Integrating system-justification and objectification theories, the research reported here broadens the scope of prior work on women’s self-objectification to examine its system-justifying function. I investigated the relation of trait and state self-objectification to support for the gender status quo and engagement in gender-based social activism among U.S. college women. Study 1 established that greater trait self-objectification was related to more gender-specific system justification and less engagement in gender-based social activism. The data supported a mediational model in which gender-specific system justification mediated the link between trait self-objectification and social activism. Results from Study 2, in which self-objectification was situationally activated, confirmed the same mediational model. These findings suggest that trait and state self-objectification may be part of a wider pattern of system-justifying behavior that maintains gender inequality and thwarts women’s pursuit of social justice.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77.
3.
BrandtM. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418.
4.
CalogeroR. M. (2012). Objectification theory, self-objectification, and body image. In CashT. F. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (Vol. 2, pp. 574-580). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
CalogeroR. M. (in press). On objects and actions: Situating self-objectification in a system justification context. In GervaisS. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 60. Perspectives on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
6.
CalogeroR. M.JostJ. 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, 211–228.
7.
CalogeroR. M.Tantleff-DunnS.ThompsonJ. K. (2011). Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and directions for research and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
FairchildK.RudmanL. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338–357. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0
9.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
10.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.
11.
GreerG. (1970). The female eunuch. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
12.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598–601.
13.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
JeffreysS. (2005). Beauty and misogyny: Harmful cultural practices in the West. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
JostJ. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16, 397–424.
16.
JostJ. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed- entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387–393.
17.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. (1994). The role stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1–27.
18.
JostJ. T.BanajiM.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and nonconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
19.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
20.
JostJ. T.KayA. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.
21.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.CaravalloM. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system-justification: Cognitive, affective, and behavioural preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586–602.
22.
KayA. C.FriesenJ. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364.
23.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
24.
MacMillanR.NierobiszA.WelshS. (2000). Experiencing the streets: Harassment and perceptions of safety among women. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37, 306–322.
25.
McKinleyN. M. (2006). The developmental and cultural contexts of objectified body consciousness: A longitudinal analysis of two cohorts of women. Developmental Psychology, 42, 679–687. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.679
26.
MoradiB.HuangY.-P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398.
27.
MurnenS. K.SmolakL. (2000). The experience of sexual harassment among grade-school students: Early socialization of female subordination?Sex Roles, 43, 1–17.
28.
NollS. M.FredricksonB. 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
29.
NussbaumM. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24, 249–291.
30.
PuwarN. (2004). Thinking about making a difference. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 65–80.
31.
RobertsT.-A.GettmanJ. Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effect of priming a state of self- objectification. Sex Roles, 51, 17–27.
32.
SaguyT.QuinnD. M.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2010). Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions. Psychological Science, 21, 178–182. doi:10.1177/0956797609357751
33.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Positive intergroup contact produces false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121.
34.
SeligJ. P.PreacherK. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm
35.
StakeJ. E.RoadesL.RoseS.EllisL.WestC. (1994). The women’s studies experience: Impetus for feminist activism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 17–24.
36.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L.CohenL. L.FergusonM. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00200
37.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrated theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
38.
TiggemannM.LynchJ. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37, 243–253. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.2 .243
39.
UngerR. K. (1979). Female and male. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
40.
United Nations. (1995). Harmful traditional practices affecting the health of women and children (Fact Sheet No. 23). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
41.
WrightS. C.TaylorD. M.MoghaddamF. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003.
