Psychology of Men & Masculinity
2010, Vol. 11, No. 3, 208 –224
© 2010 American Psychological Association
1524-9220/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018255
Masculine Gender Roles and Differentiation: Predictors of Body
Image and Self-Objectification in Men
Jonathan P. Schwartz
Debbie L. Grammas,
Roy John Sutherland, Kevin J. Siffert,
and Imelda Bush-King
New Mexico State University
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Houston
Theory and previous research suggests that culture, traditional masculine ideology, and
early relational experiences may affect male body image. Thus, the purpose of this
study was to examine the influence of ethnicity, gender role conflict, and differentiation
of self (DOS) on body image and self-objectification among 202 college men. Results
indicated that ethnicity and aspects of DOS were significant predictors of body image
dissatisfaction, whereas aspects of gender role conflict and DOS were predictors of
self-objectification. A particularly noteworthy finding of the study was that a clear
sense of self and a lack of emotional enmeshment are related to low body image
concerns and low self-objectification among men.
Keywords: masculinity, gender roles, body image, self-objectification, differentiation
Historically, research on societal pressure regarding appearance has addressed body-image
dissatisfaction and objectification among
women (Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000).
Current research suggests that male body-image
dissatisfaction is on the rise (Leit, Pope, &
Gray, 2001; Morry & Staska, 2001). According
to Morry and Staska (2001), men who read
fitness magazines are more likely to have a
negative body image, engage in self-objectification, internalize the ideal standard of beauty
for men (i.e., muscularity), and engage in associated eating disorders. Poor male body image
has been associated with several forms of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depression,
muscle dysmorphia, shame, and low selfesteem, and negative behaviors such as compulsive exercise, disordered eating, and use of performance-enhancing drugs (Cafri, Strauss, &
Thompson, 2002; Cash & Fleming, 2002;
Jonathan P. Schwartz, Department of Counseling and
Educational Psychology, New Mexico State University;
Debbie L. Grammas, Roy John Sutherland, Kevin J. Siffert,
and Imelda Bush-King, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jonathan P. Schwartz, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, 3 MSC 3CEP, P.O. Box 30001, Las
Cruces, NM 88003-8001. E-mail: jschwart@nmsu.edu
McCreary & Sasse, 2000; Olivardia, Pope,
Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2004). Societal pressure on men is qualitatively different from that
on women; research suggests that, in general,
men feel pressure to become more muscular,
whereas women feel pressure to become thinner
(Cafri & Thompson, 2004).
Accurately measuring unique aspects of male
body-image dissatisfaction (Tylka, Bergeron, &
Schwartz, 2005), combined with our understanding of the negative implications of societal
pressure on men concerning appearance, requires an examination of multiple predictive
factors. Previous research has found that a rigid
masculine gender role is a positive predictor of
male body dissatisfaction (Olivardia et al.,
2004; Schwartz & Tylka, 2008; Tylka et al.,
2005). In particular, evidence consistently links
aspects of masculinity, including socialized
masculine gender roles, to male body-image
concerns (McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay,
2005). In fact, being muscular has been identified as a way to externally exhibit masculine
identity (Leit et al., 2001; Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowiecki, 1999).
This study adds to the current body of literature by examining multiple predictors of bodyimage satisfaction in men, measuring unique
aspects of male body image, and examining
self-objectification as an outcome. “Self-
208
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
objectification” has been defined as internalizing societal messages that view individuals’
value based on external factors, leading to a
preoccupation with physical appearance
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Fredrickson,
Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998;
Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002). Few
studies have examined predictors of selfobjectification in men. Furthermore, there is
limited research connecting masculine socialization with body image (Kimmel & Mahalik,
2004; Schwartz & Tylka, 2008). In this study,
we examined the construct of gender role conflict (i.e., the intrapersonal or interpersonal conflict/tension created by adopting rigid traditional masculine roles), which is considered to
be a result of gender role socialization (O’Neil,
Good, & Holmes, 1995) and a predictor of male
body image. There is no known research that
examines differentiation of self (DOS), a family
systems theory related to balancing intimacy
and autonomy (Bowen, 1978), as a predictor of
male body image. In addition, research using
measures specifically created to measure unique
male body-image concerns is relatively new
(Tylka et al., 2005). The study’s goal was to
build on previous research by examining gender
role conflict and DOS as predictors of selfobjectification and body-image dissatisfaction
in men.
Body Dissatisfaction in Men
Societal messages have been cited as sources
of male body-image disturbances (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Pope, Gruber, et al., 2000; Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2004). According to sociocultural theory, the culture determines the ideal
beauty standards and, in turn, how individuals
view themselves and others (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999). Messages communicated by mass media influence
societal standards of beauty (Hargreaves &
Tiggemann, 2004); these ideals of beauty are
seen in movies and magazines, and on television. In Western cultures (e.g., United States),
being thin is the ideal standard of beauty in
women; muscularity is the ideal standard for
men (Hargreaves & Tiggemann, 2004). Most
women, however, cannot achieve the desired
level of thinness portrayed in the media, which
is one reason for negative body image and eating disorders among women. In contrast, the
209
ideal muscular man has a mesomorphic body
shape: wide shoulders, a larger upper body, and
a flat abdomen (Leit et al., 2001). Again, this
standard of beauty is not attainable for most
men and has been implicated in the use of
anabolic steroids and other performanceenhancing drugs (Pope, Gruber, et al., 2000).
Recent research has indicated that the standard for the optimal male body appearance is
changing (Leit et al., 2001; Morry & Staska,
2001). Research has demonstrated that in the
last two decades, prototypes of masculinity
(Playgirl Centerfolds; G.I. Joes) have increased
in muscularity and decreased in body fat in a
manner unattainable without the use of steroids
(Leit et al.; 2001; Pope et al., 1999). Studies
have indicated that, when asked, men chose an
ideal male body figure that on average had 25
pounds of additional muscle and about eight
pounds less body fat than what they actually had
(Olivardia et al., 2004). Men’s ideal body and
the body men thought would be preferred by
women was significantly more muscular and
had less body fat than the average male or
women’s actual preference (Cafri et al., 2002;
Olivardia et al., 2004). Researchers have found
that muscle dissatisfaction is associated with
depression and low self-esteem (Cafri et al.,
2002; McCreary & Sasse, 2000; Olivardia et al.,
2004). Olivardia et al. (2004) found that as
men’s Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI; fat free body
mass ⫻ height) increased, so did their selfesteem. Moreover, research has found that onefourth of college men surveyed used steroids or
other products to improve their appearance (Olivardia et al., 2004). In a college student sample,
body builders were much more likely to admit
to taking steroids than runners or those engaging in martial arts (Blouin & Goldfield, 1995).
The primary reason steroids were used was to
enhance looks. Blouin and Goldfield (1995)
found that self-esteem and body satisfaction
were actually lower among body builders versus other athletes. Similar psychological factors
have been found among body builders and
women with eating disorders, which lead them
to a greater predisposition to engage in destructive behaviors (e.g., unhealthy dieting, diuretics,
steroids) to attain the ideal body. Further study
is critical for gaining insight as to what places
men at a greater risk for these detrimental behaviors. An integral issue in understanding male
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
210
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
body-image concerns is the effectively measuring of the unique body-image concerns of men.
Body image is a multidimensional construct
that encompasses one’s thoughts (i.e., the significance of appearance and one’s beliefs about
one’s body) and awareness of one’s body. Many
of the scales used to measure body image were
designed for women. In the past few years,
some scales have been designed to measure
male body-image dissatisfaction (Cafri &
Thompson, 2004; Tylka et al., 2005). An advantage of these new scales is that they measure
unique aspects of male body-image dissatisfaction (e.g., muscularity or the lack thereof).
