The Counseling Psychologist http://tcp.sagepub.

com/

Objectification Theory: Areas of Promise and Refinement

Bonnie Moradi The Counseling Psychologist 2011 39: 153 originally published online 17 November 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0011000010384279 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/39/1/153

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

Additional services and information for The Counseling Psychologist can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/39/1/153.refs.html

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

>> Version of Record - Dec 15, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 17, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

384279
4279MoradiThe Counseling Psychologist The Author 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

TCP39110.1177/001100001038

Reaction

Objectification Theory: Areas of Promise and Refinement

Bonnie Moradi1

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1) 153163 The Author 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0011000010384279 http://tcp.sagepub.com

Abstract This article elaborates on three themes related to Szymanski, Moffitt, and Carrs major contribution aims. First, the article describes the promise of objectification theory as a grounding framework in research and practice, outlining how this theory integrates key aspects of several other important theoretical models. Second, this article suggests areas for theoretical refinement and clarification related to the conceptualization and operationalization of self-objectification, sexually objectifying environments, and the mechanisms linking sexual objectification with substance use. Third, this article offers considerations regarding the state of objectification theorybased intervention recommendations. The article concludes with a discussion of potential roles of counseling psychologists in advancing research, practice, and advocacy informed by objectification theory. Keywords objectification theory, self-objectification, body surveillance, gender, culture Szymanski, Moffitt, and Carrs (2011) major contribution is a commendable effort to provide an overview of objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) to counseling psychologists, apply this framework to the
1

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Corresponding Author: Bonnie Moradi, University of Florida, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 Email: moradib@ufl.edu

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

154

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

study of substance use among women, describe womens experiences in environments of heightened sexual objectification, and offer recommendations for clinical practice and training. In this article, I elaborate on three themes related to Szymanski et al.s aims: (a) the promise of objectification theory as a grounding framework in research and practice, (b) areas for theoretical refinement and clarification, and (c) the state of objectification theorybased intervention recommendations. I conclude with a discussion of potential roles of counseling psychologists in advancing research, practice, and advocacy that is informed by objectification theory. I hope that the discussion of these themes, along with Szymanski and colleagues important work, encourages further attention to objectification theory in counseling psychology research, practice, and advocacy.

Promise of Objectification Theory as Grounding Framework in Research and Practice

In their original articulation of objectification theory, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) proposed that gender role socialization and sexual objectification experiences socialize girls and women to internalize cultural standards of attractiveness as their own and to take on an observers perspective on their own body. Such self-objectification is manifested as persistent body surveillance, which can promote body shame, increase anxiety, reduce awareness of internal bodily states (e.g., hunger, fullness), and prevent peak motivational states that are critical to psychological well-being (what Csikszentmihalyi, 1982, 1990, called flow). These factors, in turn, can promote eating disorder symptoms, depressive symptoms, and sexual dysfunction. An important contribution of the present major contribution is to bring objectification theory and related research to greater focus among counseling psychologists. Indeed, since Fredrickson and Robertss publication of objectification theory in 1997, there has been a proliferation of scholarship related to the theory. This research has extended the theory to diverse populations of women as well as to men and has addressed important mental health and well-being indicators such as body image problems, eating disorder symptomatology, depression, sexual health and efficacy, flow, and task performance (for a review, see Moradi & Huang, 2008). In addition to its general scholarly impact, objectification theory is a particularly useful framework because it integrates well-supported aspects of several other important theories and because it has the promise to accommodate the experiences of diverse populations (Moradi, 2010; Smolak & Murnen, 2001).

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

Moradi

155

A Framework for Theoretical Integration

The promise of objectification theory as a framework for theoretical integration has been detailed previously (Moradi, 2010). But a brief overview is helpful to the present discussion. Objectification theory incorporates a number of key aspects of other theories. Specifically, objectification theory includes the constructs of body surveillance and body shame from the objectified body consciousness framework (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Within its conceptualization of sexual objectification experiences, objectification theory includes thinness pressures implicated as a risk factor in the dual pathway model (e.g., Stice & Agras, 1999) and the tripartite influence model (e.g., Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999; van den Berg, Thompson, Obremski-Brandon, & Coovert, 2002). Within the concept of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, objectification theory subsumes the dual pathway models concept of internalization of the thin ideal. Objectification theory also includes the tripartite influence models concept of heightened appearance comparison within its conceptualizations of self-objectification and body surveillance. Although referred to with varying terminology across theories, these overlapping constructs of sexual objectification experiences, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, body surveillance, and body shame are among the most consistently supported risk factors in the eating disorder literature (Stice, 2002). Beyond its integration of empirically supported areas of model convergence, objectification theory also extends prior frameworks in important ways. For example, objectification theory proposes a mediating role of body shame in the link of body surveillance with other risk factors. It delineates distinctive roles for anxiety and depression (as opposed to a focus on overall negative affect) and includes a potential health promoting role of flow. Objectification theory also addresses the co-occurrence of eating disorder and depressive symptoms. It also acknowledges a wide range of sexual objectification experiences, including but not limited to thinness pressures, as mental health risk factors (Moradi, 2010).

