A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls

P1: ZBU

Sex Roles [sers] PP599-sers-379856 August 24, 2002 19:6 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

Sex Roles, Vol. 46, Nos. 9/10, May 2002 ( C© 2002)

Brief Report

A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls

Amy Slater1 and Marika Tiggemann1,2

The present study tested the components of the model proposed by Objectification The-ory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) in a sample of adolescent girls. Two groups of girls agedbetween 12 and 16 years (38 girls who currently studied classical ballet, and 45 girls whodid not study classical ballet) completed questionnaire measures of self-objectification, bodyshame, appearance anxiety, and disordered eating. Contrary to prediction, there was no dif-ference between the 2 groups on self-objectification or on any of its proposed consequences.For the total sample, however, the proposed model was largely supported. In particular, bodyshame and appearance anxiety partially mediated the relationship between self-objectificationand disordered eating. It was concluded that Objectification Theory is applicable toadolescents.

KEY WORDS: objectification; dancers; adolescence; body image.

Objectification Theory, recently proposed byFredrickson and Roberts (1997), attempts to under-stand the consequences of being female in a societythat sexually objectifies the female body. Sexual ob-jectification occurs when a woman’s body is treatedas an object (especially as an object that exists for thepleasure and use of others), and is illustrated interper-sonally through gaze or “checking out,” and in the rep-resentation of women in the media. As such sexual ob-jectification is not within a woman’s control, very fewwomen are completely able to avoid contexts that maybe potentially objectifying. Of central importance toObjectification Theory, however, is the proposal thatthe pervasiveness of sexual objectification in our soci-ety influences girls and women to internalise the viewspresent in society and to begin viewing themselvesin the same way. That is, girls and women graduallylearn to adopt an observer’s perspective on their phys-ical selves and to treat themselves as an object to belooked at and evaluated on the basis of appearance.Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) term this particularperspective “self-objectification,” and describe it as a

1Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.2To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Psy-chology, Flinders University of South Australia, GPO Box 2100,Adelaide 5001, Australia; e-mail: [email protected].

form of self-consciousness that is characterised by ha-bitual and constant self-monitoring of one’s outwardappearance.

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) propose thatthe constant monitoring of appearance accompa-nying self-objectification has a number of nega-tive behavioural and experiential consequences. Inparticular, internalising an observer’s objectifyingperspective leads to increased levels of shame aboutone’s body and increased levels of appearance anxiety.These experiences arise partly because it is virtuallyimpossible for women to match the current culturallyprescribed ideal image of beauty. Further, habitualself-monitoring of outward appearance reduces theperceptual resources available for attending to innerbody experiences, and therefore results in a dimin-ished awareness of internal body states. Finally, self-objectification is thought to limit women’s opportuni-ties for peak motivational states or “flow,” identifiedby Csikszentmihalyi (1990) as a prime source of opti-mal experience. In turn, these negative consequencesare argued to contribute to three particular psycho-logical disorders that are experienced predominantlyby women: unipolar depression, sexual dysfunction,and eating disorders.

Since the formal proposal of ObjectificationTheory, certain aspects of the model have received

343 0360-0025/02/0500-0343/0 C© 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: ZBU


344 Slater and Tiggemann

empirical support. In samples of undergraduatestudents, links have been found between self-objectification or body surveillance and body shameor disordered eating (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll,Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; McKinley, 1998, 1999;McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998;Tiggemann & Slater, 2001). More specifically, Nolland Fredrickson (1998) and Tiggemann and Slater(2001) found body shame to mediate the relation-ship between self-objectification and disordered eat-ing. Only a few studies have investigated the proposedmodel in older samples than undergraduate students(McKinley, 1999; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001), but todate, no study has examined Objectification Theoryin younger people.

Thus the present study aims to extend the existingresearch by examining the components of Objectifi-cation Theory in a sample of adolescent girls. With itsgreater focus on the self, adolescence may be a criti-cal period for the development of self-objectification.Adolescence is not only a time of establishing one’sidentity, but also of increased self-awareness, self-consciousness, preoccupation with image, and con-cern with social acceptance (Harter, 1999). Thus theself-monitoring and concern with external appear-ance intrinsic to self-objectification may be particu-larly salient. A number of studies have shown thatthe majority of adolescent girls suffer dissatisfactionwith their bodies and wish to be thinner (e.g., Attie& Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Thompson, Coovert, Richards,Johnson, & Cattarin, 1995), with many engaging in di-eting or other unhealthy weight loss behaviours (e.g.,French, Perry, Leon, & Fulkerson, 1995; Stice, Killen,Hayward, & Taylor, 1998). The eating disorders ofanorexia and bulimia nervosa also typically have theironset during late adolescence (Beumont & Touyz,1985).

The present study also included a sample of girlswho currently participate in classical ballet. AlthoughObjectification Theory assumes that all women ex-ist in a culture in which their bodies are always po-tentially objectified, objectification will not affect allindividuals equally. Certain situations that accentu-ate women’s awareness of observers’ perspectives ontheir bodies are likely to enhance self-objectification.One group that might be expected to be particularlyhigh in self-objectification are female ballet dancers.Dancers not only perform on stage where their bod-ies are looked at by others, but also spend severalhours a day practising in front of mirrors scruti-nising their own bodies. Further, it has been sug-gested that women who are identified as “at-risk” for

eating disorders may objectify their bodies more thanother groups of women (McKinley & Hyde, 1996).A high incidence of eating disorders has been shownamong both professional dancers (Hamilton, Brooks-Gunn, & Warren, 1986; Pierce & Daleng, 1998), andballet students (Abraham, 1996a, 1996b, Garner &Garfinkel, 1980; LeGrange, Tibbs, & Noakes, 1994;Neumarker, Bettle, Bettle, Dudeck, & Neumarker,1998; Neumarker, Bettle, Neumarker, & Bettle, 2000).Recently, Tiggemann and Slater (2001) reportedthat adult former students of classical ballet scoredmore highly on measures of self-objectification, self-monitoring, and disordered eating than women whohad never studied classical ballet. As yet, however,there has been no examination of self-objectificationwithin a current “at risk” group.

Thus the present study seeks to examine the ap-plicability of Objectification Theory to adolescents.The components of the theory were tested in a groupof adolescent girls who participate in classical balletat a recreational level, as well as in a group of non-dancers. It was predicted that the dancers would scorehigher on self-objectification and its proposed conse-quences (body shame, appearance anxiety, and dis-ordered eating) than the nondancers. Furthermore,regardless of dancing status, it was predicted thatthe model proposed by Objectification Theory wouldhold. In particular, it was predicted that the relation-ship between self-objectification and disordered eat-ing would be mediated by body shame and appear-ance anxiety.

METHOD

Participants

There were two groups of participants: ado-lescent ballet students and adolescent nondancers.Both groups consisted of White girls who came frommedium to high socioeconomic backgrounds. Thedancers were 38 girls ranging in age from 12 to 16 years(M = 14.5, SD = 1.25) who currently studied classi-cal ballet at a recreational level. These participantswere recruited from three separate ballet schools.Girls who agreed to participate completed a ques-tionnaire, either at the beginning or end of their bal-let class. The nondancers were 45 girls from a privategirls school who ranged in age from 13 to 15 years(M = 14.1, SD = 0.78). They did not study classicalballet, nor did they participate in any other form offormal dance training. The nondancers completed the

P1: ZBU


A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls 345

questionnaires at home and returned them to theirclass teacher. One girl indicated that she currentlyparticipated in classical ballet and was, therefore, in-cluded in the dancing sample.

Measures

The participants were administered a question-naire that consisted of the following sections: back-ground information, measures of self-objectificationand self-monitoring, measures of the proposed con-sequences of self-objectification (body shame and ap-pearance anxiety), as well as a measure of disorderedeating.

Background Information

Participants were asked their age, height, andweight. From this information Body Mass Index(BMI) was calculated for each participant by divid-ing weight (kg) by squared height (m2) (Garrow &Webster, 1985). The adolescent dancers were askedhow long they had been studying classical ballet andhow many hours per week they spent on ballet. Theadolescent nondancers were asked whether they stud-ied any other form of dance (e.g., tap, jazz, ballroom)and if so, how long they had been studying.

Self-Objectification

Self-objectification was assessed by the currentversion of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire ofNoll and Fredrickson (1998). This is designed to mea-sure individual differences in self-objectification byassessing the extent to which individuals view theirbodies in objectified terms. Respondents are requiredto rank ten body attributes in order of how impor-tant each is to their physical self-concept. Five ofthe body attributes listed are based on physical ap-pearance (physical attractiveness, weight, sex appeal,measurements, and firm/sculpted muscles), whereasthe other five body attributes are based on physicalcompetence (physical coordination, health, strength,energy level, and physical fitness level). Scores areobtained by calculating the difference between thesum of the appearance rankings and the sum of thecompetence rankings. Scores range from −25 to 25with positive scores indicating a greater emphasison appearance, which is interpreted as greater self-objectification (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998).