Self-Objectification as Associated With
Body Image
Self-objectification is an internalization of
societal objectification, which causes individuals to scrutinize his or her body (Tiggemann &
Kuring, 2004). Self-objectification is related to
low self-esteem, body shame, restrained eating,
and numerous other psychological costs among
women, (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997;
Fredrickson et al., 1998). Thus societal pressure
and mass media may play a role in men and
women’s behaviors, emotions, and attitudes related to their body image (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005; Wright & Huston, 1983).
The literature on self-objectification is limited especially concerning men. The findings
examining men and self-objectification seem to
indicate that there is a negative correlation between self-objectification and self-esteem, general psychological well-being, and body-image
satisfaction (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). As
note above, much of the current research on
self-objectification has focused on women
(Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). However, increased evidence shows that similar selfobjectification processes also occur with men.
Male self-objectification is often focused on
being young and having a muscular body with
broad shoulders, a well-developed upper body,
and narrow hips (Leit et al., 2001; Pope, Gruber,
et al., 2000). With higher reports of male selfobjectification, researchers have suggested a
need for additional research examining the effects of self-objectification on men (Tiggemann
& Kuring, 2004).
Strelan and Hargreaves (2005) found that
men who exercise to enhance their appearance
were more likely to report lower body esteem
and higher self-objectification. Strelan and Hargreaves also found that these men had lower
self-esteem. Moreover, research has indicated
that among men whose appearance is related to
their self-worth, appearance accounted for 20%
of their total psychological self-acceptance
(Tager, Good, & Morrison, 2006). Morry and
Staska (2001) found that reading fitness magazines contributed to the internalization of social
ideals about appearance and consequently to the
prediction of eating problems.
Gender Role Conflict and Male Body
Image/Self-Objectification
Research has demonstrated a link between
negative body image and psychological distress
in men (Tager et al., 2006). Although Western
society emphasizes restrictive, physical ideals
as a symbol of masculine status (Tager et al.,
2006), few studies have examined the role of
masculinity in body-image satisfaction. Studies
are now beginning to measure the multiple pressures and conflicts resulting from societal pressure to conform to traditional masculine roles
(O’Neil, 2008).
Gender role conflict (O’Neil, Helms, Gable,
David, & Wrightsman, 1986) was conceptualized to explore and measure the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems men are subjected to as they try to conform to society’s
expectations of male gender roles. There are
four dimensions in which gender role conflict
occurs: (1) success, power, and competition; (2)
restrictive and affectionate behavior between
men; (3) restrictive emotionality; and (4) conflict between work and family relations (O’Neil
et al., 1986). Gender role conflict has been
associated with intrapersonal and interpersonal
costs, such as heightened stress levels (Sharpe
& Heppner, 1991), neurotic defenses (Mahalik,
Cournoyer, DeFranc, Cherry, & Napolitano,
1998), higher rates of substance abuse (Blazina
& Watkins, 1996), hostile, rigid interpersonal
behaviors (Mahalik, 2000; Robinson &
Schwartz, 2004), decreased relationship satisfaction, and intimacy complications (Sharpe &
Heppner, 1991).
Societal messages for men state that they
should be big and muscular, what Mishkind,
Rodin, Silberstein, and Striegel-Moore (1986)
deem the “muscular mesomorphic” shape. Re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
search has also suggested that the drive to be
muscular for men is due to the perception that a
muscular build is linked to masculinity
(Weinke, 1998). The reverse has also been argued: If a man is less muscular (i.e., endomorphic or ectomorphic), he is more feminine (Grogan & Richards, 2002; Klein, 1993; Weinke,
1998). Men may experience negative body perception when attempting to meet gender role
ideals (Olivardia, 2001). Research by Shelton
and Liljequist (2002) suggests that body-image
concerns among men may begin at an early age.
Negative peer appraisals may stem from the
combination of an alleged nonmasculine appearance (e.g., nonmuscular) and seemingly
nonmasculine behavior (e.g., a “feeble” attempt
to stand up for one’s self). These appraisals are
internalized and may increase body-image dissatisfaction. Kimmel and Mahalik (2004) found
that rigid adherence to masculine norms further
contributes to masculine body-ideal distress.
Research by Mills and D’Alfonso (2007) found
that when competing against a woman (and
losing in that competition) men had increased
negative views of their bodies.
Qualitative and quantitative research suggests that men feel the need to become more
muscular in order to maintain Western norms of
traditional male gender roles (Drummond,
2002; Grogan & Richards, 2002; Klein, 1993;
Mishkind et al., 1986; Pope, Philips, & Olivardia, 2000; Weinke, 1998). Mishkind et al.
(1986) found that failure to attain gender role
expectations led men to displace these shortcomings onto their bodies.
DOS and Male Body Image
Family relations have been shown to have an
impact on body image and disordered eating
(Byely, Archibald, Graber, & Brooks-Gunn,
2000; Harworth-Hoeppner, 2000). Research has
suggested that parental intrusiveness— or, alternatively, a lack of parental support— contribute
to body-image disturbance in men and women
(Ata, Ludden, & Lally, 2007; Rorty, Yager,
Buckwalter, Rossotto, & Guthrie, 2000). The
concept of DOS (sometimes referred to as “individuation”) is a central element in Bowen’s
(1978) family theory and provides a tool with
which we can examine the influence of early
family relational experiences on body image
and self-objectification in men.
211
On an intrapsychic level, DOS conceptualizes one’s ability to distinguish between thinking and feeling processes (Bowen, 1978). On an
interpersonal level, it denotes one’s ability to
experience deep intimacy in close relationships
without endangering one’s sense of autonomy
or cutting oneself off from significant others.
For example, according to Bowen, taking an
“I-Position” involves a clearly defined sense of
self that is impervious to pressure from others.
Research has provided some evidence for this
notion in that lower levels of differentiation
have been associated with higher levels of
chronic anxiety and more symptomatic distress
(Skowron & Friedlander, 1998), higher frequencies of health problems, lower psychosocial development, and greater psychological
distress (Bray, Harvey, & Williamson, 1987;
Harvey, Curry, & Bray, 1991; Jenkins, Buboltz,
Schwartz, & Johnson, 2005; Murdock & Gore,
2004; Skowron, 2000; Skowron, Holmes, &
Sabatelli, 2003). Bowen (1978) theorized that
with higher differentiation, individuals can retain relative autonomy in periods of stress, are
more flexible and adaptable, and are more independent of the emotionality about them.
Thus, a high DOS should serve as a protective
factor against family, peer, and societal pressure. Differentiation allows individuals to cope
more effectively with life stresses, social pressure, and pressure in the relational system.
Currently, there is no known research examining men’s levels of DOS in relation to body
image. However, there is research that has focused on issues of separation–individuation, attachment, and gender role conflict (e.g., Blazina
& Watkins, 2000; Schwartz, Waldo, & Higgins,
2004). This research suggests that early familial
relational experiences have an impact on identity and subsequent gender role socialization.
Furthermore, based on Bowen’s (1978) theory,
a theoretical link between DOS and body image
can be made. Individuals who have higher differentiation are likely to have a healthier body
image and less self-objectification because they
typically have a strong identity and an autonomous sense of self in close relationships. In
contrast, those that are enmeshed and emotionally reactive in their relationships may overly
focus on others, resulting in dissatisfaction with
body image and self-objectification.
