____
122
APPENDIX C
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Instructions: Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. If
you strongly agree, circle SA. If you agree with the statement, circle A. If you disagree, circle
D. If you strongly disagree, circle SD.
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. SA A D SD

2.* At times, I think I am no good at all. SA A D SD
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. SA A D SD
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. SA A D SD
5.* I feel I do not have much to be proud of. SA A D SD
6.* I certainly feel useless at times. SA A D SD
7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal SA A D SD
plane with others.
8.* I wish I could have more respect for myself. SA A D SD
9. * All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. SA A D SD
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. SA A D SD
Scoring: SA = 3, A = 2, D = 1, SD = 0. Items with an asterisk are reverse scored, that is, SA = 0,

A = 1, D = 2, SD = 3. Sum the scores for the 10 items. The higher the score, the higher one’s
self-esteem.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
123
APPENDIX D
Demographics Questionnaire
What is your age? ____________________
What is your ethnicity? (please circle one)
White/Caucasian Native American/American Indian Black/African American
Pacific Islander Asian Multi-ethnic Other (please describe): ___________
What is your weight? __________________lbs
What is your height? _____feet _____ inches
What is your class year? (please circle one)
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Have you ever been diagnosed with an eating disorder (anorexia or bulimia) by a mental health
professional or a physician? (please circle one)
Yes No
124
APPENDIX E
Informed Consent for Mid-Sized State University
You are being asked to participate in a study about objectification of women. Specifically, about
the way women self-objectify and objectify other women.
If you agree to participate, we ask that you complete all of the writing prompts and the survey
questions. All data will be presented anonymously in final form. Any information obtained in
connection with this study that can be linked to you will be kept confidential. The risks in
participating in this study are no greater than those experienced in everyday life. There are no
direct benefits to you from participating in this study other than reflecting on your self-
objectification and your objectification of other women.
Your decision whether to participate will not affect your future relations with Radford
University. If you decide to participate, you are free to discontinue participation at any time
without affecting such relationships.
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Alysia Hoover-Thompson
___[insert phone number]___ or Sarah Hastings ___[insert phone number]___.
This study was approved by the Radford University Committee for the Review of Human
Subjects Research. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject or
have complaints about this study, you should contact Dr. Dennis Grady, Dean, College of
Graduate and Professional Studies, Radford University,
dgrady4@radford.edu, 540-831-7163.
You will be offered a copy of this form to keep.
Thank You
You are making a decision whether to participate. Your signature indicates that you have read
the information provided above and have decided to participate. You may withdraw at any time
without prejudice after signing this form should you choose to discontinue participation in this
study.
_______________________________ ________________
Signature Date
_______________________________
Signature of Investigator
125
APPENDIX F
Informed Consent for Large State University
You are being asked to participate in a study about objectification of women. Specifically, about
the way women self-objectify and objectify other women.
If you agree to participate, we ask that you complete all of the writing prompts and the survey
questions. All data will be presented anonymously in final form. Any information obtained in
connection with this study that can be linked to you will be kept confidential. The risks in
participating in this study are no greater than those experienced in everyday life. By
participating in this study, you may reflect on your self-objectification and your objectification of
other women. You will also be entered into a drawing to receive one of two $25 Amazon.com
gift card.
Your decision whether to participate will not affect your future relations with Virginia Tech. If
you decide to participate, you are free to discontinue participation at any time without affecting
such relationships.
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Alysia Hoover-Thompson
___[insert phone number]___ or Sarah Hastings ___[insert phone number]___.
This study was approved by the Radford University Committee for the Review of Human
Subjects Research. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject or
have complaints about this study, you should contact Dr. Dennis Grady, Dean, College of
Graduate and Professional Studies, Radford University,
dgrady4@radford.edu, 540-831-7163.
You will be offered a copy of this form to keep.
Thank You
You are making a decision whether to participate. Your signature indicates that you have read
the information provided above and have decided to participate. You may withdraw at any time
without prejudice after signing this form should you choose to discontinue participation in this
study.
_______________________________ ________________
Signature Date
_______________________________
Signature of Investigator
126
APPENDIX G
Writing Prompt for All Participants
We would like you to think about a negative event that you experienced in high school or college
that made you feel badly about your body – something that involved failure, humiliation or
rejection. Please describe the event including details regarding what led to the event, who was
present, what happened during the event and how you felt and behaved at the time.
127
APPENDIX H
Self-Compassion Induction Writing Prompts
1. Do you know other women who experienced a similar event? What was their experience
like?
2. If your best friend came to you having experienced this event, what would you say to
comfort her?
3. Now we would like for you to rewrite the story of your event in an objective and
unemotional way.
128
APPENDIX I
Control Group Writing Prompts
1. We would like you to describe the factors that lead to your choice of college.
2. We would like you to describe your favorite class in high school or college.
3. We would like you to describe your least favorite class in high school or college.
129

Hoover ThompsonDissertation

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hoover ThompsonDissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hoover ThompsonDissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women Who Self-Objectify and Objectify Other Women:

The Role of Self-Compassion

Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Radford University

Dissertation Chair: Dr. Sarah L. Hastings

Copyright 2013, Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson

Sexual objectification is harmful to women’s psychosocial health, as this form of

compassion induction on both self-objectification and objectification of other women. Four

in self-objectification and objectification of other women between the self-compassion induction

or other-objectification beyond that already accounted for by self-esteem.

Alysia Ann Hoover-Thompson, Psy.D.

Chapter 1. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES.....................................................1

Importance of This Study…………………………………………. 1

Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem…………………..… 10

Body Image and Self-Esteem……………………. 12

Self-Compassion in the Literature………………………. 14

Self-Compassion and Body Image……………… 17

Limitations and Future Research………………………………... 29

Importance of this Study…………………………………………. 31

Definition of Body Image………………………………………… 39

Transmission of Body Image……………………………………. 40

Self-Compassion versus Self-Esteem……………………. 47

Body Image and Self-Esteem…………………….. 48

Self-Compassion in the Literature……………………….. 51

Conclusion and Research Questions……………………………… 55

Objectification of Others Questionnaire…………………. 60

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale… ………………………… 60

Description of the Sample……………………………………….. 66

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale……………………………. 70

Research Question One…………………………………. 73

Research Question Two…………………………………. 75

Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion………………. 77

Research Question One…………………………………. 78

Research Question Two………………………………… 84

Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion……………… 86

Discussion of the Results………………………………………. 91

Research Question One………………………………… 91

Research Question Two………………………………… 92

Unique Contribution of Self-Compassion……………… 94

Limitations and Future Research……………………………….. 96

Appendix A: The Self-Objectification Questionnaire…..……………… 120

Appendix B: Objectification of Other Women………………………… 122

Appendix D: Demographics Questionnaire……………………………... 124

Appendix E: Informed Consent for Mid-Sized State University…..……. 125

Appendix F: Informed Consent for Large State University……………. 126

Appendix G: Writing Prompt for All Participants………………………. 127

Appendix H: Self-Compassion Induction Writing Prompts…………….. 128

Appendix I: Control Group Writing Prompts…………………………….. 129

Table 4.1 – Demographic Information of Participants…………………………….. 69

Table 4.2 – Descriptive Statistics of Measures……………………………………. 72

Table 4.3 – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification Scores….. 74

Table 4.4 – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Other-Objectification Scores... 76

Table 4.5 – Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Self-

Table 4.6 – Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Other-

Table 4.7 – Demographic Information of Post-Hoc Participants………………….. 81

Table 4.8 – Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Self-Objectification

Table 4.9 – Post-Hoc Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Other-Objectification

Table 4.10 – Post-Hoc Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting