The relationship between different types of objectification,sexual pressure,and relationship satisfaction in Chinese heterosexual dating relationships

Abstract

Although an increasing number of studies are focusing on the relationship between different kinds of objectification and relationship satisfaction, studies have rarely examined these relationships within non-Western samples. The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between men’s partner objectification (PO), women’s perceived partner-objectification (PPO), and women’s self-objectification, as well as their link to women’s romantic relationship satisfaction through women’s sexual pressure among Chinese heterosexual college couples (n = 201 pairs). This study found that women’s PPO mediated the relationship between men’s PO and women’s self-objectification, and there were two paths from men’s PO to women’s relationship satisfaction. First, men’s PO was related to lower women’s relationship satisfaction through increased women’s PPO. Second, men’s PO was associated with greater women’s PPO, which was associated with greater sexual pressure on women and subsequently correlated with women’s lower relationship satisfaction. However, self-objectification was neither significantly directly related to sexual pressure nor relationship satisfaction. These findings indicated that the relationships between the three types of objectification (men’s PO, women’s PPO, and women’s self-objectification) and sexual pressure and relationship satisfaction are different, which contributes to the understanding of the destructive effect of different objectification on relationship satisfaction in Chinese samples.

Keywords

Objectification theory partner objectification perceived partner-objectification relationship satisfaction self-objectification sexual pressure

The original model of objectification theory provides a framework to understand the effects of objectification on intrapersonal distress and mental health (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). An extensive body of empirical studies has testified that objectification can have many negative psychological consequences such as appearance anxiety, body shame, depression, and eating disorders (Moradi & Huang, 2008). Although objectification in social interaction has been noted, the original model of objectification theory seems to pay little attention to the adverse impacts of objectification on interpersonal relationships.

A growing number of studies have reported the destructive outcomes of objectification in the context of relationships (Roberts et al., 2018). For example, women objectified by others tend to talk less in interpersonal interactions (Saguy et al., 2010) and feel lower relational initiation competence (Terán et al., 2020). Given the harmful consequences of objectification on women’s socialization, some scholars have shown interest in investigating the impacts of objectification on romantic relationships. A few noteworthy studies have reported that objectification may increase men’s justification of intimate partner violence (Cheeseborough et al., 2020; Sáez et al., 2020) and reduce women’s satisfaction with the relationship (Ramsey et al., 2017; Sáez et al., 2019).

However, it remains unclear how objectification affects relationship satisfaction. Although both men and women can be targets of objectification, women have a higher tendency to be victims of objectification (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). Considering that most prior findings have been based on the samples of a single partner in a romantic relationship, the consequences of men’s objectification of their female partners still need to be explored. This study addressed these gaps by measuring the perspectives of both partners in heterosexual romantic relationships.

Objectification theory

Sexual objectification refers to when women’s body parts or sexual functions are separated from their personality and are treated as mere instruments or capable representations of women (Bartky, 1990). Self-objectification refers to women internalizing an observer’s perspective to treat themselves as a sexual object to be accepted and evaluated by others based on body appearance alone, without considering functionality (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). According to the objectification theory, repeated experiences of sexual objectification can coax women into self-objectification, which can result in psychological agony and deterioration of mental health (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

Sexual objectification pervasively occurs in interpersonal interactions (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Roberts et al., 2018). The majority of women have reported experiencing interpersonal sexual objectification (ISO), such as body evaluation (e.g., being leered at, receiving sexual comments about the body) and unwanted explicit sexual advances (e.g., unwanted touching, sexual harassment; Holland et al., 2017; Kozee et al., 2007). As objectification theory postulates (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Roberts et al., 2018), the experiences of ISO are instrumental in the greater self-objectification of women (Garcia et al., 2016; Kozee et al., 2007; Terán et al., 2020), which is subsequently related to intrapersonal distress (e.g., body shame and appearance anxiety; Holland et al., 2017; Kozee et al., 2007; Terán et al., 2020) and increased interpersonal worry (e.g., difficulty in relationship initiation; Terán et al., 2020).

Cultural background deserves attention in the study of objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Cross-cultural research shows that women in Eastern countries report lower self-objectification than women in European and American countries (Loughnan et al., 2015). Moreover, compared to the Western culture, which focuses on thin-ideal (Karsay et al., 2018), the Chinese culture emphasizes women’s beauty ideals in terms of facial features, height, and skin (Wu & Lang, 2019). Therefore, studying objectification in the Chinese context will contribute to a better understanding of objectification theory across different cultural contexts.

Objectification in heterosexual romantic relationships

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) argued that heterosexual cultures are saturated with the sexual objectification of women. For instance, sexually objectifying portrayals of women is widespread in the mainstream media (Ward, 2016), which can persuade women to internalize a thin-ideal body appearance and self-objectify (Fardouly et al., 2017; Nouri et al., 2011; Ward, 2016), as well as increase men’s tendency to objectify women (Ward, 2016; Wright & Tokunaga, 2016). In heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more likely than women to value their partners’ physical attractiveness (Legenbauer et al., 2009; Meltzer et al., 2014) and objectify their partners (Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018; Zurbriggen et al., 2011). Correspondingly, women are frequently, widely, and unnoticeably objectified by their partners (Chen & Brown, 2005), and they tend to objectify themselves in seeking and establishing intimate relationships (for a review, see McKinley, 2011; Sanchez & Broccoli, 2008).

Partner objectification (PO) is defined as paying more attention to one’s romantic partner’s physical appearance than their internal traits and treating one’s partner as a sexual object rather than a human being with thoughts, feelings, and emotions (Zurbriggen et al., 2011). Unlike ISO, which does not specify the perpetrator (Kozee et al., 2007), PO specifically concerns the romantic partner. In other words, PO can be regarded as one form of ISO, which suggests that PO may aggravate the partner’s self-objectification. Indeed, a few studies have demonstrated that PO contributes to the partner’s greater self-objectification (Riemer et al., 2020; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). However, how and why this is the case remains unclear.

Perceived partner-objectification (PPO) may mediate the relationship between PO and the partner’s self-objectification. PPO refers to the partner’s perception of PO (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015). Previous studies have demonstrated that women are more likely to exhibit higher self-objectification when they feel objectified by their partners (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Ramsey et al., 2017). Even though PO is the antecedent factor of PPO, PPO may not be consistent with the actual PO. Moreover, much of the previous research into this topic has focused on women’s self-reported experiences of objectification by their partners. It is necessary to examine how actual objectification by partners translates to women’s PPO and self-objectification.

Objectification and relationship satisfaction

Both PO and PPO may be detrimental to relationship satisfaction. Objectification tends to ignore the individual thoughts, feelings, and emotions (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Zurbriggen et al., 2011), which increases the objectified individual’s discomfort in the interaction (Garcia et al., 2016) and decreases their willingness to date in the future (Teng et al., 2015). In romantic relationships, on the one hand, PO is linked to a partner’s lower relationship satisfaction (Sheets & Ajmere, 2005; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). On the other hand, individuals who feel objectified by their partners tend to believe that their partners treat them as sexual objects without a personality, which may decrease their relationship satisfaction (Meltzer & McNulty, 2014; Ramsey et al., 2017; Sáez et al., 2019).

Based on previous studies, the relationship between self-objectification and relationship satisfaction is ambiguous. One study using a sample of men and women found a significant negative correlation between self-objectification and relationship satisfaction (Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). However, another study using a sample of women reported that this correlation was non-significant (Ramsey et al., 2017). Furthermore, Zurbriggen et al. (2011) found that the link between self-objectification and relationship satisfaction disappeared after controlling for PO. These inconsistent findings imply that self-objectification should be taken into consideration when understanding the influence of objectification on relationship satisfaction and that there might be other potential factors that play a crucial role in the relationship between self-objectification and relationship satisfaction.

Sexual pressure

Sexual pressure may have a potential mediating role in the relationship between objectification and relationship satisfaction. Sexual pressure refers to an individual’s sexual choices being limited by gendered expectations regarding sex and the fear or experience of adverse consequences if the partner does not meet these expectations (Jones, 2006). About 47.8% of women have experienced forced or coercive sex (Jozkowski & Sanders, 2012). Moreover, they are more likely to feel uncomfortable during sexual activity and perceive a lack of understanding from their partners (Jozkowski & Sanders, 2012). Unsurprisingly, women who experience sexual pressure are inclined to have lower relationship satisfaction (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015).

A core feature of objectification is treating the individual as a sexual object, which is one form of gender oppression (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). In this regard, a person objectifying a partner may force the partner to fulfill sexual needs without considering the partner’s feelings, which may increase the partner’s sexual pressure. Indeed, men who regard their romantic partners as objects have a higher likelihood of justifying and perpetrating sexual violence against their partners (Cheeseborough et al., 2020; Sáez et al., 2020) and tend to impose greater sexual pressure on their partners (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015). Accordingly, women who feel objectified are inclined to experience greater psychological and physical violence (Sáez et al., 2020) and feel the greater sexual pressure in intimate relationships (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015).

While the correlation between self-objectification and sexual pressure in adult women (aged 18–69 years, M_age = 29.52) was non-significant (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015), this relationship seems to exist in specific groups. For instance, adolescent girls (aged 16–19 years, M_age = 17.3) with higher levels of self-objectification tend to engage in unprotected sex to satisfy their partners’ sexual desires rather than asserting their own thoughts and desires (Impett et al., 2006). Besides the age difference between these samples, the two studies also examined differences in intimate relationship status (e.g., dating, cohabitation, engaged, and married). These findings suggest that it is necessary to study the relationship between self-objectification and sexual pressure in specific age groups (e.g., college students) and relationship status (e.g., dating relationships).

The present study

Chinese college students actively engage in romantic relationships, partly because the Chinese society and families tend to accept dating among college students (Yang, 2011) while condemning dating among adolescents (Chen et al., 2009). Given that people tend to objectify their dating partners more than their marital partners (Birmingham et al., 2019; Sheets & Ajmere, 2005), Chinese college students who date were the interest of the current study. Moreover, despite an increasing number of Chinese students engaging in their first sexual experiences during the college stage (Shu et al., 2016), premarital sexual behavior and premarital pregnancy are still deemed damaging to women’s personal reputation in the context of Chinese traditional culture (Wang et al., 2015). As a result, female college students suffer greater sexual pressure than their male dating partners (Huang et al., 2012). Therefore, the present study also focused on the sexual pressure experienced by Chinese women in dating relationships.

As described above, men are more likely to objectify their partners than women. Additionally, most prior research has investigated Western samples. This study aimed to expand upon previous studies by examining the relationship between men’s PO, women’s PPO, self-objectification, sexual pressure, and relationship satisfaction among Chinese samples. A theoretical model was proposed as following (see Figure 1), and specific research hypotheses are described herein:

Figure 1.
Theoretical model of the factors predicting women’s relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1: Men’s PO would be positively related to their partners’ PPO, which would be positively related to their partners’ self-objectification.

Hypothesis 2: Men’s PO would be positively related to their partners’ PPO, which would result in their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Men’s PO would be positively correlated with their partners’ sexual pressure, which would be negatively linked to their partners’ relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: There are two serial mediation models between men’s PO and their partners’ relationship satisfaction. The one is that men’s PO would be positively associated with their partners’ PPO, which would be positively associated with sexual pressure felt by their partners, and subsequently, negatively associated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 4a). The other one is that men’s PO would be positively associated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction through their partners’ increased PPO, self-objectification, and sexual pressure (Hypothesis 4b).

Methods

Participants and procedure

As premarital sex is a taboo subject in public in Chinese traditional culture, having “sexual experience” as a recruitment condition would be detrimental for recruiting participants. Therefore, our inclusion criteria were as follows: female college students who were in a heterosexual dating relationship during the study period.

First, a total of 382 native Chinese female college students from western provinces and municipalities in China completed the initial survey. Fifty-seven participants answered “NO” to the item “Have you had sex with your present boyfriend?” Afterward, 203 out of the 325 female participants and their boyfriends agreed to participate in the formal questionnaire application. Considering the length of the current relationship is a potential covariate, the data of two couples who did not report the length of their current relationship were deleted in the statistical analysis; therefore, the final data came from 201 couples. Women’s mean age was 21.56 years (SD = 2.16), ranging from 18 to 26 years. Men’s mean age was 22.02 years old (SD = 2.44), ranging from 18 to 29 years old. The 201 couples reported being in their current relationships for an average of 22.05 months (SD = 21.03), ranging from 1 to 84 months. All participants were Han Chinese.

We invited one or several couples at a time. Female participants filled out the PPO, self-objectification, and relationship satisfaction scales in one room, while their boyfriends filled out the PO scale in another room. All participants sat separately, read the written informed consent form at the beginning of the survey, and completed the scales without discussion with other participants if several participants filled out the scales at the same time in one room. Before the investigation, the researchers explained voluntary participation, protection of anonymity, and freedom of withdrawing. The study and data collection procedure received approval from the ethics committee of the university.

Measures

Partner objectification

Zurbriggen and colleagues (2011) revised the body surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996) to measure how people objectify their partners in intimate relationships. They reworded some of the items, using “my partner,” “my partner’s body,” and “how my partner looks” instead of the original items of this scale, “I,” “my body,” and “how do I look.” The Chinese version of this body surveillance subscale (Liu, 2009) has 8 items, and responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (complete non-conformity) to 5 (complete conformity). A high total score indicates a high level of PO. The Chinese version has a good re-test reliability and criterion validity (Liu, 2009). We revised the Chinese version of the body surveillance subscale in the same way Zurbriggen and colleagues (2011) did for measuring this study participants’ PO. The Cronbach’s alpha was .67 in the study of Zurbriggen et al. (2011) and was 0.70 in this study.

Perceived partner-objectification

The revised surveillance subscale was used to measure how much individuals feel/perceive that their partners objectify them (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Ramsey et al., 2017). This version was modified based on the partner objectification scale (Zurbriggen et al., 2011). For example, “I rarely think about how my partner looks” in Zurbriggen et al.’s scale (2011) was modified to “My partner rarely thinks about how I look” (reverse scored) in the Ramsey et al. scale (2017). A higher total score means a higher level of participant’s PPO. The Cronbach’s alpha for the perceived partner-objectification scale was .76 (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015). We adopted the same method to revise the Chinese version of the body surveillance subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .77.

Self-objectification

The Female Questionnaire of Trait Self-Objectification (FQSO; Wu & Lang, 2019) was used to measure female participants’ self-objectification. The 17 items were categorized based on the body appearance dimension (consisting of 10 responses) and the body function dimension (consisting of 7 responses). Respondents chose one of seven possible responses, ranging from 1 (the least important) to 7 (the most important). A respondent’s total score is the difference between the sum of the scores on the body appearance dimension and the sum of the scores on the body function dimension, and a higher total score indicates a higher level of self-objectification. Wu and Lang (2019) reported good re-test reliability and criterion-related validity in Chinese female college students. Since the items of facial shape, eye shape, and facial features were very similar, after discussions between the authors of this study, we decided to merge the 3 items pertaining to facial shape, eye shape, and facial features into 1 item on facial shape and features. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha of the whole questionnaire was .83, for the body appearance dimension was .77, and for the body function dimension was .79.

Sexual pressure

The Sexual Pressure Scale for Women-Revised (SPSW-R; Jones & Gulick, 2009) was used to measure female participants’ sexual pressure. The scale has 18 items and measures sexual stress from four aspects (show trust, women’s sex role, men expect sex, and sex coercion). For example, “There are plenty of women who are willing to have sex with him.” Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of items asking about experiences range from 1 (never) to 5 (always), and the items that assessed perceptions range from 1 (definitely do not feel) to 5 (definitely feel); higher total scores indicate higher sexual pressure. The scale has good criterion-related validity and internal consistency reliability (Jones & Gulick, 2009). The Chinese version of SPSW-R was translated by three psychology postgraduates based on the translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). The final version is one in which two psychology professors agreed that the Chinese translation coincided with the meaning of the English version. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .85.

Relationship satisfaction

The Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) was adopted to measure female participants’ satisfaction with their current romantic relationships. The scale consisted of seven questions (e.g., “How well does your partner meet your needs?” and “To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?”). Responses were provided on a 5-point scale with anchors that varied depending on the question (e.g., “much worse” to “much better” and “not at all” to “completely” for the two examples given above, respectively). Higher scores mean higher relationship satisfaction. Wang (2010) revised the Chinese version and reported it had good content validity as judged by experts. The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .83.

Data analysis

All data analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 24.0 for Windows. The structural equation model was used to test the research hypotheses related to the prediction model for women’s relationship satisfaction. Based on a previous study, we believed that an acceptable model should meet the statistical requirements described herein: (a) χ²/df ≤ 2, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) <.06, (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) <.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The bootstrap method was adopted to test the mediating effect, which sampled it 5,000 times to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CI). In this case, the mediating effect would have been statistically significant when the 95% CIs did not include 0.

Results

Before data analysis, we conducted a normal distribution test for each variable. Results showed that the scores for PO, sexual pressure, and relationship satisfaction were not normally distributed. Therefore, natural logarithm transformation was carried out for these variables, and subsequent analyses were conducted with the converted data.

Descriptive statistics

The length of current relationship was a control variable in subsequent analysis because it was correlated with PPO (r = −.15, p = .04) and relationship satisfaction (r = .16, p = .025). Table 1 showed the results of the partial correlation analysis and the means and standard deviations among various variables. A few of these are worth highlighting. Men’s PO was related to greater women’s PPO, self-objectification, and sexual pressure, and lower women’s relationship satisfaction. Women’s PPO was associated with greater women’s self-objectification and sexual pressure, and lower women’s relationship satisfaction. Women’s sexual pressure was also linked to women’s lower relationship satisfaction. However, there was no significant correlation between women’s self-objectification and sexual pressure, and between women’s self-objectification and relationship satisfaction.

Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and partial correlations between the main variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Partner objectification^a 18.70 4.01 —

2. PPO^b 20.66 4.73 .39^* —

3. Self-objectification −4.21 5.27 .27^* .29^*** —

4. Sexual pressure^a 26.19 4.96 .15^* .24^** .14 ^—

5. Relationship Satisfaction^a 28.05 3.69 −.17^* −.38^* −.06 −.23^

^a Log transformed to correct for nonnormality, although the mean and standard deviation are based on the original variable to aid interpretation.

^b Perceived partner-objectification.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001, two-tailed test of significance.

Testing the model

Previous research found that length of relationship was associated with increased enjoyment of sexualization (Ramsey et al., 2017). Although sexualization has a broader frame than sexual objectification in the report of the American Psychological Association (2007), sexualization and sexual objectification are interchangeable terms in objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Moreover, our results showed that the length of the current relationship was linked to decreased PPO and greater relationship satisfaction. Therefore, the hypothesized model was tested by the length of the current relationship as a control variable and had good fitting indices, χ² (4) = 1.84, p = .77, χ²/df = .46, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR =.02.

The final model and its standardized path values are shown in Figure 2. The results of mediating effects are shown in Table 2. The length of the current relationship was linked to lower women’s PPO (β = −.14, p = .033), and was non-significantly correlated with women’s relationship satisfaction (β = −.11, p = .09). Although men’s PO was negatively related to women’s relationship satisfaction (r = −.17, p = .014) according to the partial correlation analysis, the direct relationship between these two variables was not significant (β = −.02, p = .762) in the final model.

Figure 2.
Final model of the factors predicting women’s relationship satisfaction with standardized path values. Note. The dotted line indicates that the path coefficient is not significant. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001, based on two-tailed significance tests.

Table 2.
Bootstrap analysis of the indirect effects between the main variables.

Path Standardized Indirect Effects 95% CI^b

Partner objectification → PPO ^a → Self-Objectification .089 [.037, .161]

Partner objectification → PPO → Relationship Satisfaction −.132 [−.200 −.076]

Partner objectification → PPO → Sexual Pressure → Relationship Satisfaction −.011 [−.029, −.002]

^a PPO = perceived partner-objectification.

^b CI = confidence interval.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that men’s PO would be related to their partners’ greater PPO, which would be related to their partners’ greater self-objectification. Results supported this hypothesis which showed that women’s PPO mediated the relation between men’s PO and women’s self-objectification (indirect effect = .089, 95% CI [.037, .161]). That is, men’s objectification of their partners was linked to their partners’ greater PPO (β = .39, p < .001), which was related to the partners’ greater self-objectification (β = .23, p = .001).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that men’s PO would be related to their partners’ greater PPO, which would result in their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction. Results showed there was a significant negative mediating effect of men’s PO on women’s relationship satisfaction through women’s PPO (indirect effect = −.132, 95% CI [−.200, −.076]), which supported hypothesis 2. This relationship showed that men’s PO would be related to their partners’ greater PPO, which would result in their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction (β = −.34, p < .001).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that men’s PO would be correlated with their partners’ greater sexual pressure, which would be linked to their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction. Results showed that the regression coefficient of men’s PO on women’s sexual pressure (β = .06, p = .43) was not significant, which meant hypothesis 3 was not supported. Additionally, results also showed that the regression coefficient of women’s self-objectification on women’s sexual pressure (β = .06, p = .39) was not significant, which did not support hypothesis 4b. The serial mediation model, which assumed men’s PO would be associated with their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction through their partners’ increased PPO, self-objectification, and sexual pressure, was not supported by the results.

However, hypothesis 4a was supported, which predicted that men’s PO would be positively associated with their partners’ PPO, which would be positively associated with their partners’ sexual pressure, and subsequently, negatively associated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction. Results showed that men’s PO was indirectly associated with women’s lower relationship satisfaction via women’s PPO and sexual pressure (indirect effect = −.011, 95% CI [−.029, −.002]). Specifically, men’s greater PO was associated with their partners’ greater PPO, which was associated with their partners’ greater sexual pressure (β = .20, p = .01) and subsequently, associated with their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction (β = −.14, p = .033).

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the consequences of objectification on women in heterosexual dating relationships in the context of Chinese culture. The results provide a way to understand how objectification is communicated from men to women, which influences women’s relationship satisfaction. Specifically, men’s PO was directly associated with women’s greater PPO and self-objectification and indirectly associated with women’s greater sexual pressure and lower relationship satisfaction. Our findings extend the findings from previous studies (e.g., Ramsey et al., 2017; Sáez et al., 2019; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018) and expand the application of objectification theory in non-Western cultures.

We found that women’s PPO mediated the relationship between men’s PO and women’s self-objectification (supporting Hypothesis 1). This finding is consistent with and extends the findings from previous empirical studies (e.g., Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Ramsey et al., 2017; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). In this regard, men’s PO may be perceived by their female partners, which, in turn, may increase the risk of female partners adopting self-objectifying perspectives. This finding contributes to an understanding of objectification theory in the context of romantic relationships. Additionally, we adopted different scales to measure women’s PPO and self-objectification, which likely increased the validity of the findings by avoiding possible errors caused by scale similarity.

Our results showed that higher levels of men’s PO were related to their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction through increased PPO (supporting Hypothesis 2). Previous studies found that PO was related to lower relationship satisfaction for the partner (Meltzer & McNulty, 2014; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). In the present study, despite men’s PO being negatively related to women’s relationship satisfaction in the partial correlation analysis, this direct relationship was not significant in the mediation model. It may be that women’s PPO reduces the direct effect of men’s PO on women’s relationship satisfaction, probably because the perception of their partners’ behavior rather than their partners’ actual behavior can bring more substantial outcomes for the relationship (Murray, 1999).

The present study verified a serial mediation model from men’s PO to their partners’ relationship satisfaction through their partners’ PPO and sexual pressure. That is, men’s PO was associated with greater PPO in their partners, which was associated with higher sexual pressure in their partners, and subsequently with their partners’ lower relationship satisfaction (supporting Hypothesis 4a). For Chinese people, satisfying emotional needs is more important than sexual arousal in intimate relationships (Riela et al., 2010). Chinese women in dating relationships may experience stress from premarital sex and premarital pregnancy, which are frowned upon in traditional Chinese culture (Huang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2015). However, objectification highlights sexual arousal rather than emotional needs (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015; Zurbriggen et al., 2011), which may increase sexual pressure on women (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015) and the likelihood of unprotected sex. Correspondingly, when women perceive objectification from their male partners, they may experience increased sexual pressure and ultimately feel dissatisfied in the current relationship.