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring was assessed using the BodySurveillance scale, which is a subscale of the Objecti-fied Body Consciousness Scale of McKinley and Hyde(1996). The Body Surveillance scale consists of eightitems to which participants respond using a 6-pointscale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree,with a NA (not applicable) option. An example itemis “I often worry about whether the clothes I am wear-ing make me look good.” Potential scores range from8 to 48, with high scores representing people who fre-quently monitor their bodies and think of it in termsof how it looks rather than how it feels. The responseNA was scored as missing data and a total score forthe scale was only obtained if more than 75% (6 outof 8) items were answered. The internal reliability inthe present sample was moderately high, Cronbach’sα = .86.

Body Shame

The Body Shame scale is the second subscale ofthe Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley& Hyde, 1996). Like the Body Surveillance scale, theBody Shame scale consists of eight items, e.g., “I feellike I must be a bad person when I don’t look as goodas I could,” with which respondents rate their agree-ment using a 6-point scale (with a NA option). A per-son who scores highly on the Body Shame scale wouldfeel that she is a bad person if she does not conformto the ideal cultural body standard, and this is pre-sumed to be a reflection of the degree to which shehas internalised the cultural standards (McKinley &Hyde, 1996). Due to heavy use of the NA (not appli-cable) option, a score could not be calculated for 11of the girls. Nevertheless, the internal reliability in thepresent sample was moderately high, α = .80.

Appearance Anxiety

Appearance anxiety was assessed using the Ap-pearance Anxiety Scale developed by Dion, Dion,and Keelan (1990). Here a short form with 14 ofthe original 30 items was used. The participants re-sponded on a 5-point scale which ranged from 0(never) to 4 (almost always) to items such as “I worryabout how others are evaluating how I look.” To-tal possible scores ranged from 0 to 56, with higherscores indicating greater appearance anxiety. Internalreliability in the present sample was high, α = .92.

P1: ZBU



Disordered Eating

The final section of the questionnaire measureddisordered eating using the EAT-26 that is a shortform of the Eating Attitudes Test designed by Garnerand Garfinkel (1979). The EAT-26 consists of 26 state-ments to which participants respond using a 6-pointscale (ranging from never to always). An example itemis “I have gone on eating binges where I feel that I maynot be able to stop.”

In the present study, the EAT-26 was originallyscored in the manner recommended by Garner andGarfinkel (1979), with the response always receiving3 points, very often receiving 2 points, often receiving1 point, and the remaining three alternatives (some-times, rarely, and never) receiving 0 points. However,this method of scoring resulted in a highly skeweddistribution of scores that would have compromisedthe underlying assumptions for many of the analyses.Therefore, the entire range of possible scores (0–5)was used, resulting in a range of possible total scoresfrom 0 to 130. An equivalent use of untransformedscores for the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI) hasbeen recommended for nonclinical samples, as is thecase here, by Schoemaker, van Strien, and van derStaak (1994). This scoring procedure eliminated theprevious skewness and produced high internal consis-tency, α = .90.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the Sample

The dancers had been studying classical ballet foran average of 9 years, and spent approximately 10.7 hrper week on ballet. They had an average height of164 cm and average weight of 50.2 kg, resulting ina mean BMI of 18.6. The nondancers had an aver-age height of 166 cm and average weight of 56.8 kg,resulting in a mean BMI of 20.5. Independent sam-ples t-tests revealed that the BMI of dancers wassignificantly lower than that of nondancers, t(64) =3.51, p < .01. This difference in BMI was due to asignificant difference in weight, t(69) = 3.84, p < .01,but not in height, t(70) = 1.25, p > .05.

Self-Objectification

The means for self-objectification and self-monitoring are presented in Table I. The mean scorefor self-objectification was negative for both groups,

Table I. Means (and Standard Deviations) of Self-Objectificationand Its Proposed Consequences

Dancers Nondancers

Objectification measuresSelf-objectification −11.27 (14.83) −6.49 (11.16)Self-monitoring 32.75 (9.31) 30.62 (8.85)

Proposed mediatorsBody shame 23.02 (9.41) 23.69 (8.42)Appearance anxiety 24.91 (13.82) 30.59 (10.54)

OutcomeDisordered eating 35.45 (18.70) 36.24 (18.39)

indicating a relatively greater emphasis on bodycompetence than on appearance. As can be seenin Table I, contrary to prediction, the dancers didnot demonstrate higher levels of self-objectificationthan the nondancers, t(80) = 1.66, p > .05. Nor didthey record higher levels of self-monitoring, t(74) =1.02, p > .05.

Proposed Consequences of Self-Objectification

The means for the proposed consequences ofself-objectification are also presented in Table I.Contrary to prediction, no differences were foundbetween the two groups on body shame, t(69) =0.31, p > .05, or disordered eating, t(78) = 0.19, p >.05. Further, the nondancers scored significantlyhigher than the dancers on appearance anxiety,t(80) = 2.11, p < .05. However, this difference wasreduced to nonsignificance when the effects of BMIwere controlled, F(1, 63) = 0.59, p > .05.

Relationship Between Self-Objectificationand Proposed Consequences

The correlations between the objectificationmeasures (self-objectification and self-monitoring)and proposed consequences are displayed in Table II.It can be seen that for both the adolescent dancersand nondancers the same pattern holds. Self-objectification and self-monitoring were moderatelystrongly correlated with all of body shame, appear-ance anxiety, and disordered eating.

Mediating Effects of Body Shameand Appearance Anxiety

To determine whether the relationship be-tween self-objectification (and its consequentself-monitoring) and disordered eating was mediated

P1: ZBU



Table II. Correlations Between Self-Objectification and Proposed Consequences

Dancers Nondancers

Self-objectification Monitoring Self-objectification Monitoring

Body shame .59∗∗ .60∗∗ .43∗∗ .50∗∗Appearance anxiety .53∗∗ .62∗∗ .50∗∗ .51∗∗Disordered eating .57∗∗ .44∗ .60∗∗ .64∗∗

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

by body shame and appearance anxiety, a series ofmultiple regressions were performed, following theprocedure outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Thefirst set of regressions were performed to determinewhether the effects of body shame and appearanceanxiety mediated the relationship between self-objectification and disordered eating. The second setof regressions were performed to determine whetherthe effects of body shame and appearance anxietymediated the relationship between self-monitoringand disordered eating. For a variable to be considereda mediator, the beta value in regression equation 1with the predictor (self-objectification) alone shouldbe significant, and this beta value should be reducedto nonsignificance when the effects of the proposedmediators (body shame, appearance anxiety) areincluded (regression equation 2).

Table III presents the regression coefficientsfor both sets of analyses. It can be seen that bodyshame and appearance anxiety partially mediate therelationships between self-objectification and self-monitoring with disordered eating. In both cases, thebeta values (initially .56, .54; ps < .01) are substan-tially reduced (to .28, .25; ps < .05) when the effectsof body shame and appearance anxiety are controlled,but still remain statistically significant.

Table III. Beta Values (Partial Regression Coefficients) forRegression Analyses of Self-Objectification and Self-Monitoringon Disordered Eating, Without (1) and With (2) Body Shame and

Appearance Anxiety Included

(1) (2)

Disordered eatingSelf-objectification .56∗∗ .28∗Body shame .45∗∗Appearance anxiety .08

Disordered eatingSelf-monitoring .54∗∗ .25∗Body shame .43∗∗Appearance anxiety .12

Note. (1) and (2) indicate regression equations.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Test of Objectification Theory

To investigate the proposed model of Objec-tification Theory in an adolescent sample, a pathdiagram was constructed as a descriptive and ana-lytic tool. In accordance with Objectification The-ory, a weak causal ordering of variables was estab-lished. Self-objectification was theorised to lead toself-monitoring, which was theorised to lead to bodyshame and appearance anxiety, which in turn, lead todisordered eating. As the primary aim of the presentstudy was to test the model of Objectification The-ory in an adolescent sample, the two groups of par-ticipants were analysed together. This also served toincrease sample size and seemed reasonable in thelight of the lack of significant differences between thegroups.

Path analysis is a technique where path coeffi-cients are estimated from regression equations usinga least-squares approach. For each equation, a vari-able is regressed on all variables that are assumed tobe causally prior (Pedhazur, 1997). Here a full sat-urated model with all direct and indirect pathwayswas tested. The resulting path coefficients (standard-ised partial regression coefficients) are presented inTable IV.

