A Systematic Literature Review Exploring Objectification and Motherhood

Abstract

Objectification theory provides a theoretical framework for understanding how socialization and experiences of objectification can lead women to place excessive value on their appearance—a process known as self-objectification. Despite the number of women that are mothers, the application of objectification theory to motherhood has been relatively limited. This review synthesizes the available research exploring objectification during motherhood. We conducted a systematic search for published and unpublished articles that quantitatively examined the objectification of, or self-objectification during, motherhood across five databases in March 2019. The search yielded 23 studies across 20 articles, which in combination revealed strong evidence of societal objectification of mothers and self-objectification by mothers. Effects were found for pregnant and postpartum women, in both community and university samples of mothers. Outcomes included more body shame, concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding, barriers to breastfeeding, fear of childbirth, disordered eating, and greater appearance concerns in mothers, and sexualized behaviors and body surveillance for their children. Some evidence indicated that self-objectifying may be protective for mothers in certain situations, but it was mostly associated with harmful consequences. Finally, some evidence suggested that there may be age and generational effects of objectification, which may impact all women, including mothers. We hope these findings highlight the benefits for women to engage in healthy relationships with their bodies and to consider the functionality of their body as it changes in preparation for entering motherhood.

Keywords

objectification sexual objectification self-objectification motherhood postpartum

Becoming a biological mother is associated with profound physical, psychological, and hormonal changes. Physical changes can begin prior to conception for women undergoing fertility treatment, but more commonly begin at conception, increase over the course of pregnancy to accommodate the growing fetus, and continue following delivery and with breastfeeding. Many of the physical changes from motherhood significantly affect women’s abilities, their experience of their body, and their appearance. For example, women typically gain 12–16 kg during pregnancy (or 26–35 pounds; Institute of Medicine, 1990), and their abdomen increases in circumference by approximately 31% (Franchak & Adolph, 2014). Their breasts also increase in size and shape (Holanda et al., 2016). Importantly, while physiological changes typically begin during pregnancy, most persist to varying degrees for at least some time post-partum (Evenson et al., 2014).

Bodily changes during pregnancy are healthy and to be expected, yet research has found that many expectant mothers continue to hold themselves to their pre-pregnancy appearance standards and express concern as their body becomes increasingly discrepant with these standards (Johnson et al., 2004). Such thinking seems to reflect placing value on bodily appearance over function, consistent with the culturally normative sexual objectification of the female body (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This comparison to pre-baby appearance ideals may be particularly damaging for mothers who conform to the Western idealized body type (thin, toned, tall, and youthful; e.g., Polivy & Herman, 2004) because these standards are typically both unattainable and antithetical to a healthy pregnancy. In some cases, the body transformations experienced during the perinatal period can negatively affect women, making them vulnerable to disordered eating or an eating disorder during this period. Women with a past history of disordered eating are the most vulnerable (Ward, 2008). Eating disorders have been linked to poor maternal and neonatal outcomes (e.g., morbidity and increased mortality, miscarriages, pre-eclampsia, and low birth weight) as well as poor health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum women (e.g., depression, low levels of maternal bonding, and poor infant attachment; Fogarty et al., 2018). In this study, we conducted a systematic review examining the relationship between appearance of the body during the various phases of motherhood and relevant outcomes through the lens of objectification theory.

Objectification Theory

According to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), women internalize the heteronormative male perspective that their personal value derives from their physical appearance or sexual appeal. This internalization occurs because the objectification of women is normative and inherent in an everyday life that is “saturated with heterosexuality” (p. 175). Evidence for the societal enforcement of heteronormativity ranges from sexual, gender, and sexuality-based violence to the pervasive objectifying gaze experienced by women in everyday interactions (e.g., Holland et al., 2016) and in the media (e.g., Grabe et al., 2008; see also Anderson, Holland, Heldreth, & Johnson, 2018, for ethnicity-based evidence). Scholars have equated sexualization of women with objectification, suggesting that women who adhere to sexualized appearance standards (or who are simply subjected to that standard, e.g., verbal harassment; Koval et al., 2019) are viewed as neither having nor experiencing agency or personal value and thus are seen as less-than-human (e.g., Nussbaum, 1999).

A problem with the objectification literature is that concepts are not always consistently or clearly defined. For example, throughout the literature, objectification has been defined (and measured) in a multitude of different ways, such as target sexualization (e.g., Vaes et al., 2011), a focus on appearance (e.g., Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009), low facial prominence (e.g., Anderson, Holland, Koc, & Haslam, 2018), and ranking another person’s appearance-based attributes as more important than their competence-based attributes (e.g., Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005). A second problem is that when concepts are defined, there is often some conflation of the outcome and the process leading to it, perhaps because of the similarity in terms. For example, objectification theory (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997) describes the process of women being exposed to sexualized messages (e.g., gaze, comments typically directed at women by men) as sexual objectification; however, the psychological outcome is the adoption of a third-party or external perspective on one’s body and value, labeled self-objectification.

This literature is further complicated by the synonymous use of the terms sexualization and sexual objectification (e.g., Smolak & Murnen, 2011). Furthermore, sexualization and sexual objectification have both been used interchangeably with the more general concept of objectification, defined in large part by the Kantian-influenced concept of instrumentality (i.e., the person is perceived as merely a tool that is fit-for-purpose; Nussbaum, 1999). This occurs despite these concepts being distinct (e.g., it is possible to objectify an individual without sexualizing them, see Budesheim, 2014). Nonetheless, despite the conflation of these terms in the literature, there has been consistent evidence that both sexual and self-objectification have many ubiquitous negative consequences.

There is also a substantial body of evidence supporting the use of existing measures and experimental paradigms. Among the original measures used in objectification research were (a) the Body Surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996) that was designed to assess women’s experiences of bodily awareness consistent with the theoretical perspective that objectification involves an externalized perception of one’s body and (b) the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), motivated by the same perceived heteronormative and sexualized pressures on women, but designed to map more directly on to objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). While some scholars (e.g., Moradi & Huang, 2008) have argued that body surveillance is the behavioral manifestation of self-objectification, other scholars (e.g., Calogero, 2011) have suggested that the Body Surveillance subscale might not adequately serve as a stand-alone measure of self-objectification because chronic body monitoring (i.e., surveillance, as measured by the OBCS) is conceptually and practically different to prioritizing appearance over competence of bodily attributes (as posited specifically by objectification theory and as measured by the SOQ). Indeed, it is possible to value physical appearance without constantly engaging in a process of self-surveillance or to body monitor the self while valuing competence in the body. In line with this, some studies have used both measures and found diverging results depending upon which measure was used (e.g., Hill & Fischer, 2008; Kozee & Tylka, 2006). In spite of this, both the OBSC surveillance subscale and SOQ continue to be commonly used measures of explicit (i.e., self-report) self-objectification, and each has a body of evidence supporting their psychometric properties across a range of samples (Calogero, 2011).

In the case of measuring the objectification of others (i.e., other-objectification), the construct is frequently measured using an adapted version of the SOQ or demonstrated through experimental paradigms in which a woman’s appearance is altered (e.g., via clothing choice; Loughnan et al., 2013), for which there is again established psychometric evidence (for a review, see Calogero, 2011).

A newer body of evidence is emerging that uses non-self-report measures to assess objectification processes. For example, other-objectification has been assessed using the body inversion paradigm that asks participants to identify upright and inverted images of sexualized and non-sexualized men and women (e.g., Bernard et al., 2012). Measures that assess the accuracy or speed of implicit associations (that pair pictures of women with words representing the categories of human, e.g., “culture,” vs. animal, e.g., “snout”; Puvia & Vaes, 2012) are also increasingly common, and a growing body of evidence shows that these findings are well replicated (e.g., Zogmaister et al., 2020). Of note, a small body of literature exploring implicit self-objectification also exists (see Dryden & Anderson, 2019; Morris et al., 2014). A burgeoning body of literature has also used eye-tracking technology to successfully map the objectifying gaze (e.g., Anderson, Holland, Heldreth, & Johnson, 2018; Gervais et al., 2013) and neuroimaging technology to explore differing neural-level responses to sexualized and non-sexualized stimuli (e.g., Cogoni et al., 2018). However, the interpretation of these newer measures of objectification is more controversial, and the evidence for their validity is still being established.