212
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Race/Ethnicity
It is important to consider ethnic diversity
when looking at body-image concerns in men,
because culture influences the perception of
physical attractiveness (Heinberg, Thompson,
& Stormer, 1995). According to sociocultural
theory, culture affects individuals’ ideal standards of beauty for themselves and others
(Thompson et al., 1999). In addition, the use of
a more ethnically diverse sample has been cited
in the literature as an area for further inquiry
(Cafri et al., 2002; McCreary et al., 2005;
Vartanian, Giant, & Passino, 2001). Research
that has examined racial differences in bodyimage concerns among men has yielded inconsistent results (Ricciardelli, McCabe, Williams,
& Thompson, 2007). When comparing African
American and White men, some authors have
found that African American men tend to be more
satisfied with their bodies (Miller, Gleaves, Hirsch, Green, Snow, & Chanda, 2000; Smith,
Thompson, Raczynski, & Hilner, 1999). However, there was no difference in body satisfaction
when comparing these two groups after controlling for body mass index (Russell, 2002). When
comparing Asian American and White men, in
general Asian American men felt that their current body was smaller than ideal, which did not
hold true for White men (Barnett, Keel, &
Conoscenti, 2002). This is in contrast to Pope,
Phillips, et al. (2000), who found that a majority
of White men felt the ideal body was more
muscular and had less fat than their actual body.
Some authors also have found Asian American
men tend to have greater body dissatisfaction
than White men (Edman, Yates, & Aruguete,
2005) whereas others have found no differences
(Miller et al., 2000). When African American,
White, and Latino men were compared, there
were no differences in body-image dissatisfaction (Demarest & Allen, 2000; Miller et al.,
2000). In contrast, when comparing African
American, White, Latino, and Asian American
men, African American men tended to be the
most satisfied with their bodies, and there were
no differences among the remaining racial/
ethnic groups (Mayville, Katz, Gipson, &
Cabral, 1999). This study, focusing on the
body-image concerns of Latino, Asian American, African American, and White men, not
only examines differences in body image, but
also considers how race/ethnicity may interact
with other predictors of body image.
Present Study
The study’s goal was to add to previous research by examining masculine gender roles
and individuation from the family of origin association with male body image and selfobjectification. The study will explore whether
masculine gender role conflict and DOS will
predict body-image dissatisfaction and selfobjectification. It is hypothesized that when
controlling for race/ethnicity, conflict resulting
from rigid adherence to masculine gender roles
will lead to body-image dissatisfaction and selfobjectification. It is also hypothesized that when
controlling for race/ethnicity and gender role
conflict, body-image dissatisfaction and selfobjectification will be predicted by a lack of
DOS.
Method
Participants
A total of 202 undergraduate heterosexual
men (M age ⫽ 22.08 years; range ⫽ 18 – 65;
SD ⫽ 3.88, M weight ⫽ 170.19 pounds, M
height ⫽ 69.25 in.) from a large Southern university participated. Participants were recruited
from undergraduate classes in education and
psychology and received extra credit for their
participation. Racial/ethnic characteristics:
37.3% were Asian American, 27.7% were
White, 14.5% were Latino, and 13.6% were
African American. Eighty percent of participants were single, 6% were engaged, 8.7% were
married or partnered, 1.2% were separated or
divorced, fewer than 1.3% were widowed,
and 2.8% reported their relationship status as
“other.” With regard to socioeconomic status, 4.2% identified themselves as members of
the upper class, 14.8% identified as uppermiddle class, 60% identified as middle class,
and 19.5% identified as members of the working class. Seventeen percent of participants
identified as college freshmen or high school
seniors, 28.9% were sophomores in college, 17.5% were juniors, 32.3% were seniors, 1.6% were postbaccalaureate students,
and fewer than 1% identified as “other” or grad-
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
uate student. The majority of the participants
reported exercising at least once a week.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Procedures
A script describing the study was read to
potential participants; those that chose to participate completed an informed consent form in
class. The researchers retained the signed consent and provided the participant with a copy
that included a link to complete the survey
online. Participants completed an additional informed consent online and the surveys in counterbalanced order using an online data collection program (Survey Monkey). Participants
were able to complete the surveys at their convenience at their home computers or in a computer lab at the university.
Measures
Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS). The
GRCS (O’Neil et al., 1986) is a 37-item scale
that uses a 6-point Likert-type scale indicating
to what degree the participants agree with the
given statements (e.g., 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to
6 ⫽ strongly agree). It is designed to measure
negative conflict resulting from restrictive and
rigid gender roles with the following four factors: (1) success, power, and competition (SPC),
for example, “I like to feel superior to other
people”; (2) restrictive emotionality (RE), for
example, “I often have trouble finding the
words to describe how I am feeling”; (3) restrictive affectionate behavior between men
(RABBM), for example, “I am sometimes hesitant to show my affection toward men because
of how others may perceive me”; and (4) conflict between work and family (CBWF), for
example, “My school or my work often disrupts
other parts of my life (e.g., home, family,
health, leisure).” Higher scores indicate greater
gender role conflict. Positive correlations were
demonstrated between the GRCS and other
measures of men’s attitudes about masculinity
(Good et al., 1995), supporting its construct
validity. O’Neil et al. (1986) reported internal
consistency for the four factors, with alphas
ranging from .75 to .85 and test-retest reliabilities ranging from .72 to .86. In this study, internal reliability coefficients were .94 for RE,
.90 for SPC, .89 for RABBM, and .86 for
CBWF.
213
Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI).
The DSI (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998) was
created to measure one’s level of differentiation
based on the following four factors: I-position
(IP), emotional reactivity (ER), emotional cutoff (EC), and fusion with others (FO). The DSI
is a 43-item scale that uses a 6-point Likert-type
scale indicating to what degree the participants
agree with the given statements (e.g., 1 ⫽ low
differentiation to 6 ⫽ high differentiation).
Higher scores on the DSI reflect greater levels
of differentiation and subsequently, less ER,
EC, FO, and a greater ability to take “I” positions in relationships. The DSI measures one’s
level of differentiation with the following four
factors: (1) ER, for example, “When someone
close to me disappoints me, I withdraw from
him or her for a time”; (2) IP, for example, “No
matter what happens to me, I know that I’ll
never lose my sense of who I am”; (3) EC, for
example, “Our relationship might be better if
my spouse or partner would give me the space
I need”; and (4) FO, for example, “I worry
about people close to me getting hurt, sick, or
upset.” Construct validity of the DSI was supported by high correlations with measures of
anxiety and psychological distress (Skowron &
Friedlander, 1998). Skowron and Friedlander
reported internal consistency for the four factors, with alphas for the entire inventory at .88,
ER at .88, IP at .85, EC at .79, and FO at .70.
Test–retest alphas ranged from .74 to .84. In this
study, internal reliability coefficients were .90
for ER, .88 for IP, .80 for EC, and .74 for FO.
The Male Body Attitude Scale (MBAS).
The MBAS (Tylka et al., 2005) is an instrument
consisting of 24 items used to assess body dissatisfaction in men. Respondents rate three
body areas (muscularity, body fat, height) on a
6-point scale that ranges from 1 (always) to 6
(never). Factor analysis yielded three subscales:
muscularity (13 items; e.g., “I think my arms
should be larger”); low body fat (nine items;
e.g., “I think I have too much fat on my body”);
and height (two items, e.g., “I am satisfied with
my height”). Total scores can also be determined by taking the average of all the items of
the instrument. Higher total and subscale scores
indicate a greater degree of satisfaction. Concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity
have been supported (Tylka et al., 2005). Tylka
et al. (2005) reported Cronbach alphas as .92 for
the total scale, .90 for muscularity, .94 for low
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
214
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
body fat, and .85 for height. Evidence of convergent validity has been found because the
MBAS total score, muscularity scores, and low
body fat scores have been related to the Body
Esteem Scale, and the muscularity score was
related to the muscular behaviors subscale of
the Drive for Muscularity Scale. Support for
discriminant validity has been shown as the
MBAS total score and subscales were not related to impression management. Construct validity was shown because the MBAS total score
and subscale scores were related to self-esteem,
and the MBAS total score and low body fat
subscale scores were related to eating disorder
symptomology. In this study, internal reliability
coefficients were .93 for muscularity, .92 for
low body fat, and .88 for height.