Promise for Investigating the Experiences of Diverse Populations

Another important strength of the objectification theory framework is that its basic constructs and tenets can be broadened to accommodate the experiences of diverse populations (Moradi, 2010). For example, objectification theorys

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

156

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

scope of consideration beyond thinness pressures, to include socialization and sexual objectification experiences, has been extended to include experiences of sexual objectification and recalled harassment for childhood gender nonconformity among sexual minority men (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010) and conflict between deaf and hearing cultures among deaf women (Moradi & Rottenstein, 2007), the concept of body surveillance has been extended to include skin tone surveillance among African American women (Buchanan, Fischer, Tokar, & Yoder, 2008), and the set of relations posited in the framework has been examined with racially and ethnically diverse samples (e.g., Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004; Mitchell & Mazzeo, 2009; Quinn, Kallen, Twenge, & Fredrickson, 2006) and with heterosexual and sexual minority women and men (e.g., Hill & Fischer, 2008; Kozee & Tylka, 2006; Martins, Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010). Objectification theory is also being used to study a broad range of criterion variables beyond those originally outlined (i.e., eating disorders, depression, sexual dysfunctions), including, for example, propensity for cosmetic surgery (Calogero, Pina, Park, & Rahemtulla, 2010), attitudes toward menstruation and breast-feeding (e.g., Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008; Johnston-Robledo, Wares, Fricker, & Pasek, 2007; Roberts, 2004), and substance use, as illustrated in this issue (Carr & Szymanski, 2011).

Areas for Theoretical Refinement and Conceptual Clarification

The rich body of research on objectification theory, including the advancements offered in this issue, suggests opportunities for theoretical refinement and conceptual clarification. One such area was noted previously (Moradi, 2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008) as a point of clarification regarding the conceptualization and measurement of self-objectification, and the qualitative data offered by Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) speak to this issue. Specifically, there is some variability in how self-objectification has been operationalized in prior research. For example, it has been measured as the difference between participants perceived importance of appearance-based versus competence-based body attributes (Self-Objectification Questionnaire; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), as body surveillance (Objectified Body Consciousness ScaleSurveillance; McKinley & Hyde, 1996), as a separate construct from body surveillance (e.g., Slater & Tiggemann, 2002; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), and as a latent construct with body surveillance and internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness as indicators (e.g., Kozee, Tylka, Augustus-Horvath, & Denchik, 2007).

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

Moradi

157

On the basis of empirical support for the unique roles of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness and body surveillance, however, a useful conceptual shift may be to consider self-objectification as a process rather than as a specific variable to be measured. As such, the process of selfobjectification may be promoted by sexual objectification experiences and manifested by internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness and body surveillance, and their links, in turn, with greater body shame, and the other intermediary variables delineated in objectification theory (for a figural depiction of this process, see Moradi, 2010). This conceptualization is consistent with some of Moffitt and Szymanskis (2011) qualitative findings with women who worked in an environment of heightened sexual objectification. Specifically, among the manifest changes from working in that environment, these participants described how they came to internalize the beauty standards of their work environment to the extent of applying them outside of that environment; they also described engaging in greater body surveillance. Both of these changesinternalization of beauty standards and increased body surveillancemay reflect manifestations of the self-objectification process promoted by working in an environment of heightened sexual objectification. These qualitatively reported changes suggest that measuring internalization and body surveillance directly may be important in future objectification theory research (Moradi, 2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008). Another point of theoretical refinement and an important contribution of Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) is an articulation of the characteristics of a sexually objectifying environment. These characteristics provide a framework for thinking about sexual objectification at the level of environments or institutions in addition to the typical conceptualization of the construct as an interpersonal phenomenon (e.g., Kozee et al., 2007; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005). Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) described sexually objectifying environments as environments in which (a) traditional female and male gender roles exist, (b) a high degree of attention is drawn to physical/sexual attributes of womens bodies, (c) a high probability of male contact exists, (d) women have little power in that environment, and (e) there is approval and encouragement of male gaze. (p. 69) Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) described restaurants such as Hooters as examples of such environments.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