However, owing to the non-significant direct relationship between men’s PO and women’s sexual pressure, the mediating effect of women’s sexual pressure between men’s PO and women’s relationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 3) was not supported. However, our results indicated that the relationship between men’s PO and women’s sexual pressure was mediated by women’s PPO. These findings are similar to those of a previous study on a Western sample, which showed that women who perceive greater objectification from their partners are more likely to feel greater sexual pressure (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2015).

Contrary to our expectations, this study did not find a direct relationship between self-objectification and sexual pressure for women, which means this study failed to demonstrate the serial mediating model (Hypothesis 4b) from men’s PO to women’s relationship satisfaction through women’s PPO, self-objectification, and sexual pressure. Similarly, self-objectification was also not significantly related to sexual pressure in a sample of women from the United States (Ramsey et al., 2017). One possible explanation for this is that the experience of sexual pressure is closely related to the perception of what a partner does for the relationship. However, self-objectification refers to how individuals regard their body (e.g., highlighting body appearance or parts more than body functions) in a sexually objectifying manner (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Therefore, self-objectification may not be directly associated with sexual pressure.

The current study investigated the applicability of objectification theory in romantic relationships. The original model of objectification theory places self-objectification as a central factor that mediates sexual objectification and negative psychological and mental health consequences (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Moradi & Huang, 2008). However, our results suggested that PO and PPO had more destructive outcomes in intimate relationships than did self-objectification. A few instructive studies also showed that PO and PPO might be more powerful factors than self-objectification when the phenomenon of objectification is examined in the context of romantic relationships (e.g., Ramsey et al., 2017; Zurbriggen et al., 2011). These findings suggest that we should modify and extend the original model of objectification theory to understand objectification and its consequences in the context of romantic relationships.

Additionally, there may be other potential factors not considered in the present study. For example, body dissatisfaction, which is regarded as a negative outcome of self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Moradi & Huang, 2008), is related to lower relationship satisfaction via lower sexual satisfaction (Sáez et al., 2019). The findings of these studies suggest that there may be an underlying mechanism between self-objectification and relationship satisfaction. Currently, studies on objectification from an interpersonal viewpoint are fewer than those from an intrapersonal perspective. Thus, future studies on objectification in intimate relationships may extend the objectification theory from an interpersonal perspective.

Limitations and future research directions

This study was conducted in the context of Chinese culture. Although these findings were helpful for us to understand the negative consequences of objectification among heterosexual college-age Chinese couples, it should be pointed out that this study is not sufficient to explain cultural differences in this regard. Further cross-cultural comparative studies may provide more insight into the influence of cultural factors on these variables.

Besides, some potential cultural differences should be taken into consideration. For example, Chinese people place greater value on fulfilling emotional needs in romantic relationships compared to their American counterparts (Riela et al., 2010). Additionally, premarital pregnancy is one of the primary sources of sexual stress for Chinese women in dating relationships (Huang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2015). Considering that greater objectification is related to less frequent use of sexual protection (Impett et al., 2006) and that PO means ignoring partners’ emotional needs, future research should consider these factors.

Although this study aimed to explore a model of Chinese female college students’ relationship satisfaction based on the framework of objectification theory, we cannot make any determinations regarding causality since we employed a cross-sectional design. Future experimental or longitudinal studies would help us better understand whether objectification in intimate relationships affects relationship satisfaction.

Participants in this study were college students currently in heterosexual dating relationships. Individuals in dating relationships tend to objectify their partners more (Birmingham et al., 2019; Sheets & Ajmere, 2005) and be committed to their partners less than married couples (Acker & Davis, 1992). Additionally, the relationship commitment of male partners could reduce the negative impact of men’s physical evaluation on women’s relationship satisfaction (Meltzer & McNulty, 2014), meaning the adverse consequences of objectification in marital relationships may be less than in dating relationships. Moreover, young adult women have a higher level of self-objectification than middle-aged women and older women (for a review, see McKinley, 2011). Future studies comparing different age groups and intimate relationship statuses may elucidate the relationship between different types of objectification and relationship satisfaction.

The present study found that self-objectification was not associated with sexual pressure among Chinese college women, which is consistent with the findings of Ramsey et al. (2017). However, the results of Impett et al. (2006) imply that self-objectifying adolescent girls may experience greater sexual pressure. These findings suggest that some potential differences may exist between adult women and adolescent girls in heterosexual dating relationships, which should be investigated in future studies.

The underlying premise of this study was that heterosexual men are the perpetrators of objectification, while heterosexual women are the victims of objectification. However, it must be noted that men are also objectified. Furthermore, considering gender differences concerning objectification (Daniel et al., 2014; Oehlhof et al., 2009), future studies from a male perspective may provide interesting findings.

