Using an experimental methodology, the present study assessed college students’ perceptions of a male peer who presented himself on Facebook in either an objectified or nonobjectified manner. One hundred eighty-nine college students (n = 111 women, n = 78 men) viewed a Facebook profile with either an objectified or a nonobjectified profile photo of the same young man and then evaluated the profile owner. They also reported on the desirability of dating the profile owner. Results indicated that the objectified profile owner was considered less competent but not less socially appealing or physically attractive. Participants liked the nonobjectified profile and profile photo better than the objectified profile and profile photo. There was also more interest in a committed dating relationship with the nonobjectified profile owner than the objectified profile owner. Findings suggest that using an objectified profile photo on Facebook may come with some costs for young men.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromwww.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
2.
AubreyJ. S. (2007). The impact of sexually objectifying media exposure on negative body emotions and sexual self-perceptions: Investigating the mediating role of body self-consciousness. Mass Communication & Society, 10, 1–23. doi:10.1080/15205430709337002
3.
BernardP.GervaisS.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471. doi:10.1177/0956797611434748
4.
BerntsonM. A.HoffmanK. L.LuffT. L. (2014). College as context: Influences on interpersonal sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 18, 149–165. doi:10.1007/s12119-013-9180-7
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6.
CikaraM.EberhardtJ. L.FiskeS. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540–551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21497
7.
DanielsE. A. (2016). Sexiness on social media: The social costs of using a sexy profile photo. Sexuality, Media, & Society. October–December, 1–10. doi:10.1177/2374623816683522
8.
DanielsE. A.ZurbriggenE. L. (2016). The price of sexy: Viewers’ perceptions of a sexualized versus nonsexualized Facebook profile photograph. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 2–14. doi:10.1037/ppm0000048
9.
DoornwaardS. M.MorenoM. A.van den EijndenR. M.VanwesenbeeckI.ter BogtT. M. (2014). Young adolescents’ sexual and romantic reference displays on Facebook. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 535–541. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.04.002
10.
DöringN.ReifA.PoeschlS. (2016). How gender-stereotypical are selfies? A content analysis and comparison with magazine adverts. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 955–962. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.001
11.
FasoliF.DuranteF.MariS.ZogmaisterC.VolpatoC. (2018). Shades of sexualization: When sexualization becomes sexual objectification. Sex Roles, 78, 338–351. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0808-1
12.
FoxJ.OsbornJ. L.WarberK. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031
13.
FoxJ.WarberK. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 3–7. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288
14.
FoxJ.WarberK. M.MakstallerD. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 771–794. doi:10.1177/0265407512468370
15.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
16.
GrayK.KnobeJ.SheskinM.BloomP.BarrettL. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207–1220. doi:10.1037/a0025883
17.
GurungR.ChrouserC. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing and observer characteristics matter?Sex Roles, 57, 91–99. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9219-z
18.
HarrisonL. A.SecareaA. M. (2010). College students’ attitudes toward the sexualization of professional women athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 403–426.
19.
HeblM. R.KingE. B.LinJ. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331. doi:10.1177/0146167204264052
20.
HewK. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662–676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020
21.
HollandE.HaslamN. (2013). Worth the weight: The objectification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 462–468. doi:10.1177/0361684312474800
22.
KapidzicS.HerringS. C. (2015). Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society, 17, 958–976. doi:10.1177/1461444813520301
23.
KimJ. L.SorsoliC. L.CollinsK.ZylbergoldB. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. A. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime television network. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1080/00224490701263660.
24.
KramerN. C.FeursteinM.KluckJ. P.MeierY.RotherM.WinterS. (2017). Beware of selfies: The impact of photo type on impression formation based on social networking profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 188. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00188
LoughnanS.HaslamN.MurnaneT.VaesJ.ReynoldsC.SuitnerC. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709–717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755
28.
LoughnanS.PacilliM. G. (2014). Seeing (and treating) others as sexual objects: Toward a more complete mapping of sexual objectification. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 309–325. doi:10.4473/TPM21.3.6
29.
ManagoA. M. (2013). Negotiating a sexy masculinity on social networking sites. Feminism & Psychology, 23, 478–497. doi:10.1177/0959353513487549
30.
McCroskeyJ. M.McCainT. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. doi:10.1080/03637757409375845
31.
MoradiB.HuangY. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
32.
MorenoM. A.SwansonM. J.RoyerH.RobertsL. J. (2011). Sexpectations: Male college students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social networking web sites. Pediatrics Adolescent Gynecology, 24, 85–89. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2010.10.004
33.
MorrisonT.HaltonM. (2009). Buff, tough, and rough: Representations of muscularity in action motion pictures. Journal of Men’s Studies, 17, 57–74. doi:10.3149/jms.1701.57
34.
NezlekJ. B.KrohnW.WilsonD.MaruskinL. (2015). Gender differences in reactions to the sexualization of athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 1–11. doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.959883
35.
OlivardiaR.PopeH. G.BorowieckiJ. J.CohaneG. H. (2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 112–120. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.112
36.
PempekT. A.YermolayevaY. A.CalvertS. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010
PopeH. J.OlivardiaR.BorowieckiJ. I.CohaneG. H. (2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A longitudinal survey of advertising in women’s magazines. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 70, 189–192. doi:10.1159/000056252
39.
RamseyL. R.HoranA. L. (2017). Picture this: Women’s self-sexualization in photos on social media. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.022
40.
ReichertT.LambiaseJ.MorganS.CarstarphenM.ZavoinaS. (1999). Cheesecake and beefcake: No matter how you slice it, sexual explicitness in advertising continues to increase. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 7–20. doi:10.1177/107769909907600102
41.
RohlingerD. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74. doi:10.1023/A:1016575909173
42.
SarabiaI.EstévezA. (2016). Sexualized behaviors on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 219–226. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.037
43.
SchmidtA. F.KistemakerL. M. (2015). The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?Cognition, 134, 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.003
44.
SheldonP. (2008a). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 67–75. doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.2.67
45.
SheldonP. (2008b). Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 23, 39–55.
46.
SiibakA. (2010). Constructing masculinity on a social networking site: The case-study of visual self-presentations of young men on the profile images of SNS Rate. Young, 18, 403–425. doi:10.1177/110330881001800403
SpecialW. P.Li-BarberK. T. (2012). Self-disclosure and student satisfaction with Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 624–630. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.008
49.
SumterS. R.VandenboschL.LigtenbergL. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 67–78. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009
50.
TortajadaI.AraünaN.MartínezI. J. (2013). Advertising stereotypes and gender representation in social networking sites. Comunicar, 41, 177–186. doi:10.3916/C41-2013-17
51.
VaesJ.PaladinoM.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
52.
Van OuytselJ.Van GoolE.WalraveM.PonnetK.PeetersE. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 76–86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042
53.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.HamelL. M.ShulmanH. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229–253. doi:10.1177/0093650208330251
54.
WardL. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995-2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 560–577. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496