158

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

It seems that these five characteristics of sexually objectifying environments exist to some degree in many contexts in a patriarchal society where women and their bodies are treated as sexual objects. Indeed, at the societal level within the United States (and many other countries), these five characteristics may be inescapable; this omnipresence of the sexual objectification of women is a key premise of objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Thus, one area of conceptual clarification may be to consider whether sexually objectifying environments are a qualitatively unique form of environment. If so, what is a nonsexually objectifying environment, and where do such environments exist? Alternatively, is Hooters (and other such restaurants) an environment that exaggerates and monetizes sexual objectification characteristics that exist more subtly in most other environments? In other words, is Hooters an environment of heightened sexual objectification relative to environments of typical levels of sexual objectification or a uniquely distinct type of environment? Similarly, are there environments of lower than typical levels of sexual objectification? Also, what are the effects of pay for sexual objectification on womens experiences of such environments? Such questions can be useful to address in clarifying whether the characteristics of sexually objectifying environments that Moffitt and Szymanski (2011) outlined describe differences in kind or degree across environments. Another important contribution made by Carr and Szymanski (2011) is the articulation of mechanisms through which sexual objectification experiences may be linked with substance use. Specifically, Carr and Szymanski (2011) proposed that sexual objectification may promote womens substance use (a) through media and cultural messages that pair womens sexual desirability with substance use, (b) by creating stress and negative affect that elicit substance use as a coping or numbing strategy, and (c) through promoting the series of relations posited in objectification theory among self-objectification, body shame, and depression. The cross-sectional correlational data offered by Carr and Szymanski (2011) suggest that the link between sexual objectification experiences and substance use is largely direct; a small total indirect effect also emerged from the series of links from sexual objectification experiences to body surveillance, to body shame, to depressive symptoms, to substance use. Several observations emerge from considering these data against the three posited mechanisms of translation from sexual objectification experiences to substance use. First, the proposition that one mechanism of translation is media and cultural messages that sexualize substance use suggests the utility of directly assessing internalization of these cultural messages in models of the link between sexual objectification experiences and substance use; perhaps the inclusion of internalization would suggest a larger indirect

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

Moradi

159

effect. Second, as in many objectification theory studies, self-objectification was operationalized as body surveillance in Carr and Szymanskis (2011) study. These two observations underscore the aforementioned point about the utility of assessing internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness and body surveillance as distinct manifestations of the self-objectification process. Finally, as in many tests of indirect effects, the cross-sectional correlation data offered by Carr and Szymanski (2011) provide groundwork for investigating the causal and temporal precedence implied in the model.

The State of Objectification TheoryBased Intervention Recommendations

Szymanski, Carr, and Moffitt (2011) offer a range of thoughtful intervention and training suggestions based on objectification theory. These suggestions represent many directions for further investigation and intervention evaluation. Two brief but important points may be helpful in informing such efforts. First, the body of research on objectification theory is primarily composed of cross-sectional correlational data, some short-term experimental studies, and a few longitudinal studies (Moradi & Huang, 2008). Thus, there are limited data that can address directly the potential effectiveness of any psychoeducational or therapeutic intervention based on objectification theory. However, as Szymanski, Carr, and Moffitt (2011) suggestions illustrate, there are ample data to inform hypotheses about such interventions. Developing and evaluating theoretically and empirically informed interventions continues to be an important needed direction within the objectification theory literature (Moradi, 2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008). The second point and caution is that in developing objectification theory interventions, researchers and practitioners may do well to think outside of the traditional individual therapy framework. For example, Carr and Szymanskis (2011) findings suggest that much of the link between sexual objectification experiences and substance use is direct rather than indirect through the intrapersonal mediating variables. If the causal and temporal relations of these findings are supported, then intervening directly to reduce sexual objectification experiences seems a much more efficient approach than focusing on intrapersonal factors such as body surveillance, body shame, or depression. Although individual-level interventions fit with conventional approaches to therapy, it is important to attend to data suggesting that they might not be the most fruitful approaches to intervention. Calls for increasing counseling psychologists roles as social justice advocates (e.g., Vera & Speight, 2003) are consistent with such a shift from the intrapersonal to the contextual and interpersonal in intervention foci.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

160

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

Role of Counseling Psychologists in Advancing Objectification Theory Research and Practice