Practice implications

Our findings indicate that heterosexual men’s PO is linked to their female partners’ lower relationship satisfaction through increased PPO and sexual pressure. These findings offer a new perspective on intimacy counseling. Considering that men are less likely to be aware of the negative consequences of objectification than are women (Newheiser et al., 2010), it is necessary to make men realize the harmful effect of PO on their partners’ relationship satisfaction. Similarly, it is equally necessary to help women identify their partners’ PO and reject it. These efforts may help young people maintain healthy romantic relationships.

Additionally, strengthening sex education for college students would also be helpful because Chinese students become sexually active during the college period (Shu et al., 2016), and premarital sex and pregnancy increase their sexual pressure (Huang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2015). Thus, guiding college students, particularly Chinese students, on how to view sexual behaviors in intimate relationships and helping them learn about safe sex may mitigate female college students’ sexual pressure and improve their relationship satisfaction.

Conclusions

This research found that men’s PO was related to their partners’ greater PPO, and subsequently, related to their partners’ greater self-objectification in heterosexual dating relationships. Importantly, this study found that women’s PPO and sexual pressure mediated the relationship between men’s PO and women’s relationship satisfaction. Our findings contribute to the understanding of the communication of objectification from men to their female partners and its negative consequences on relationship satisfaction among young women in dating relationships in the context of Chinese culture.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Partner objectification^a	18.70	4.01	—
2. PPO^b	20.66	4.73	.39^***	—
3. Self-objectification	−4.21	5.27	.27^***	.29^***	—
4. Sexual pressure^a	26.19	4.96	.15^*	.24^**	.14	^—
5. Relationship Satisfaction^a	28.05	3.69	−.17^*	−.38^***	−.06	−.23^**

Path	Standardized Indirect Effects	95% CI^b
Partner objectification → PPO ^a → Self-Objectification	.089	[.037, .161]
Partner objectification → PPO → Relationship Satisfaction	−.132	[−.200 −.076]
Partner objectification → PPO → Sexual Pressure → Relationship Satisfaction	−.011	[−.029, −.002]

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Qinglong Guo

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: snail@swu.edu.cn. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: snail@swu.edu.cn.

References

Acker

Davis

M. H.

(1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407592091002

American Psychological Association. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf

Bartky

(1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression (pp. 22–32). Routledge.

Birmingham

W. C.

Cavallini

A. Q.

Sgro

(2019). Spousal influence: A study of women with eating and body image concerns. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(9), 1339–1352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319873946

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Cheeseborough

Overstreet

Ward

L. M.

(2020). Interpersonal sexual objectification, jezebel stereotype endorsement, and justification of intimate partner violence toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319896345

Chen

E. Y.

Brown

(2005). Obesity stigma in sexual relationships. Obesity Research, 13(8), 1393–1397. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2005.168

Chen

Guo

Yang

Duan

Zhang

(2009). Emotional and behavioral effects of romantic relationships in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(10), 1282–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9405-0

Daniel

Bridges

S. K.

Martens

M. P.

(2014). The development and validation of the male assessment of self-objectification (MASO). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031518

10.

Fardouly

Willburger

B. K.

Vartanian

L. R.

(2017). Instagram use and young women’s body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing mediational pathways. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1380–1395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817694499

11.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

T.-A.

(1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x

12.

Garcia

R. L.

Earnshaw

V. A.

Quinn

D. M.

(2016). Objectification in action: Self- and other-objectification in mixed-sex interpersonal interactions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315614966

13.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

14.

Holland

Koval

Stratemeyer

Thomson

Haslam

(2017). Sexual objectification in women’s daily lives: A smartphone ecological momentary assessment study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(2), 314–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12152

15.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

16.

Huang

Zhang

Jiang

(2012). 大学生婚前性行为和性态度调查分析 [Survey of premarital sexual behavior and attitudes among university students]. The Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality, 21(1), 19–21.

17.

Impett, E. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). To be seen and not heard: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-9016-0

18.

Jones

(2006). Reliability and validity of the sexual pressure scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(4), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20142

19.

Jones

Gulick

(2009). Reliability and validity of the sexual pressure scale for women-revised. Research in Nursing & Health, 32(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20297

20.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Sanders

S. A.

(2012). Health and sexual outcomes of women who have experienced forced or coercive sex. Women & Health, 52(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2011.649397

21.

Karsay

Knoll

Matthes

(2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317743019

22.

Kozee

H. B.

Tylka

T. L.

Augustus-Horvath

C. L.

Denchik

(2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x

23.

Legenbauer

Vocks

Schäfer

Schütt-Strömel

Hiller

Wagner

Vögele

(2009). Preference for attractiveness and thinness in a partner: Influence of internalization of the thin ideal and shape/weight dissatisfaction in heterosexual women, heterosexual men, lesbians, and gay men. Body Image, 6(3), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.04.002

24.

Liu

D. Q.

(2009). Body image in Chinese college students: Mass media and peer influences. [Master’s thesis]. Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, P. R. China.

25.

Loughnan

Fernandez-Campos

Vaes

Anjum

Aziz

Harada

Holland

Singh

Puvia

Tsuchiya

(2015). Exploring the role of culture in sexual objectification: A seven nations study. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 28(1), 125–152.

