The purpose of the present research was to investigate how objectification manifests in romantic relationships and its determining features. Despite abundant literature on sexual objectification, there are few studies about body and appearance valuation between romantic partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify concrete behavioral exemplars of how objectification manifests and is interpreted in the context of romantic relationships. Likewise, we sought to determine whether certain instances of body and appearance valuation can be benign (or even adaptive) in this context. In a phone interview we asked about the extent to which participants felt their current romantic partner valued them more for their body and appearance than for their internal attributes. We then conducted a thematic analysis of 247 of these responses, resulting in three overarching themes that suggest a tension between the desire to be seen as human and the gendered pressure to be seen as attractive. Our themes provide valuable insight about what constitutes objectification between one romantic partner and another, while exploring potentially benign or constructive implications of non-objectifying body and appearance valuation. Critically, we situate our analysis within cisheteropatriarchy and discuss gendered patterns in our results.
BartkyS. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203825259
2.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
3.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022a). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022b). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
6.
BrockR. L.RamsdellE. L.FranzM. R.Stasik-O’BrienS. M.GervaisS. J.CalkinsF. C. (2023). Free to be me with you: Development of the individuality in couples questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 35(7), 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001238
7.
BrockR. L.RamsdellE. L.SáezG.GervaisS. J. (2021). Perceived humanization by intimate partners during pregnancy is associated with fewer depressive symptoms, less body dissatisfaction, and greater sexual satisfaction through reduced self-objectification. Sex Roles, 84(5–6), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01166-6
8.
CalkinsF. C.GervaisS. J.SáezG.MartinM. J.DavidsonM. M.BrockR. L. (2023). An integrated conceptual framework linking attachment insecurity to increased risk for both enacting and experiencing objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231165476
9.
DavidsonM. M.GervaisS. J.CanivezG. L.ColeB. P. (2013). A psychometric examination of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale among college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032075
10.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
11.
GervaisS. J.AllenJ.RiemerA. R.GullicksonM. (2019). The Balanced Objectification Hypothesis: The effects of objectification valence and body sentiment on source sentiment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218789625
12.
KozeeH. B.TylkaT. L.Augustus-HorvathC. L.DenchikA. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x
13.
LawrenceE.PedersonA.BundeM.BarryR. A.BrockR. L.FazioE.MulryanL.HuntS.MadsenL.DzankovicS. (2008). Objective ratings of relationship skills across multiple domains as predictors of marital satisfaction trajectories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508090868
MeltzerA. L. (2020). Women can benefit from sexual and physical valuation in the context of a romantic relationship. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219854443
16.
MeltzerA. L.McNultyJ. K. (2014). “Tell me I’m sexy. . .and otherwise valuable”: Body valuation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12018
17.
MeltzerA. L.McNultyJ. K.ManerJ. K. (2017). Women like being valued for sex, as long as it is by a committed partner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0622-1
18.
MoradiB. (2013). Discrimination, objectification, and dehumanization: Toward a pantheoretical framework. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 8, 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_7
19.
MoradiB.HuangY.-P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
OverstreetN. M.QuinnD. M.MarshK. L. (2015). Objectification in virtual romantic contexts: Perceived discrepancies between self and partner ideals differentially affect body consciousness in women and men. Sex Roles, 73(9–10), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0533-6
22.
RamseyL. R.HoytT. (2015). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314544679
23.
RamseyL. R.MarottaJ. A.HoytT. (2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied: Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived partner-objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631157
24.
RavitchS. M.CarlN. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (2nd ed.). Sage.
25.
RobertsT.-A.CalogeroR. M.GervaisS. J. (2018). Objectification theory: Continuing contributions to feminist psychology. In TravisC. B.WhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S.CookS. L.WycheK. F. (Eds.), APA Handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds(Vol.1). (pp. 249–271). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000059-013
26.
SáezG.RiemerA. R.BrockR. L.GervaisS. J. (2019). Objectification in heterosexual romantic relationships: Examining relationship satisfaction of female objectification recipients and male objectifying perpetrators. Sex Roles, 81(5–6), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0990-9
27.
SáezG.RiemerA. R.KleinO.GervaisS. J. (2025). The Evaluative Process Model of Objectification: How men’s evaluations of patriarchal security and women’s fit with conventional beauty and sexuality norms interact to predict perpetration of sexually objectifying behaviors. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 2.https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2024.1466577
28.
StrelanP.PagoudisS. (2018). Birds of a feather flock together? The interpersonal process of objectification within intimate heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 79(1–2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0851-y
29.
TracyS. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
30.
VelezB. L.BreslowA. S.BrewsterM. E.CoxR.FosterA. B. (2016). Building a pantheoretical model of dehumanization with transgender men: Integrating objectification and minority stress theories. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000136
31.
WisemanM. C.MoradiB. (2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018937
32.
ZurbriggenE. L.RamseyL. R.JaworskiB. K. (2011). Self- and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7-8), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4