Self-Objectification Questionnaire. The
Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll, 1996;
Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) is a 10-item scale
that requires the participants to rank the items
(e.g., 0 ⫽ least impact, 10 ⫽ greatest impact)
indicating how strongly the statements affect
their physical self-concept. There are two subscales: Appearance-based items, for example,
“What rank do you assign to weight”; and Competence-based items, for example, “What rank
do you assign to physical coordination.” The
difference between the cumulative scores on the
appearance rankings and the competence rankings provides the overall score. The higher the
overall score, the higher the individual’s level
of self-objectification. Evidence for construct
validity was found by Noll and Fredrickson
(1998) on the basis of moderate correlations
with scores on the Body Image Assessment
(Williamson, Davis, Bennett, Goreczny, &
Gleaves, 1985) and the Appearance Anxiety
Questionnaire (Dion, Dion, & Keelan, 1990).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
No outliers were identified within the data
set. Skewness and kurtosis for each measure
were evaluated via significance tests and the
visual appearance of the measure distributions.
No substantial violations existed (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1996); therefore, no measures were
transformed. Means, standard deviations, and
range for all measures are reported in Table 1.
The means were similar to other comparable
samples for all the instruments. The correlation
matrix is presented in Table 2. Examination of
the correlations reveals a portion of the predictor variables (DOS, gender role conflict) correlate in the hypothesized direction. For example,
less ER (positively) and more IP (positively) are
both moderately correlated with the MBAS subscale of Low Body Fat. The only gender role
conflict factors that correlated with the criterion
variables were SPC and RABBM, which positively correlated with the Low Body Fat subscale.
To explore whether racial/ethnic differences
within the sample were related to scores on the
study’s key measures, a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Of seven
possible race/ethnicity choices, there were suf-
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics (n ⫽ 201)
Variables
Range
Minimum
Maximum
M
SD
Emotional reactivity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
SPC
Restrictive emotionality
RABBM
Work and family conflict
Self-objectification
Muscularity
Low body fat
Height
36.00
48.00
50.00
35.00
65.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
55.00
45.00
38.00
10.00
25.00
16.00
17.00
14.00
13.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
⫺36
10.00
8.00
2.00
61.00
64.00
67.00
49.00
78.00
60.00
48.00
36.00
36
55.00
46.00
12.00
39.35
43.94
46.79
28.70
52.21
31.84
27.37
22.64
3.41
35.24
29.83
7.14
6.73
9.42
9.25
6.58
12.18
10.69
8.75
6.59
12.13
10.38
9.76
2.23
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition; RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
215
Table 2
Correlation Matrix (n ⫽ 201)
Variable
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Emotional reactivity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
SPC
Restrictive
emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between
work and family
Self-objectification
Muscularity
Low body fat
Height
1
2
3
4
5
—
.12ⴱⴱⴱ
—
.31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱⴱ
—
.51ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱⴱ
—
⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.29
⫺.12
⫺.19ⴱⴱⴱ .10
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.65
⫺.03
⫺.42ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.34
.09
⫺.35
⫺.07
⫺.09
⫺.03
.07
.21ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.03
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
.22
.27
.12
.20ⴱⴱⴱ .13
.10
ⴱⴱ
⫺.18
.02
⫺.07
⫺.07
⫺.04
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
—
.48ⴱⴱⴱ
.52ⴱⴱⴱ
—
.64ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
.56
⫺.08
.05
.14ⴱ
⫺.08
.45
⫺.01
.05
.01
⫺.04
—
.36ⴱⴱⴱ —
.08
.09 —
.04
.09 .14ⴱ
—
ⴱ
.16
.02 .24ⴱⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱⴱ —
⫺.05
⫺.09 .13
.24ⴱⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱⴱ —
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition; RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
ⴱ
ficient participants in four groups for this analysis, White (n ⫽ 60), African American (n ⫽
29), Asian American (n ⫽ 74), Latino, n ⫽ 28)
on scores of muscularity, low body fat, height,
and self-objectification. The MANOVA indicated that the multivariate effect was not significant, Wilk’s ⌳ ⫽ .974 F(185.00, 450.39) ⫽
.543, p ⫽ .84, ␩2 ⫽ .009. This indicates that
there were no significant differences between
ethnic groups for the four dependent variables.
Even though the MANOVA showed no significant differences among ethnicities, we were
interested in determining if ethnicity would explain variance when combined with the other
variables, thus it was added to the regression
equation (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarinno, 2006).
To control for the impact of race/ethnicity, it
was included in the regression. Race/ethnicity
was dummy coded, and White was used as the
reference group.
Main Analyses
To test the hypotheses that controlling for
race/ethnicity, high gender role conflict, and
low DOS would predict negative body image in
men and self-objectification, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. Because
there is previous literature supporting a relationship between race/ethnicity and the criterion
variables, these predictors were entered in the
first step. Thus, controlling for race/ethnicity,
gender role conflict was entered in the second
block (based on previous research supporting
the relation between gender role conflict and
body image) (e.g., Tylka et al., 2005). Because
this is the first known study examining DOS and
body image/self-objectification, it was added as
a last step to examine if it added variance to the
prediction of the criterion variables. Thus, four
separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine if gender role
conflict and DOS would be significant predictors of muscularity, low body fat, height, or
self-objectification after controlling for the effects of ethnicity. In each regression, race/
ethnicity (which was dummy coded) was entered at the first step, followed by the Gender
Role Conflict subscales, which were in turn,
were followed by the DOS subscales. The results yielded by the hierarchical regression analyses are discussed below.
Prediction of muscularity. See Table 3 for
results of the regression analysis for the Muscularity subscale. After controlling for the effects of ethnicity, the four subscales of Gender
Role Conflict accounted for 7% of the variance,
F(7, 194) ⫽ 1.21, p ⬎ .05, and did not account
for significant unique variance on this criterion
measure. However, in step 3, with the addition
of the four subscales of DOS, the full model
accounted for 11% of the variance, F(7,
194) ⫽ 2.10, p ⬍ .05, and Asian American
ethnicity was a significant negative predictor
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05), indicating that being
Asian American was associated with concern
216
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression for
Muscularity (n ⫽ 201)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Variable
Step 1
Latino
Black
Asian
Step 2
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Step 3
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Emotional recativity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
B
SE B
␤
⫺3.88
⫺0.32
⫺3.92
2.25
2.31
1.67
⫺0.14
⫺0.01
⫺0.19ⴱ
⫺3.69
⫺0.48
⫺4.23
⫺0.03
0.02
0.04
2.27
2.33
1.79
0.08
0.09
0.12
⫺0.13
⫺0.02
⫺0.20ⴱ
⫺0.04
0.02
0.03
0.12
0.14
0.07
⫺3.73
⫺0.61
⫺4.06
⫺0.1
0.06
⫺0.02
2.24
2.38
1.81
0.08
0.11
0.12
⫺0.13
⫺0.13
⫺0.19ⴱ
⫺0.11
0.06
⫺0.2
0.14
0.18
0.29
⫺0.14
0.04
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.11
0.16
0.08
0.12
0.27ⴱⴱ
⫺0.13
0.03
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition;
RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
about muscularity and IP was a significant positive predictor (␤ ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .01), indicating
that an IP was associated with a lack of concern
about muscularity.