The scholarly impact of objectification theory, its utility for theoretical integration, its promise for accommodating experiences of salience across diverse populations, and its potential to inform the development and evaluation of intervention strategies point to its importance for counseling psychology research and practice. Indeed, a PsycINFO search in preparation for this article revealed that the Journal of Counseling Psychology and The Counseling Psychologist are among the peer-reviewed outlets for the most objectification theoryrelated articles: the most frequent outlets were Sex Roles (33 articles), Psychology of Women Quarterly (24 articles), and Body Image (14 articles), with Journal of Counseling Psychology (8 articles) appearing fourth; The Counseling Psychologist would appear fifth (2 prior articles plus the present major contribution articles), followed by Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, and Journal of Applied Social Psychology (2 or 3 articles each). As Szymanski and colleagues work in the present issue exemplifies, counseling psychologists have been contributing in important ways to advancing objectification theory research. Counseling psychologists have been engaged in operationalizing key objectification theory constructsfor instance, Kozee et al.s (2007) development of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale; counseling psychologists have been integrating groupspecific experiences of salience within the frameworkfor instance, Buchanan et al.s (2008) research on skin tone surveillance with African American women; and counseling psychologists have been testing the applicability of the framework with diverse populationsfor instance, Hill and Fischers (2008) research with heterosexual and sexual minority women. Importantly, the areas identified as important for advancing objectification theory literature include broadening the scope and applicability of the framework to capture experiences of diverse populations, evaluating and improving the operationalization of key constructs, and developing and testing prevention and intervention strategies informed by the theory and its growing research literature (Moradi & Huang, 2008). These areas for advancement fit with counseling psychologists expertise and stated commitments to diversity theory and research, psychometrics, and counseling and social justice interventions. The current major contribution represents an important step in encouraging counseling psychologists continued (and greater) engagement in objectification theory research, practice, and advocacy. I hope that the themes discussed in this article are useful for such efforts.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

Moradi Acknowledgments
I thank Brandon Velez for his assistance with preparing this article.

161

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure/Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Buchanan, T. S., Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., & Yoder, J. D. (2008). Testing a culture-specific extension of objectification theory regarding African American womens body image. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 697-718. doi:10.1177/0011000008316322 Calogero, R. M., Pina, A., Park, L. E., & Rahemtulla, Z. (2010). Objectification theory predicts college womens attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 63, 32-41. Carr, E. R., & Szymanski, D. R. (2011). Sexual objectification and substance abuse in young adult women. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 39-66. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (vol. 3, pp. 12-36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding womens lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (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 Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2008). Examining objectification theory: Lesbian and heterosexual womens experiences with sexual- and self-objectification. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 745-776. doi:10.1177/0011000007301669 Johnston-Robledo, I., & Fred, V. (2008). Self-objectification and lower income pregnant womens breastfeeding attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1-2. Johnston-Robledo, I., Wares, S., Fricker, J., & Pasek, L. (2007). Indecent exposure: Self-objectification and young womens attitudes toward breastfeeding. Sex Roles, 56, 429-437. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9194-4

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

162

The Counseling Psychologist 39(1)

Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of objectification theory with lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 348-357. doi:10.1111/j.14716402.2006.00310.x Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176-189. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those Speedos become them: The role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual mens body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634-647. doi:10.1177/0146167206297403 McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x Mitchell, K. S., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2009). Evaluation of a structural model of objectification theory and eating disorder symptomatology among European American and African American undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 384-395. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01516.x Moffitt, L. B., & Szymanski, D. R. (2011). Experiencing sexually objectifying environments: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 67-106. Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 420-428. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.420 Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (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 Moradi, B., & Rottenstein, A. (2007). Objectification theory and deaf cultural identity attitudes: Roles in deaf womens eating disorder symptomatology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 178-188. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.178 Moradi, B. (2010). Addressing gender and cultural diversity in body image: Objectification theory as a framework for integrating theories and grounding research. Sex Roles, 63, 138-148. Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623-636. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The disruptive effect of self-objectification on performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 59-64. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00262.x Roberts, T. A. (2004). Female trouble: The menstrual self-evaluation scale and womens self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 22-26. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-6402.2004.00119.x

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012

Moradi

163

Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343-349. doi:10.1023/A:1020232714705 Smolak, L., & Murnen, S. H. (2001). Gender and eating problems. In R. H. StriegelMoore & L. Smolak (Eds.), Eating disorders: Innovative directions in research and practice (pp. 91-110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10403-005 Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: A metaanalytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825-848. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. 128.5.825 Stice, E., & Agras, W. S. (1999). Subtyping bulimic women along dietary restraint and negative affect dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 460-469. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.460 Szymanski, D. R., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 6-38. Szymanski, D. R., Carr, E. R., & Moffitt, L. B. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: Clinical implications and training considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 107-126. Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M. N., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10312-000 Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification theory in former dancers and non-dancers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 57-64. doi:10.1111/14716402.00007 van den Berg, P., Thompson, J. K., Obremski-Brandon, K., & Coovert, M. (2002). The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 1007-1020. doi:10.1016/ S0022-3999(02)00499-3 Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 253-272. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003001 Wiseman, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 154-166. doi:10.1037/a0018937

Bio
Bonnie Moradi is an Associate Professor of psychology at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on discrimination experiences and identities of women, racial/ ethnic minority, sexual minority, and other minority groups.

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on September 19, 2012