26.

McKinley

N. M.

(2011). Continuity and change in self-objectification: Taking a life-span approach to women’s experiences of objectified body consciousness. In Calogero

R. M.

Tantleff-Dunn

Thompson

J. K.

(Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 101–115). American Psychological Association.

27.

McKinley

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

28.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

(2014). “Tell me I’m sexy…and otherwise valuable”: Body valuation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12018

29.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

Jackson

G. L.

Karney

B. R.

(2014). Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034424

30.

Moradi

Huang

Y.-P.

(2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x

31.

Murray

S. L.

(1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1001_3

32.

Newheiser

A.-K.

LaFrance

Dovidio

J. F.

(2010). Others as objects: How women and men perceive the consequences of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 63(9), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9879-y

33.

Nouri

Hill

L. G.

Orrell-Valente

J. K.

(2011). Media exposure, internalization of the thin ideal, and body dissatisfaction: Comparing Asian American and European American college females. Body Image, 8(4), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.05.008

34.

Oehlhof

M. E. W.

Musher-Eizenman

D. R.

Neufeld

J. M.

Hauser

J. C.

(2009). Self-objectification and ideal body shape for men and women. Body Image, 6(4), 308–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.05.002

35.

Ramsey

L. R.

Hoyt

(2015). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314544679

36.

Ramsey

L. R.

Marotta

J. A.

Hoyt

(2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied: Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived partner-objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631157

37.

Riela

Rodriguez

Aron

Acevedo

B. P.

(2010). Experiences of falling in love: Investigating culture, ethnicity, gender, and speed. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510363508

38.

Riemer

A. R.

Sáez

Brock

Gervais

S. J.

(2020). Self-fulfilling objectification in relationships: The effects of men’s objectifying expectations on women’s self-objectification during conflict in romantic relationships. Self and Identity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1778518

39.

Roberts

T.-A.

Calogero

R. M.

Gervais

S. J.

(2018). Objectification theory: Continuing contributions to feminist psychology. In Travis

C. B.

White

J. W.

Rutherford

Williams

W. S.

Cook

S. L.

Wyche

K. F.

(Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (Vol. 1, pp. 249–271). American Psychological Association.

40.

Sáez

Riemer

A. R.

Brock

R. L.

Gervais

S. J.

(2019). Objectification in heterosexual romantic relationships: Examining relationship satisfaction of female objectification recipients and male objectifying perpetrators. Sex Roles, 81, 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0990-9

41.

Sáez

Riemer

A. R.

Brock

R. L.

Gervais

S. J.

(2020). The role of interpersonal sexual objectification in heterosexual intimate partner violence from perspectives of perceivers and targets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520922348

42.

Saguy

Quinn

D. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2010). Interacting like a body: Objectification can lead women to narrow their presence in social interactions. Psychological Science, 21(2), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357751

43.

Sanchez

D. T.

Broccoli

T. L.

(2008). The romance of self-objectification: Does priming romantic relationships induce states of self-objectification among women? Sex Roles, 59(7), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9451-1

44.

Sheets

Ajmere

(2005). Are romantic partners a source of college students’ weight concern? Eating Behaviors, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.08.008

45.

Shu

Yin

Chen

Qin

Shang

Wang

Zhang

Xiong

Yin

(2016). Association between age at first sexual intercourse and knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding reproductive health and unplanned pregnancy: A cross-sectional study. Public Health, 135, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.01.021

46.

Strelan

Hargreaves

(2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52(9), 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3

47.

Strelan

Pagoudis

(2018). Birds of a feather flock together: The interpersonal process of objectification within intimate heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 79(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0851-y

48.

Teng

Chen

Poon

K.-T.

Zhang

(2015). Sexual objectification pushes women away: The role of decreased likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2070

49.

Terán

Jiao

Aubrey

J. S.

(2020). The relational burden of objectification: Exploring how past experiences of interpersonal sexual objectification are related to relationship competencies. Sex Roles, 84, 610–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01188-0

50.

Wang

(2010). Relationship between gender role and satisfaction in romantic relationship. [Master’s thesis]. Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei, P. R. China.

51.

Wang

Long

Cai

Shu

Wang

Wei

Shang

Wang

Zhang

Xiong

Yin

(2015). Contraception and unintended pregnancy among unmarried female university students: A cross-sectional study from China. Plos One, 10(6), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130212

52.

Ward

L. M.

(2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496

53.

Wright

P. J.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2016). Men’s objectifying media consumption, objectification of women, and attitudes supportive of violence against women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(4), 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0644-8

54.

Lang

(2019). Female questionnaire of trait self-objectification: Initial development and validation in China. Sex Roles, 80(11), 758–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0972-y

55.

Yang

(2011). Between traditionalism and modernity: Changing values on dating behavior and mate selection criteria. International Review of Modern Sociology, 37(2), 265–287.

56.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Ramsey

L. R.

Jaworski

B. K.

(2011). Self- and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4