Table IV. Beta Values (Partial Regression Coefficients) forPathways in Causal Model

Pathway Path coefficient

SO–SM .62∗∗SO–BS .33∗SO–AA .42∗∗SO–DE .21SM–BS .34∗∗SM–AA .20SM–DE .16BS–DE .40∗∗AA–DE .07

Note. SO = self-objectification; SM = self-monitoring; BS =body shame; AA = appearance anxiety; DE = Disordered eating.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

P1: ZBU



Fig. 1. Path diagram of objectification model for adoles-cents. Note. SO = self-objectification; SM = self-monitoring; BS =body shame; AA = appearance anxiety; DE = disordered eating.

The statistically significant pathways have beenplotted in Fig. 1. As can be seen from the path dia-gram: self-objectification leads to self-monitoring, aswell as to body shame and appearance anxiety; self-monitoring leads to body shame; and body shame inturn leads to disordered eating. Importantly, there isno significant direct pathway from self-objectificationor self-monitoring to disordered eating.

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to extend the researchthat has investigated Fredrickson and Robert’s Ob-jectification Theory by examining the model in asample of adolescent girls (Fredrickson & Robert,1997). A second aim of the study was to assessself-objectification within the specific subculture ofclassical ballet, a subculture known to have a high in-cidence of eating disorders and predicted to heightenthe potential for self-objectification. Contrary to pre-diction, it was found that there were no differencesbetween the adolescent dancers and nondancers onself-objectification or on any of its proposed conse-quences. This result stands in contrast to the findingof Tiggemann and Slater (2001) that adult former-dancers (at a recreational level) scored higher onself-objectification, self-surveillance, and disorderedeating than their nondancing counterparts. It seemsunlikely, then, that the lack of difference between thetwo groups in the present study is a function of thedancers studying ballet at a recreational, rather thanprofessional level. Perhaps more likely is that all theadolescent girls experienced high levels of objectifica-tion and its proposed subjective psychological conse-quences. Indeed, the adolescent nondancers scoredhigher on all measures than did comparable adultwomen (Tiggemann & Slater, 2001). As highlightedearlier, early adolescence is a time of increased ap-pearance dissatisfaction (Thompson et al., 1995) anda time that can often signal the onset of eating dis-orders (Stice, 1994). A second possible reason for

the lack of difference in the present study may bethat the adolescent dancers were considerably thinnerthan their nondancing peers. As such, the dancers areobjectively closer to societally-prescribed ideals, andmay therefore be relatively less likely to suffer bodyshame and appearance anxiety than heavier girls.

Although the predictions concerning dancerswere not confirmed, the entire model of Objectifica-tion Theory as proposed by Fredrickson and Roberts(1997) received substantial support from the presentresults. Consistent with previous findings with adultwomen (Fredrickson et al., 1998; McKinley, 1998,1999; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Noll & Fredrickson,1998; Tiggemann & Slater, 2001), links were demon-strated between self-objectification, self-monitoring,body shame, and disordered eating in a sample ofadolescent girls. The present study also found anadditional link with appearance anxiety, a variableindicated in the model but not assessed in most pre-vious research. More specifically, the regression andpath analyses demonstrated that body shame and ap-pearance anxiety at least partially mediated the rela-tionship between the objectification variables (self-objectification and self-monitoring) and disorderedeating, in accord with the model.

One way in which the path model differedfrom previous research with Australian women(Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001; Tiggemann & Slater,2001), however, is that self-objectification had a di-rect effect on both body shame and appearance anxi-ety, in addition to its indirect effect on body shamevia self-monitoring. Future research might usefullyfurther examine the relationship between the self-objectification (as measured by the Fredrickson andNoll group of researchers) and self-monitoring (asmeasured by the McKinley group) in both adolescentand adult samples.

The major contribution of the present study isthe demonstration that Objectification Theory seemsequally applicable to adolescent girls as it is to adultwomen. This is perhaps not surprising given that ado-lescence is a time of increased self-awareness, self-consciousness, and preoccupation with image, andmight therefore be a critical period for developmentof self-objectification. More surprising, however, thepresent findings demonstrate that self-objectificationand its consequences are already pertinent to girlsas young as 12 or 13 years of age. Future re-search will need to examine the proposed modelin younger groups to determine at what age self-objectification first appears. Finally, the finding thatself-objectification is predictive of disordered eating

P1: ZBU



in an adolescent sample provides a potential addi-tional target for preventative interventions.