Prediction of low body fat. See Table 4
for results of the regression analysis for the Low
Body Fat subscale. After controlling for the
effects of ethnicity the four subscales of Gender
Role Conflict accounted for 8% of the variance,
F(7, 194) ⫽ 1.87, p ⬍ .05, and Restrictive
Emotionality was a significant negative predictor (␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05), indicating that high
restrictive emotionality was associated with a
concern about low body fat. RABBM was a
significant positive predictor (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .05),
indicating that high RABBM is associated with
a lack of concern about low body fat. In step 3,
with the addition of the four subscales of DOS,
the full model accounted for 17% of the variance, F(7, 194) ⫽ 3.33, p ⬍ .001, and ER (␤ ⫽
.25, p ⬍ .01) and IP (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .05) were
significant positive predictors of the Low Body
Fat subscale, indicating that high IP and low ER
are associated with a lack of concern about low
body fat.
Prediction of height. See Table 5 for results of the regression analysis for the Height
subscale. After controlling for the effects of
ethnicity, the four subscales of Gender Role
Conflict accounted for 3% of the variance, F(7,
194) ⫽ .69, p ⬎ .05, and did not account for
significant unique variance on this criterion
measure. In step 3, with the addition of the four
subscales of DOS, the full model accounted for
13% of the variance, F(7, 194) ⫽ 1.83, p ⬍ .05,
and Fusion was a significant negative predictor
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .05), indicating that high fusion
is associated with a lack of concern about height
and ER was a significant positive predictor (␤ ⫽
.27, p ⬍ .01), indicating that low emotional
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression for Low Body
Fat (n ⫽ 201)
Variable
Step 1
Latino
Black
Asian
Step 2
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Step 3
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Emotional reactivity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
␤
B
SE B
⫺1.44
1.59
⫺1.58
2.13
2.19
1.58
⫺0.05
0.06
⫺0.08
⫺1.56
1.59
⫺2.07
0.1
⫺0.17
0.25
2.12
2.17
1.66
0.08
0.08
0.11
⫺0.06
0.06
⫺0.11
0.12
⫺0.19ⴱ
0.23ⴱ
⫺0.1
0.13
⫺0.06
⫺1.75
1.51
⫺1.1
0.06
⫺0.01
0.18
2.04
2.17
1.64
0.08
0.1
0.11
⫺0.06
0.05
⫺0.06
0.07
⫺0.01
0.16
⫺0.02
0.36
0.22
0.04
⫺0.09
0.12
0.14
0.09
0.1
0.15
⫺0.01
0.25ⴱⴱ
0.23ⴱ
0.05
⫺0.06
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition;
RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
R2 ⫽ .03 for Step 1; ⴱR2 ⫽ .08 for Step 2; ⴱⴱR2 ⫽ .17 for
Step 3 (⌬R2 ⫽ .09).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
Table 5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression for Height
(n ⫽ 201)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Variable
Step 1
Latino
Black
Asian
Step 2
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive
emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Step 3
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
RE
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Emotional reactivity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
␤
217
194) ⫽ 3.27, p ⬍ .05, and SPC (␤ ⫽ ⫺.29, p ⬍
.001) and IP (␤ ⫽ ⫺.22, p ⬍ .05), ER (␤ ⫽
⫺.27, p ⬍ .01), and EC (␤ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .05)
were significant negative predictors, indicating
that low SPC conflict, IP and high EC, and ER
are associated with a high self-objectification.
B
SE B
⫺0.25
0.37
⫺0.25
0.5
0.51
0.37
⫺0.04
0.06
⫺0.09
⫺0.31
0.36
⫺0.49
⫺0.01
0.5
0.52
0.4
0.02
⫺0.05
0.05
⫺0.12
⫺0.07
0.01
⫺0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
⫺0.01
⫺0.02
0.03
⫺0.06
Previous literature has found that negative
body image is consistently associated with psychological distress in men (Tager et al., 2006).
It appears that body image can be an integral
component of male identity, particularly when
men feel pressure to adhere to rigid masculine
norms (Jacobi & Cash, 1994). Previous research
has not examined the process of individuation in
0.3
0.39
⫺0.28
⫺0.02
0.03
⫺0.01
0.5
0.53
0.4
0.02
0.02
0.03
⫺0.05
0.06
⫺0.06
0.1
0.15
⫺0.05
Table 6
Summary of Hierarchical Regression for
Self-Objectification (n ⫽ 201)
⫺0.01
0.09
0.03
0.03
⫺0.09
0.03
0.03
0.22
0.02
0.04
⫺0.02
0.27ⴱⴱ
0.11
0.02
⫺0.19ⴱ
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition;
RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
R2 ⫽ .02 for Step 1; R2 ⫽ .03 for Step 2; ⴱR2 ⫽ .13 for
Step 3 (⌬R2 ⫽ .10).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
reactivity is associated with a lack of concern
about height.
Prediction of self-objectification. See
Table 6 for results of the regression analysis for
Self-Objectification. After controlling for the
effects of ethnicity the four subscales of Gender
Role Conflict accounted for 9% of the variance,
F(7, 194) ⫽ 1.88, p ⬎ .05, and SPC was a
significant negative predictor (␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍
.01) indicating that low success, power, and
competition conflict is associated with high
self-objectification, and that RABBM was a significant positive predictor (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05),
indicating that high restrictive affectionate behavior between men conflict is associated with
high self-objectification. In step 3, with the addition of the four subscales of DOS, the full
model accounted for 19% of the variance, F(7,
Discussion
Variable
Step 1
Latino
Black
Asian
Step 2
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive
emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Step 3
Latino
Black
Asian
SPC
Restrictive
emotionality
RABBM
Conflict between work
and family
Emotional reactivity
I-position
Emotional cutoff
Fusion
B
SE B
␤
1.09
1.05
3.82
2.75
2.83
2.07
0.03
0.03
0.17ⴱ
0.94
0.46
2.32
⫺0.26
2.73
2.8
2.17
0.1
0.03
0.01
0.09
⫺0.24ⴱⴱ
⫺0.13
0.3
0.11
0.14
⫺0.12
0.21ⴱ
0.32
0.17
0.13
0.95
⫺0.18
2.45
⫺0.32
2.64
2.81
2.14
0.1
0.03
⫺0.01
0.1
⫺0.29ⴱⴱ
⫺0.11
0.23
0.13
0.14
⫺0.09
0.15
0.32
⫺0.5
⫺0.3
⫺0.28
⫺0.08
0.16
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.19
0.13
⫺0.27ⴱⴱ
⫺0.22ⴱ
⫺0.21ⴱ
⫺0.04
Note. SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition;
RABBM ⫽ restrictive affectionate behavior between men.
R2 ⫽ .06 for Step 1; ⴱⴱR2 ⫽ .09 for Step 2; ⴱⴱⴱR2 ⫽ .19 for
Step 3 (⌬R2 ⫽ .19).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
218
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
college students as predictors of body satisfaction and objectification. The purpose of this
study was to add to the current literature in two
ways: First, when controlling for ethnic/racial
group membership, to clarify the relationship
between masculine gender role conflict and
body image and self-objectification in men; second, to control for ethnic/racial group differences and masculinity and examine whether
DOS (Bowen, 1978) would significantly add to
the prediction of body image and self-objectification in men. These hypotheses were partially
supported.
Because of the sample’s diversity, race/
ethnicity was controlled for in the prediction of
body image and self-objectification. Limited
previous research had contradictory findings related to ethnic/racial groups and male body image (Ricciardelli et al., 2007). In this study, only
participants who identified as Asian American
were associated with dissatisfaction with one’s
body (as related to muscularity). In addition,
although previous literature has suggested a stable relation between aspects of masculinity and
male body image (Jacobi & Cash, 1994; Olivardia, 2001; O’Dea & Abraham, 1999), the
examination of gender role conflict as a predictor of body image was only partially supported.
Finally, DOS was found to be predictive of
body image and self-objectification. In particular, this study found that an individuated identity and a lack of ER and sensitivity were related
to a positive body image and low selfobjectification.
Prediction of Muscularity
After controlling for the effects of race/
ethnicity, gender role conflict was not a significant predictor of muscularity. This was surprising because previous research had shown that a
man’s desire to be more muscular is related to
feelings of conflict regarding success, power,
and competition, as well as difficulty balancing
work and family (McCreary et al., 2005; Olivardia, 2001). In addition, muscularity has been
found to be one attribute that distinguishes men
from women, and a way to assert one’s masculinity or power over other men (Pope, Phillips et
al., 2000). However, being Asian American was
a significant positive predictor of muscle dissatisfaction. It is important to note that when examining mean differences between ethnic/racial
groups on body image there were no differences. Thus, this finding should be interpreted
cautiously because it may be a statistical artifact. However, this finding is consistent with
research conducted by Barnett et al. (2001),
which found that Asian American men were
less satisfied with their bodies compared with
White men. However, results of a meta-analysis
on men and body image indicated that the research comparing Asian American men with
White men is inconsistent (Ricciardelli et al.,
2007). The majority of the articles reviewed did
indicate that Asian American men had greater
body concerns, but some research indicated that
there was no difference between the groups or
that Asian American men had lesser bodyimage concerns then Whites. However, a variety of measures were used to examine bodyimage dissatisfaction across the articles, thus
the results may not measure the same construct.
Our results may be due to measuring a specific
aspect of male body-image dissatisfaction: muscularity. It is also important to note that this
study did not examine within-group differences
and the findings may be due to ethnic identity,
racial identity, or acculturation factors.
When DOS was added to the regression, the
overall model served as a significant predictor
of muscle dissatisfaction. Being Asian American continued to be a positive predictor of muscle dissatisfaction. In addition, the ability to
take an IP (i.e., a defined and autonomous sense
of self) was a negative predictor, indicating that
those who are able to take a healthy IP were less
focused on being muscular. It is interesting to
note that being Asian American and not taking
an IP were related to muscle dissatisfaction. As
stated above, this finding may be affected by
cultural factors, such as collectivistic versus individualistic cultural values. Thus, those from a
collectivistic culture who internalize societal
pressure to look a certain way may not have
autonomous and alternative values about their
body. Because there is no research examining
DOS, and limited research on cultural differences in relation to male body image, it is
difficult to form accurate conclusions. Results
have shown that those who are able to take an
I-position have greater psychological health and
less anxiety than those who engage in emotional
reactivity, cutoff, or fusion with others (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998). In addition, those that
can take an I-position experience greater auton-
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
omy and are not easily pressured by outside
influences. Thus, it is possible that these individuals are able to resist pressure from society
to conform to an ideal body type.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Low Body Fat
After controlling for ethnicity, gender role
conflict was a significant predictor of pressure
to have lower body fat. Specifically, gender role
conflict related to the inability to express or
understand emotions and, alternatively, a lack
of conflict concerning affectionate behavior
with other men was associated with dissatisfaction with one’s amount of body fat. This finding
appears somewhat contradictory. This finding is
consistent with the hypothesis that restricting
emotions leads to body-image pressure. Restrictive emotionality has consistently been found to
be the gender role conflict factor with the strongest relationship to psychological distress
(Good et al., 1995), so it was not surprising it
predicted dissatisfaction with one’s amount of
body fat. Restricting emotions truncates communication and expression and may lead men to
overemphasize external factors such as body
image. Having low body fat is one way to
control how others view you. In addition, having low body fat may be used as a form of
intrapsychic control. Controlling the body may
defend against uncomfortable emotions, such as
anxiety, that come with being overweight. The
fact that restrictive affectionate behavior between men was associated with greater satisfaction with one’s body fat was contradictory to
our hypotheses. Although there is evidence that
low body fat is a prevalent concern in male
body image (Tylka et al., 2005), there is evidence that men who feel pressure to adhere to
traditional gender roles desire to be muscular
and big, with thinness denoting femininity
(O’Dea & Abraham, 1999; Olivardia, 2001).
Restrictive affectionate behavior between men
measures an aspect of homophobia in which
men fear appearing gay in their interactions
with other men (O’Neil et al., 1995). It may be
that this leads men to want to appear bigger and
fear that having low body fat will lead to a
feminine appearance.
When DOS was added to the regression, only
the DOS factors of IP were negative predictors
and ER was a positive predictor of dissatisfaction with one’s body fat. Similar to the finding
219
on muscularity, it appears that an individuated
sense of self is a protective factor from dissatisfaction with one’s body fat. On the other hand,
a tendency to be emotionally sensitive and reactive appears to be a risk factor for body fat
dissatisfaction. ER is theoretically derived from
enmeshment with others (Bowen, 1978) and
may relate to increased attention and reactivity
to what others think. Previous research has
found that, particularly for men, the ability to
openly express emotions is a key to psychological health (Good et al., 1995). It may be that
even men who are expressing emotions in an
unhealthy and reactive way or restricting emotions are at risk to overly focus on body-image
issues related to low body fat.
Height
After controlling for the effects of ethnicity,
gender role conflict was not a significant predictor of dissatisfaction with height. When DOS
was added to the regression, the overall model
served as a significant predictor of dissatisfaction with height. Specifically, those high in
emotional reactivity and low in fusion with others were more dissatisfied with height. Because
satisfaction with height is not measured in most
body-image measures it is difficult to interpret
these findings. It may be that because height is
not malleable, those who are more ER may
experience more conflict about height. Cash,
Theriault, and Annis (2004) found that those
who had a preoccupied style of attachment (i.e.,
anxiously focused on others) were less satisfied
with their body; however, dissatisfaction with
one’s height was not specifically measured. In
contrast, people who are fused with others were
more satisfied with height. It is important to
note that there was no significant correlation
between fusion and height; this finding needs to
be replicated and should be interpreted cautiously. Those who experience fusion tend to be
enmeshed with others, demonstrating a lack of
individuality and autonomy, and seek approval
at all costs (Peleg-Popko, 2002). It may be
possible that people who are fused with others
may not be concerned about height, because it is
not something that can be changed. Future research is needed to make meaningful interpretations of this finding.
220
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Self-Objectification
Self-objectification has been defined as internalizing societal messages that view individuals’ value in terms of external factors, leading to
a preoccupation with physical appearance
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Fredrickson et
al., 1998; Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama,
2002). In this study, after controlling for race/
ethnicity, it was found that aspects of gender
role conflict were significant predictors of selfobjectification. Specifically, an overemphasis
on achievement, competition, and power and
control over others negatively predicted selfobjectification. In contrast, discomfort with the
expression of affectionate behavior in relation
to other men positively predicted self-objectification. Thus men who have difficulty making
close emotional connections with other men
were more likely to self-objectify. When DOS
was added, the gender role conflict factor of
Success, Power, and Competition was still a
negative predictor of self-objectification. This is
a surprising finding; it was hypothesized that
high gender role conflict would predict selfobjectification. Previous research that found
self-objectification related to appearance increases exercise and a drive for muscularity
(McCreary et al., 2005; Strelan & Hargreaves,
2005), which may accompany a focus on success and competition with others. It may be that
a preoccupation with success and achievement,
particularly in an academic environment, leads
to less focus on external appearance. It is important to note that this finding could be connected to developmental issues related to being
a college student. The findings on DOS factors
were that high ER and EC and low IP predicted
self-objectification. It appears, therefore, that
men who have a healthy sense of self and do not
either seek emotional distance in relationships
or react emotionally are less likely to internalize
societal objectification. Thus, it appears that
emotional reactivity to others and being emotionally distant relate to being overly focused on
appearance, whereas having an autonomous
identity while remaining connected to others is
associated with a lower level of self-objectification. Previous research has suggested that the
strongest influence of self-objectification in
men is the media (Morrison, Morrison, & Hopkins, 2003; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). It is
important to note that examining self-objectifica-
tion in men is relatively new (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004) and
the results should be replicated. This study suggests that future research should examine the impact of relationships on male self-objectification.