The range of consequences of being an objectified woman speaks both to an instrumentality-based definition of objectification and to Nussbaum’s (1999) denial of humanity or personhood. For example, Loughnan and colleagues (2013) presented vignettes of a young woman who had been raped using pictures of the woman purportedly taken from her modeling portfolio dressed in a bikini (i.e., sexualized condition) or in day clothes (i.e., the control condition). Participants rated the sexualized victim’s suffering as less than the suffering of the same victim when wearing day clothes. Participants also reported less empathy and higher levels of blame for the sexualized victim and endorsed less severe punishment for the perpetrator. This example highlights several severe outcomes of being objectified, including reduced moral concern (Loughnan et al., 2013); however, there are a range of other consequences including increased perception for objectified women to be perceived as ownable, controllable, coercible, and violable (Vaes et al., 2019).

One of the most concerning findings in the objectification literature is that experiencing objectification increases women’s self-monitoring and evaluating their appearance from an observer’s perspective (Koval et al., 2019). That is, experiencing objectification leads to self-objectification (Harper & Tiggermann, 2008; Tiggemann & Boundy, 2008). Specifically, Koval et al. (2019) found evidence for the pathway from objectification to self-objectification via exposure to sexual objectification in daily life and negative emotional consequences. In addition, the relationship between experiences of self-objectification and other psychological and negative mental health outcomes is well documented (e.g., body shame, body dissatisfaction, and negative and depressive affect; Myers & Crowther, 2007; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004).

The research exploring self-objectification has revealed a large range of psychological consequences for women and girls. There is a small body of evidence suggesting there might be positive outcomes of objectification, including arguments around empowerment and sexual agency (e.g., Gill, 2008; Liss et al., 2011); however, the majority of this research reveals detrimental psychological effects including body shame, greater anxiety, reduced flow, and lower internal bodily awareness, as well mental health risks including eating disorders, depression, and sexual dysfunction (see Moradi & Huang, 2008). We note, however, that the vast majority of this research has been undertaken with college-enrolled or college-aged women and that the findings suggest self-objectification and the majority of these negative consequences tend to decrease with age, although they do not appear to entirely dissipate at any age (Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). What is not well established is the role and potential effect of self-objectification on women experiencing abrupt changes to their physical appearance, especially when this is coupled with significant role changes as is the case when becoming a mother.

Objectification and Motherhood

Motherhood can occur biologically through surrogacy, adoption, or fostering. These are all legitimate forms of motherhood, however this review only addresses motherhood through biological means, inclusive of women who are surrogates but not women who become mothers through surrogacy. We were interested in understanding how biological mothers may be influenced by objectifying experiences through pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period—and their objectification can be conceptualized in a literal way (women are perceived, and behave, like an object relative to a human; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2014) or sexual way. For example, blatant sexual objectification may occur when a mother is catcalled (e.g., “MILF [mum I’d like to fuck]”) or in a less blatant way when an expectant mother’s body is treated as public property (e.g., non-consensual touching of a pregnant person’s stomach). Mothers can also be the target of literal objectification whereby they are viewed (or view themselves) as merely a “human incubator” or as a “womb for rent” (this is particularly salient in the case of the surrogate mother; Tieu, 2009). This demonstrates that both literal and sexual objectification may occur in motherhood, and each is likely to have unique consequences.

In addition to being objectified by others during motherhood, mothers are known to self-objectify, with the evidence suggesting that self-objectification has different outcomes during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. For example, self-objectification has been linked to engagement in unhealthy prenatal behaviors (e.g., not eating or sleeping; Rubin & Steinberg, 2011), elective Cesarean delivery in the absence of a medical reason (Fenwick et al., 2010), and negative attitudes toward breastfeeding (Toledo & Cianelli, 2018), all of which have the potential to negatively affect the mother.

A mother’s self-objectification can have a direct and/or indirect effect on the way they view themselves, can influence how their children view themselves, and can affect the mother–child relationship. Children look to mothers for modeling and reinforcement, and mothers have been shown to have a strong influence on daughters in regard to how they view their body, including body image attitudes and ideals (e.g., Abraczinskas et al., 2012). For example, in a study of 173 mother–daughter dyads, mothers’ preoccupation with eating and weight placed their daughters at risk of problematic eating behaviors through encouragement of weight loss and restrained eating behavior (Francis & Birch, 2005). Thus, the cycle of objectification may be perpetuated when children adopt their mother’s self-objectifying attitudes.

Interestingly, some researchers have suggested that self-objectification might have positive outcomes, specifically in the case of motherhood. For example, Franzoi (1995) contended that the physiological requirement to focus on the function of the body during pregnancy may act as a mechanism to protect against the impact of objectification. Literal self-objectification may be beneficial to mothers, acting as a terror management function during motherhood (i.e., a way to manage distress and anxiety related to the awareness of mortality—particularly during pregnancy and the child birthing process; Morris et al., 2014). In lieu of mixed outcomes and the potential impact on health outcomes for both mother and child, this is an important area of research.

Aims and Overview

Motherhood is a demanding and challenging period, characterized by a great deal of change in appearance and bodily function, which can result in increased vulnerability. There is an emerging body of research using objectification theory as a basis for examining different aspects of motherhood. Above and beyond the effects of objectification on women in general, mothers may be objectified by others in unique ways. If mothers self-objectify, it may have unique outcomes for both them and their children. In this study, we aimed to synthesize the available evidence that explores outcomes related to the application of objectification theory to motherhood. Specifically, we designed a search strategy to identify all published and unpublished research quantitatively examining the objectification of any aspect of motherhood or self-objectification during motherhood (including, but not limited to, conception, pregnancy, childbirth, and the post-partum period).

Method

This review was guided by the Cochrane methodologies (Higgins & Green, 2008), and the results and method are in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2015), with sections excluded where relevant. We developed a protocol for search strategy and data extraction prior to study commencement and describe it below.

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria for this systematic literature review were (a) quantitative examination of objectification or self-objectification, (b) exploration of objectification or self-objectification relating to any stage of motherhood, and (c) availability in English. This allowed for a synthesis of literature investigating evidence for the effects of objectification or self-objectification on women during motherhood. Studies with samples inclusive of women, men, mothers (in varying stages of motherhood), and their children were included. As a result, studies that either were qualitative or contained no empirical data, did not explore the application of objectification theory to an aspect of motherhood, or were available in a language other than English were excluded. In order to limit this review to objectification of women and motherhood specifically, studies involving the objectification of factors related to motherhood but not of women were excluded. For example, studies about foetuses (Deans et al., 2015) and menstruation (Morris et al., 2014) were excluded.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

The following databases were searched in March 2019: CINAHL, Medline Complete, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection. We tested and refined the search strategy prior to the formal search. The strategy involved combining the two terms, objectification and motherhood, using Boolean operators. No limits were added to database searches. The full search strategy for each database is available online (https://osf.io/4f8ru). In addition, we circulated a call for unpublished or nearly published data through the mailing lists of major social psychology associations.

Study Selection

Once the data searches were complete, records identified from each database were downloaded to an EndNote library. Duplicates were removed and the library was uploaded to Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Titles and abstracts of all articles were double screened in Rayyan by the first and last authors. Any discrepancies were resolved through deliberation. Studies that passed this first stage, or required further examination, were again double screened by using the full-text article to examine for eligibility according to the inclusion criteria.

Data Collection Process and Data Items

If an article was deemed eligible when reviewed, key details were extracted into a custom Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (available online at https://osf.io/4f8ru/). Information extracted included year of study, sample size, population characteristics, measurement tool, impact outcomes, and main findings. Using a process based on thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we classified studies by the stage of motherhood they examined. Examples and coding are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Stages of Motherhood.

Stage	Definition	Example
Pregnancy	The gestation period (stage from conception to pre-delivery)	Hopper and Aubrey (2013) measured the effect of exposure to pregnant celebrity images on self-objectification in a sample of pregnant women.
Childbirth	The process of giving birth to a child	Talmon and Ginzburg (2018) examined the mediating role of self-objectification in the relationship between an individual’s experiences of childhood maltreatment and their fear of giving birth.
Postpartum	12 months post-childbirth	Rodgers and colleagues (2018) examined the relationship between self-objectification and mental health outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms, eating disorder symptomology) in a sample of postpartum women.
Maternal influence	Period following postpartum	Slater and Tiggemann (2016) examined the correlation between self-objectification in mothers and sexualized child behaviors.

Study Quality

We used the AXIS tool, a critical appraisal tool for observational cross-sectional studies, to assess study design, reporting quality, and the risk of bias of studies (Downes et al., 2016). The 20 items comprising the tool require a yes (1), no (0), or don’t know (0) response to be coded; scores are computed by adding assigned values, resulting in a score out of 20. The quality score for each study discussed in this systematic review is presented in Table 2 (full scoring details are available at https://osf.io/4f8ru/). The scoring of quality and interpretation of scores is subjective. For this review, the coding was done by the first author, and approximately a third of the reviewed articles were double coded by the last author, with near perfect agreement. Disagreements were resolved through discussion until mutual agreement was achieved.

Table 2.

Characteristics of Studies Included in the Systematic Review.