In conclusion, the present study has contributedto the existing research on Objectification Theory bytesting the proposed model in a sample of adolescentgirls. Although there were no differences between thedancers and nondancers on self-objectification or itsproposed consequences, the combined sample pathanalysis supported the predicted sequence from self-objectification and self-monitoring to body shame andappearance anxiety, and finally, from body shame todisordered eating.

REFERENCES

Abraham, S. (1996a). Characteristics of eating disorders amongyoung ballet dancers. Psychopathology, 29, 223–229.

Abraham, S. (1996b). Eating and weight controlling behaviours ofyoung ballet dancers. Psychopathology, 29, 218–222.

Attie, I., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Development of eating prob-lems in adolescent girls: A longitudinal study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 25, 70–79.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediatorvariable distinction in social psychological research: Concep-tual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Beumont, P. J. V., & Touyz, S. W. (1985). The syndrome of anorexianervosa. In S. W. Touyz & P. J. V. Beaumont (Eds.), Eating dis-orders: Prevalence and treatment (pp. 1–10). Sydney, Australia:Williams & Wilkins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal ex-perience. New York: Harper.

Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Keelan, J. P. (1990). Appearance anxietyas a dimension of social-evaluative anxiety: Exploring the uglyduckling syndrome. Contemporary Social Psychology, 14, 220–225.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory:Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mentalhealth risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.

Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., &Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differ-ences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math per-formance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,269–284.

French, S. A., Perry, C. L., Leon, G. R., & Fulkerson, J. A. (1995).Dieting behaviours and weight change history in female ado-lescents. Health Psychology, 14, 548–555.

Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test:An index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. PsychologicalMedicine, 9, 273–279.

Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1980). Socio-cultural factors inthe development of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine,10, 647–656.

Garrow, J. S., & Webster, B. S. (1985). Quetelet’s Index (W/H2)as a measure of fatness. International Journal of Obesity, 9,147–153.

Hamilton, L. H., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Warren, M. P. (1986). Nutri-tional intake of female dancers: A reflection of eating prob-lems. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5, 925–934.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmentalperspective. New York: Guilford.

LeGrange, D., Tibbs, J., & Noakes, T. (1994). Implications of a di-agnosis of anorexia nervosa in a ballet school. InternationalJournal of Eating Disorders, 15, 369–376.

McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates’body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body con-sciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39,113–123.

McKinley, N. M. (1999). Women and objectified body conscious-ness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, de-velopmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology,35, 760–769.

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Con-sciousness Scale: Development and validation. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 20, 181–215.

Neumarker, K. J., Bettle, N., Bettle, O., Dudeck, U., & Neumarker,U. (1998). The Eating Attitudes Test: Comparative analysis offemale and male students at the Public Ballet School of Berlin.European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 19–23.

Neumarker, K. J., Bettle, N., Neumarker, U., & Bettle, O. (2000).Age- and gender-related psychological characteristics of ado-lescent ballet dancers. Psychopathology, 33, 137–142.

Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational modellinking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eat-ing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioural research.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Pierce, E. F., & Daleng, M. L. (1998). Distortion of body imageamong elite female dancers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87,769–770.

Schoemaker, C., van Strien, T., & van der Staak, C. (1994). Vali-dation of the Eating Disorder Inventory in a nonclinical pop-ulation using transformed and untransformed scores. Interna-tional Journal of Eating Disorders, 15, 387–393.

Stice, E. (1994). Review of the evidence for a sociocultural modelof Bulimia Nervosa and an exploration of the mechanisms ofaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 633–661.

Stice, E., Killen, J. D., Hayward, C., & Taylor, C. B. (1998). Age ofonset for binge eating and purging during late adolescence: A4-year survival analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,671–675.

Thompson, J. K., Coovert, M. D., Richards, D. J., Johnson, S., &Cattarin, J. (1995). Development of body image, eating distur-bance, and general psychological functioning in female adoles-cents: Covariance structure modelling and longitudinal investi-gations. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 221–236.

Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. (2001). Body image across the life spanin adult women: The role of self-objectification. DevelopmentalPsychology, 37, 243–253.

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2001). A test of objectification the-ory in former dancers and nondancers. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 25, 57–64.

A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls

Documents

Transcript of A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls