Evaluating Sexual Objectification Instruments and the Cumulative Evidence of their Psychometric Properties: A Systematic Review

Background: Sexual objectification, a psychological process whereby individuals are rendered as sexual objects, has become increasingly evident in mass media. Accurate measurement is imperative given its associated negative outcomes for adults and children; however, there has yet been a systematic evaluation of sexual objectification instruments.

Method: Articles that included self-report instruments measuring sexual objectification were identified through MEDLINE Complete, ProQuest Central, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Reference lists were also examined for potentially relevant articles. The following characteristics were recorded for each instrument where available: (a) sampling methods and characteristics, (b) number of items, item development, scales and subscales, response anchors and score ranges, (c) description of instrument, (d) targets of sexual objectification, (e) reliability and (f) validity.

Results: Forty-four studies and 21 instruments were identified. There were variabilities in how instrument items were generated and how instruments measured and defined sexual objectification. There were also limited psychometric evaluations for almost all instruments, including concurrent, predictive, convergent, and known-groups validities. Consequently, evidence of cumulative validity was gathered by examining studies that used these instruments.

Conclusion: While researchers are given various options for instrument selection, very limited attention has centred on ensuring that existing sexual objectification instruments are psychometrically sound. Future research may benefit from refining these instruments to ensure that they have stable psychometric properties.

Evaluating Sexual Objectification Instruments and the Cumulative Evidence of their Psychometric Properties: A Systematic Review

Western societies have seen a notable rise of sexualisation in mass media as content analyses demonstrate that men, women, and young girls have been increasingly sexualised over recent decades (Collins, 2011; Graff, Murnen, & Krause, 2013; Hatton & Trautner, 2011; Rohlinger, 2002). Specifically, their bodies are often portrayed in overly provocative ways in television, magazines, and advertising, arguably with the intent of selling a product or attracting the viewer’s attention (Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). Such sexualised portrayals often lead to unrealistic cultural standards of beauty and promote what researchers have labelled as the sexual objectification of these individuals (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Sexual objectification is the psychological process of perceiving an individual as a sexual object devoid of any individuality, scrutinising their appearance for pleasure or evaluation, and/or imposing sexuality upon them (LaCroix & Pratto, 2015; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Objectified individuals are regarded as mere instruments to be consumed by others, which in turn can result in severe consequences (Loughnan et al., 2010).

Consequences of Sexual Objectification

Ample evidence to date has demonstrated that constant sexual objectification is associated with negative mental health outcomes. Among these outcomes is the notion of self-objectification[1], where objectified individuals internalise observers’ perspectives and subsequently appraise their physical appearance to assimilate to cultural standards of beauty (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998). According to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which is a theoretical feminist framework for explaining the ramifications of sexual objectification for women, self-objectification subsequently leads to experiencing shame and anxiety over one’s own appearance and disordered eating behaviours. Current research has confirmed this assertion, with studies demonstrating the direct and indirect positive relationships between sexual objectification and media consumption, body shame, appearance anxiety, and disordered eating behaviours (see Moradi & Huang, 2008 for a detailed review).

Evidence also suggests that sexual objectification further perpetuates gender oppression and discrimination (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Gardner, 1995). For example, individuals who objectify others are more likely to endorse sexist beliefs or stereotypical gender roles, pressure others to have sex (i.e., sexual coercion), or engage in sexual harassment (Rudman & Mescher, 2012; Davidson, Gervais, & Sherd, 2015). Current research also indicates that objectified individuals are more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment or sexual coercion (Fairchild & Rudman, 2008; Harned, 2000; Miles-McLean et al., 2015). Taken together, the academic literature has confirmed that sexual objectification is related to severe ramifications that occur on both an individual and interpersonal level. While the academic literature has mainly focused on women, a growing body of evidence has indicated that sexual objectification can occur for and have the same deleterious impact on men and young girls (Graff, Murnen, & Smolak, 2012; Holland & Haslam, 2016; Loughnan et al., 2010; Davidson, Gervais, Canivez, & Cole, 2013). Such evidence aligns with the idea that anyone can be objectified (Nussbaum, 1995).

Given the heightened promotion of sexual objectification in mass media over recent decades and its associated consequences, scientific interest and research have emerged to understand this social phenomenon in order to develop and evaluate related interventions (Loughnan et al., 2010). In response several instruments have been developed to measure sexual objectification in the academic literature.

Quantifying Sexual Objectification

Various methodologies have been introduced to determine how best sexual objectification should be measured. An overwhelming majority of studies have developed or used instruments that rely on self-reports, either through Likert-type questionnaires (e.g., Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale [ISOS]; Kozee, Tylka, Augustus‐Horvath, & Denchik, 2007), ranking the importance of body parts (e.g., Other-Objectification Scale [OOQ]; Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005) and human attributes (e.g., Mental State Attribution Task [MSAT]; Loughnan et al., 2010), or reporting sexual objectification experiences on a “Yes/No” response format (e.g., Sexual Experiences Survey [SES]; Carr & Szymanski, 2011). Although the use of these instruments is valuable in measuring constructs in a simple and efficient manner, bias can occur as respondents are able to modify their answers because of personal motivations or social desirability concerns. Most recently, the use of implicit and indirect instruments have gained traction as ways of circumventing bias by examining non-conscious objectifying cognitions (Rudman & Mescher, 2012); however, evaluating these instruments are beyond the scope of this review, particularly as their use in the academic literature remains scarce (Vaes et al., 2011).