Summary and Implications
Overall, the consistent findings of this study
suggest that for men, having an autonomous
sense of self and not being overly emotionally
reactive in relation to others are protective factors against body-image concerns and selfobjectification. Previous research has found that
alexithimia, or the restriction of emotions, is
related to multiple forms of distress in men
(Good et al., 1995). In addition, body image has
been conceptualized as an external symbol of
masculinity (Olivardia et al., 2004). ER, theorized as unhealthy and related to a fusion with
others, may lead men, when combined with a
lack of an autonomous sense of self, to overemphasizing external factors such as body image.
It appears that counselors treating men with
body-image concerns should focus on their interpersonal relations with others. In particular, it
appears that having an autonomous sense of self
(i.e., an identity separate from others while
maintaining connected) and finding a balance
between restricting emotions and emotional reactivity is important. Interpersonal approaches
to therapy (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Teyber, 1992)
would allow men to actively find a balance
between intimacy and autonomy in relationships as they explore body-image issues. Men’s
relationships with each other may be particularly important to examine. It may be that a lack
of differentiation leads men to base their perception of themselves on others, resulting in
distorted body image. Moreover, healthy differentiation would lead to a healthy balance between affect and cognition (Bowen, 1978). Interpersonally focused therapy may assist men in
not reacting impulsively (e.g., with steroids or
testosterone) to body-image concerns. This is
particularly important considering the multiple
pressures coming from the media, society, and
family proscribing hegemonic masculinity and
an ideal body image. Investing in close relationships with others, particularly men who do not
proscribe to rigid body standards or criticize
others, may be a protective factor for bodyimage concerns. This may suggest the impor-
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tance of educating men on supporting each
other in relation to body-image issues. In addition, consistent with feminist therapy (Brabeck
& Brown, 1997), raising men’s social consciousness on the messages they are receiving
from society may allow those men to challenge
those messages, thus differentiating and leading
to a more realistic body image.
Limitations
The Differentiation of Self Inventory (Skowron
& Friedlander, 1998) was designed to be used
with those 25 and older. The average age of our
sample was 22.08 years, so it is possible that the
results would be different if the participants
sampled were a few years older. Furthermore,
there may be a generational or developmental
factors related to body-image perception; because of our limited sample, we were not able to
assess age as a factor. There is evidence that
pressure on men to have an ideal body has
increased recently (Leit et al., 2001; Morry &
Staska, 2001); thus, a longitudinal or crosssectional design might have explicated age as a
factor. Because the measurement of male body
image is relatively new, more studies are
needed to show that the scales are reliable and
valid. One strength of our sample is the ethnic
diversity of the men. Most other studies consist
solely of, or have a large majority of, White
men. This is particularly important because
body image and DOS may be culture-based
phenomena. Future studies could further explore the role of culture, ethnic identity, and
worldview in the prediction of body image and
self-objectification. Because of previous findings that found differences in body-image satisfaction based on sexual orientation (Morrison,
Morrison, & Sager, 2004), only heterosexual
men were included in this study. Future studies
could examine differences in the variables
based on sexual orientation.
Another limitation of the current study was
that self-report measures were used, thus it is
possible that results do not represent the actual
feelings of the participants. Data was collected
on college men and therefore results may not
generalize to other populations. Because a regression analysis was used, no causal explanations can be made regarding the findings. Future
research could measure body mass index and
examine actual eating and exercise behavior.
221
Examining current peer and romantic relationships separate from the family of origin also
may help understand the causes of body-image
distress. Finally, the results of this study suggest
that for men, emotional variables and relational
factors may be important in body image and
self-objectification research. Future research
could more directly measure emotional and relational aspects and their impact on body-image
variables.
References
Ata, R. N., Ludden, A. B., & Lally, M. (2007). The
effects of gender and family, friend, and media
influences on eating behaviors and body image
during adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 36, 1024 –1037.
Barnett, H. L., Keel, K. K., & Conoscenti, L. M.
(2002). Body type preferences in Asian and Caucasian college students. Sex Roles, 45(11/12), 867–
878.
Blazina, C., & Watkins, E., Jr. (1996). Masculine
gender role conflict: Effects on college men’s psychological well-being, chemical substance usage,
and attitudes toward help-seeking. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 43, 461– 465.
Blazina, C., & Watkins, E., Jr. (2000). Separation/
individuation, parental attachment, and male gender role conflict: Attitudes toward the feminine and
the fragile masculine self. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 1, 126 –132.
Blouin, A. G., & Goldfield, G. S. (1995). Body image
and steroid use in male bodybuilders. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 159 –165.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Brabeck, M., & Brown, L. (1997). Feminist theory
and psychological practice. Shaping the future of
feminist psychology: Education, research, and
practice (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bray, J. H., Harvey, D. M., & Williamson, D. S.
(1987). Intergenerational family relationships: An
evaluation of theory and measurement. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 24,
516 –528.
Byely, L., Archibald, A. B., Graber, J., & BrooksGunn, J. (2000). A prospective study of familial
and social influence on girls’ body image and
dieting. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 155–164.
Cafri, G., Strauss, J., & Thompson, J. K. (2002).
Male body image: Satisfaction and its relationship
to well-being using the somatomorphic matrix.
International Journal of Men’s Health, 1, 215–
231.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
222
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Evaluating the
convergence of muscle appearance attitude measures. Assessment, 11, 224 –229.
Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002). Body image
and social relations. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky
(Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 277–286). New
York: Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Future challenges for body image theory, research, and clinical, practice. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.),
Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and
clinical practice (pp. 509 –516). New York: Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F., Theriault, J., & Annis, N. M. (2004).
Body image in an interpersonal context: Adult
attachment, fear of intimacy, and social anxiety.
Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 23, 89 –
103.
Demarest, J., & Allen, R. (2000). Body image: Gender, ethnic, and age differences. Journal of Social
Psychology, 140, 465– 472.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990).
Appearance anxiety as a dimension of social, and
sexual functioning. Sex Roles, 52, 220 –225.
Drummond, M. J. N. (2002). Men, body image, and
eating disorders. International Journal of Men’s
Health, 1, 89 –103.
Edman, J. L., Yates, A., & Aruguete, M. S. (2005).
Negative emotion and disordered eating among
obese college students. Eating Behaviors, 6, 308 –
317.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s
lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., 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.
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., O’Neil, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., DeBord, K. A., et al.
(1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric
issues and relations to psychological distress.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 3–10.
Grogan, S., & Richards, H. (2002). Body image:
Focus groups with boys and men. Men & Masculinities, 4, 219 –232.
Hargreaves, D. A., & Tiggemann, M. (2004). Idealized media images and adolescent body image:
“Comparing” boys and girls. Body Image, 1, 351–
361.
Harvey, D. M., Curry, C. J., & Bray, J. H. (1991).
Individuation and intimacy in intergenerational relationships and health: Patterns across two generations. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 204 –236.
Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S.
(1995). Development and validation of the sociocultural attitudes towards appearance questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 81– 89.
Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994). In pursuit of the
perfect appearance: Discrepancies among selfideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 379 –396.
Jenkins, S. M., Buboltz, W. C., Schwartz, J. P., &
Johnson, P. (2005). Differentiation of self and psychosocial development. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 27, 251–261.
Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Measuring
masculine body ideal distress. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 1–10.
Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Body building
subculture and gender construction. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Leit, R. A., Pope, H. G., & Gray, J. J. (2001). Cultural expectations of muscularity in men: The evolution of playgirl centerfolds. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 90 –93.
Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict in men as
a predictor of self-ratings of behavior on the Interpersonal Circle. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 19, 276 –292.
Mahalik, J. R., Cournoyer, R. J., DeFranc, W.,
Cherry, M., & Napolitano, J. M. (1998). Men’s
gender role conflict and use of psychological defenses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45,
247–255.
Mayville, S., Katz, R. C., Gipson, M. T., & Cabral,
K. (1999). Assessing the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder in an ethnically diverse group of
adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 8,
357–362.
McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. (2000). An exploration
of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and
girls. Journal of American College Health, 48,
297–304.
McCreary, D. R., Saucier, D. M., & Courtenay,
W. H. (2005). The drive for muscularity and masculinity: Testing the associations among genderrole traits, behaviors, attitudes and conflict. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 83–94.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarinno, A. J. (2006).
Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, K. J., Gleaves, D. H., Hirsch, T. G., Green,
B. A., Snow, A. C., & Chanda, C. C. (2000).
Comparisons of body image dimensions by race/
ethnicity and gender in a university population.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 27,
310 –316.
Mills, J. S., & D’Alfonso, S. R. (2007). Competition
and male body image: Increased drive for muscu-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
BODY IMAGE AND SELF-OBJECTIFICATION
larity following failure to a female. Journal of
Social & Clinical Psychology, 26, 505–518.
Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L. R., &
Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of
masculinity: Cultural, psychological and behavioral dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 545–562.
Morrison, M., Morrison, S., & Sager, N. (2004).
Does body satisfaction differ between gay men and
lesbian women and heterosexual men and women?
A meta-analytic review. Body Image, 1, 127–138.
Morrison, T. G., Morrison, M. A., & Hopkins, C.
(2003). Striving for bodily perfection? An exploration of the drive for muscularity in Canadian
men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 111–
120.
Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Magazine
exposure: Internalization, self-objectification, eating attitude, and body satisfaction in male and
female university students. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 33, 269 –279.
Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002).
Self-objectification and its psychological outcomes
for college women. Psychology of Women, 26,
371–379.
Murdock, N. L., & Gore, P. A. (2004). Stress, coping,
and differentiation of self: A test of Bowen theory.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 26, 319 –335.
Noll, S. M. (1996). The relationship between sexual
objectification and disordered eating: Correlational
and experimental tests of body shame as a mediator. Doctoral dissertation, Duke University,
Durham, NC.
Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model lnking self-objectification, body same
and disordered eating. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 22, 623– 636.
O’Dea, J. A., & Abraham, S. (1999). Onset of disordered eating attitudes and behaviors in early adolescence: Interplay of pubertal status, gender,
weight, and age. Adolescence, 34, 671– 679.
Olivardia, R. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall,
who’s the largest of them all? The features and
phenomenology of muscle dysmorphia. Harvard
Review of Psychiatry, 9, 254 –259.
Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Borowiecki, J. J., &
Cohane, G. H. (2004). Biceps and body image:
The relationship between muscularity and selfesteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 112–120.
O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the
Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445.
O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995).
Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s
gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical
223
research. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new
psychology of men (pp. 164 –206). New York:
Basic Books.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., &
Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender Role Conflict
Scale (GRCS): College men’s fear of femininity.
Sex Roles, 14, 335–350.
Peleg-Popko, O. (2002). Bowen theory: A study of
differentiation of self, social anxiety and physiological symptoms. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24, 355–369.
Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J., Mangweth, B., Bureau,
B., deCol, C., & Jouvent, R., et al. (2000). Body
image perception among men in three countries.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1297–1301.
Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., &
Borowiecki, J. (1999). Evolving ideals of male
body image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26, 65–72.
Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000).
The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male
body obsession. New York: Free Press.
Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2004). A
biopsychosocial model of disordered eating and
the pursuit of muscularity in adolescent boys. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 179 –205.
Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., Williams, R. J., &
Thompson, K. (2007). The role of ethnicity and
culture in body image and disordered eating
among males. Clinical Psychology Review, 27,
582– 606.
Robinson, D. T., & Schwartz, J. P. (2004). Relationship between gender role conflict and attitudes
toward women and African Americans. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 65–71.
Rorty, M., Yager, J., Buckwalter, J. G., Rossotto, E.,
& Guthrie, D. (2000). Development and validation
of the parental intrusiveness rating scale among
bulimic and comparison women. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 188 –201.
Russell, W. D. (2002). Comparison of self-esteem,
body satisfaction, and social physique anxiety
across males of different exercise frequency and
racial background. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25,
74 –90.
Schwartz, J. P., & Tylka, T. L. (2008). Exploring
entitlement as a moderator and mediator of the
relationship between masculine gender role conflict and men’s body esteem. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 9, 67– 81.
Schwartz, J. P., Waldo, M., & Higgins, A. J. (2004).
Attachment styles: Relationship to masculine gender role conflict in college men. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 5, 143–146.
Sharpe, M. J., & Heppner, P. P. (1991). Gender role,
gender-role conflict, and psychological well-being
in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
323–330.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
224
SCHWARTZ ET AL.
Shelton, S., & Liljequist, L. (2002). Characteristics
and behaviors associated with body image in male
domestic violence offenders. Eating Behaviors, 3,
217–227.
Skowron, E. A. (2000). The role of differentiation of
self in marital adjustment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47, 229 –237.
Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The
differentiation of self inventory: Development and
initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 235–246.
Skowron, E. A., Holmes, S. E., & Sabatelli, R. M.
(2003). Deconstructing differentiation: Self regulation, interdependent relating, and well-being in
adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 25, 111–129.
Smith, D. E., Thompson, J. K., Raczynski, J. M., &
Hilner, J. E. (1999). Body image among men and
women in a biracial cohort: The CARDIA study.
Smith International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 71– 82.
Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Reasons for
exercise and body esteem: Men’s responses to
self-objectification. Sex Roles, 53, 495–503.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using
multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Tager, D., Good, G. E., & Morrison, J. B. (2006). Our
bodies, ourselves revisited: Male body image and
psychological well-being. International Journal of
Men’s Health, 5, 228 –237.
Teyber, E. (1992). Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: A guide for clinical training (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., &
Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). The scope of body im-
age disturbance: The big picture. In J. K. Thompson, L. J. Heinberg, & M. Altabe (Eds.), Exacting
beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body
image disturbance (pp. 19 –50). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. (2004). The role of
body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299 –311.
Tylka, T. L., Bergeron, D., & Schwartz, J. P. (2005).
Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Male Body Attitudes Scale (MBAS). Body Image, 2, 161–175.
Vartanian, L. R., Giant, C. L., & Passino, R. M.
(2001). “Ally McBeal vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger”: Comparing mass media, interpersonal feedback and gender as predictors of satisfaction with
body thinness and muscularity. Social Behavior &
Personality, 29, 711–723.
Weinke, C. (1998). Negotiating the male body: Men,
masculinity, and cultural ideals. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 6, 255–282.
Williamson, D. A., Davis, C. J., Bennett, S. M.,
Goreczny, A. J., & Gleaves, D. H. (1985). Development of a simple procedure for assessing body
image disturbance. Behavioral Assessment, 11,
433– 446.
Wright, J. C., & Huston, A. C. (1983). A matter of
form: Potentials of television for young viewers.
American Psychologist, 38, 835– 843.
Received August 22, 2008
Revision received October 21, 2009
Accepted October 21, 2009 䡲