There has been a shift in the depiction of women in advertising from objectifying representations of women as passive sex objects to agentic sexual representations where the women appear powerful and in control (Gill, 2007a, 2008), and there is substantial evidence that these representations have a negative impact on women’s body image. However, to our knowledge, this study is the first experimental research that aims to compare passively objectifying and more recent sexually agentic representations. British undergraduate women (N = 122) participated in an experiment in which they were randomly assigned to view sexually passive, sexually agentic, or control print advertisements. Exposure to both types of representations of women, compared to viewing control images, was associated with increased weight dissatisfaction. The sexually agentic representations were singularly associated with increased state self-objectification. Media exposure research tends to focus on the models (e.g., their thinness) shown in advertising and pay little attention to the framing of the image. Our results highlight the powerful impact different framings can have on women’s body image concerns as well as suggest that recent shifts in advertising may be particularly problematic because contemporary images increased both weight concern and self-objectification. Therefore, these images may have a more powerful impact on psychological well-being and disordered eating behaviors than traditional images.
Amy-ChinnD. (2006). This is just for me(n): How the regulation of postfeminist lingerie advertising perpetuates women as object. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6, 155–175.
2.
AubreyJ. S. (2006). Effects of sexually objectifying media on self-objectification and body surveillance in undergraduates: Results of a 2-year panel study. Journal of Communication, 56, 366–386.
3.
BordoS. (2009). Not just ‘a White girl’s thing’: The changing face of food and body image problems. In MalsonH.BurnsM. (Eds.), Critical feminist approaches to eating dis/orders (pp. 46–59). London, UK: Psychology Press.
4.
CalogeroR. M. (2004). A test of objectification theory: The effect of the male gaze on appearance concerns in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16–21.
5.
CalogeroR. M.DavisW. N.ThompsonJ. K. (2005). The role of self-objectification in the experience of women with eating disorders. Sex Roles, 52, 43–50.
6.
CashT. F. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body image. In CashT. F.PruzinskyT. (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
DittmarH.BeattieJ.FrieseS. (1996). Objects, decision considerations and self-image in men’s and women’s impulse purchases. Acta-Psychologica, 93, 187–206.
8.
DittmarH.HalliwellE.StirlingE. (2009). Understanding the impact of thin media models on women’s body-focused affect: The roles of thin-ideal internalization and weight-related self-discrepancy activation in experimental exposure effects. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 43–72.
9.
FineM. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29–53.
10.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Towards understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
11.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A.NollS. M.QuinnD. M.TwengeJ. 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.
12.
GillR. (2007a). Gender and the media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
13.
GillR. (2007b, June). Supersexualize me! Advertising and the midriffs. Paper presented at the critical sexology seminar series, embodying femininity. South Bank University, UK.
14.
GillR. (2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology, 18, 35–60.
15.
GoldmanR. (1992). Reading ads socially. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
GordonM. K. (2008). Media contributions to African American girls' focus on beauty and appearance: Exploring the consequences of sexual objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 254–256.
17.
GordonR. (2001). Eating disorders east and west: A culture-bound syndrome unbound. In NasserM.Katzman,M.Gordon,R. (Eds.), Eating disorders and cultures in transition (pp. 1–21). London, UK and New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge.
18.
GrabeS.WardL. M.HydeJ. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 460–476.
19.
GreenleafC. (2005). Self-objectification among physically active women. Sex Roles, 52, 51–62.
20.
GroeszL. M.LevineM. P.MurnenS. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 1–16.
21.
HalliwellE.DittmarH. (2005). The role of self-improvement and self-evaluation motives in social comparisons with idealised female bodies in the media. Body Image, 2, 249–261.
22.
HalliwellE.DittmarH. (2006). Associations between appearance-related self-discrepancies and young women’s and men’s affect, body image, and emotional eating: A comparison of fixed-item and respondent-generated self-discrepancy measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 447–458.
23.
HalliwellE.DittmarH. (2008). Does size matter? The impact of ultra-thin models on women’s body image and on advertising effectiveness. In DittmarH. (Ed.), Consumer culture, identity and wellbeing: The search for the ‘good life’ and the ‘body perfect’ (pp. 121–146). London, UK: Psychology Press.
24.
HargreavesD.TiggemannM. (2003). Longer-term implications of responsiveness to thin-ideal television: Support for a cumulative hypothesis of body image disturbance. European Eating Disorder Review, 11, 465–477.
25.
HarperB.TiggemannM. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood and body image. Sex Roles, 58, 649–657.
26.
HarrisonK. (2001). Ourselves, our bodies: Thin-ideal media, self-discrepancies, and eating disorder symptomatology in adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 289–323.
27.
JeffersonD. L.StakeJ. E. (2009). Appearance self-attitudes of African American and European American women: Media comparisons and internalizations of beauty ideals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 396–409.
28.
JordanovaL. (1989). Sexual visions: Images of gender in science and medicine between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
29.
KrahéBKrauseC. (2010). Presenting thin media models affects womens' choice of diet or normal snacks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 349–355.
30.
LevyA. (2005). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. New York, NY: Free Press.
31.
MalsonH.HalliwellE.TischnerI.RúdólfsdóttirA. (in press). Post-feminist advertising laid bare: Young women’s talk about the sexually agentic woman of ‘midriff’ advertising. Feminism and Psychology,
32.
MillsJ. S.PolivyJ.HermanP.TiggemannM. (2002). Effects of exposure to thin media images: Evidence of self-enhancement among restrained eaters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687–1699.
33.
MoradiB.HuangY. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398.
34.
MuehlenkampJ. J.Saris-BaglamaR. N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 371–379.
35.
MuehlenkampJ. J.SwansonJ. D.BrauschA. M. (2005). Self-objectification, risk taking, and self-harm in college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 24–32.
36.
NollS. M.FredricksonB. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.
37.
NowatzkiJ.MorryM. M. (2009). Women’s intentions regarding, and acceptance of, self-sexualizing behaviour. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 95–107.
38.
SpitzackC. (1990). Confessing excess: Women and the politics of body reduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
39.
SticeE.SpanglerD.AgrasW. S. (2001). Exposure to media-portrayed thin-ideal images adversely affects vulnerable girls: A longitudinal experiment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 270–288.
40.
TiggemannM.KuringJ. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299–311.
41.
TiggemannM.PickeringA. S. (1996). Role of television in adolescent women’s body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 199–203.
42.
TiggemannM.PolivyJ. (2010). Upward and downward: Social comparison processing of thin idealized media images. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 356–364.
43.
TiggemannM.SlaterA. A. (2001). Test of objectification theory in former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57–64.
44.
TylkaT. L.HillM. S. (2004). Objectification theory as it relates to disordered eating among college women. Sex Roles, 51, 719–730.
45.
Zerbe-EnnsC. (2004). Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: Origins, themes and diversities (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routlegde.