First Author (Year)	Country	Sample N and Type, Age: M (SD) in Years	Measure	Motherhood Stage	Main Findings	Axis Rating (/20)
Al-Al (2013)	Jordan	496 female university students, 19.78 (2.21)	OBCS (surv), SOQ, SATAQ	Postpartum	Attitudes toward breastfeeding was positively correlated with self-objectification (r = .011, p < .05). Support for breastfeeding was positively correlated with valuing competence-based attributes (r = .11, p < .05) and negatively correlated with valuing appearance-based attributes (r = −.105, p < .05). Negative attitude to breastfeeding intention was positively correlated with positive attitudes toward artificial feeding and a higher likelihood of internalizing and accepting sociocultural attitudes toward appearance (r = .124, p < .01). Intention to breastfeed was negatively correlated with self-objectification (r = −.091, p < .05). Participants who intended to breastfeed in the future had less concern with internal appearance-based attributes (r = −.098, p < .05) and were more likely to reject sociocultural attitudes toward appearance (r = .097, p < .05).	14
Arroyo (2015)	U.S.	199 university student daughters, 19.42 (1.18), and their mothers, 50.15 (4.51)	OBCS (surv)	Maternal influence	Mothers’ and daughters’ self-objectification were positively related (r = .06, p < .01). Maternal care significantly moderated the relationship between mothers’ and daughters’ body surveillance (relationship was stronger with low levels of maternal care, B = −.11, p < .05). Indirect effect: Co-rumination mediated the relation between mothers’ body surveillance and their daughters’ body surveillance (B = .01, CI [.002, .04].	11
Arroyo (2016)	U.S.	199 university students, 19.42 (1.18), and their mothers, 50.15 (4.51)	OBCS (surv)	Maternal influence	Mother’s fat talk was positively associated with mother’s body surveillance (β = .27, p < .01) and their daughter’s body surveillance (β = .52, p < .01).	11
Crawford (2009)	Nepal and U.S.	23 Nepali daughters, 23.78 (4.34), and their mothers, 48.78 (7.66), 24 U.S daughters, 26.63 (6.09), and their mothers, 54.75 (6.88)	OBCS	Maternal influence	Cultural effect: U.S. women reported higher levels of body surveillance than Nepali women, F(1, 90) = 23.98, p < .001. Generational effect: Daughters in both cultures reported higher levels of body surveillance than mothers, F(1, 90) = 8.49, p < .01.	14
Donati Beech (2020)	Australia	258 postpartum women, 32.61 (4.19)	OBCS (surv and shame)	Postpartum	Self-objectification: Positive correlations were found between body surveillance and body shame (r = .61, p < .001), body surveillance and disordered eating (r = .47, p < .001), and body shame and disordered eating (r = .61, p < .001). Breastfeeding effect: Breastfeeding mothers had lower levels of body surveillance, M = 4.72, SD = 1.07, than non-breastfeeding mothers, M = 5.09, SD = 1.06, p < .05. Disordered eating: Collectively, body surveillance, body shame, and feeding mode (breast feeding) positively predicted disordered eating, ΔF(6, 212) = 24.31, p <.001, R ² = .41. Body surveillance (β = .07, p < .01) and body shame (β = .15, p < .001) were significant, positive predictors of disordered eating. The relationship between body surveillance and disordered eating was exacerbated by body shame but only for breastfeeding mothers. In addition, body surveillance, body appreciation functionality, and breastfeeding predicted disordered eating, ΔF(6, 212) = 11.43, p < .001, R ² = .24. The relationship between body surveillance and disordered eating attenuated as levels of body functionality appreciation increased (regardless of feeding mode).	15
Hopper (2013)	U.S.	301 pregnant women, 29.20 (4.58)	TST, OBCS (surv)	Pregnancy	Self-objectification: Participants in the high and low objectification conditions reported significantly more self-objectification than participants in the control condition who viewed baby products only, F(2, 237) = 3.89, p < .05, η² = .03. Differences as a function of trimester: In the first trimester, the low objectification condition (β = .32, t = 2.25, p < .05), but not the high objectification condition (p = .46), predicted self-objectification. In the second trimester, neither condition predicted self-objectification (p = .48). In the third trimester, the high objectification condition (p = .06), but not the low objectifying condition (p = .15), predicted self-objectification. Differences as a function of parenthood status: Self-objectification was marginally predicted by membership to the high objectification only for women with no previous live births (p = .06). Objectification conditions were unrelated to self-objectification for women who had previous live births (p = .11). Age differences: For the younger age group (19–27 years), the low objectification condition (β = .29, p < .01), but not the high objectification condition (p = .34), predicted self-objectification. For the middle age group (28–30 years), the high objectification condition (β = .31, p < .05), but not the low objectification condition (p = .37), predicted self-objectification. For the older age group (31–45 years), neither condition predicted self-objectification, F(2, 80) = 0.06 with an adjusted R ² of −.02.	8
Hopper (2016)	U.S.	127 female university students, 20.0 (1.13)	TST, OBCS (surv)	Postpartum	Self-objectification: Participants who were shown high or low objectification images of recently postpartum celebrities reported significantly more appearance-related statements on the TST compared to participants who were assigned to the control condition, F(2, 124) = 3.40, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .052. There were no differences between the high and low objectification conditions (p > .05) and no effect of condition on body surveillance (p = .17).	10
Johnston-Robledo (2008)	U.S.	52 pregnant women, 22	OBCS (surv and shame), SOQ	Postpartum	Embarrassment to breastfeed was positively correlated with body shame (r = .40, p < .01) and self-objectification (r = .30, p < .05). Self-objectification was also related to lower levels of comfort with breastfeeding in public (r = −.36, p < .01). Impact of breastfeeding on bodies: Concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding on body and body shape were positively correlated with body shame (r = .56, p < .01) and self-objectification scores (r = .30, p < .05). Impact of breastfeeding on sexuality: Concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding on their sexuality were positively correlated with body shame (r = .47, p < .01) but not body surveillance (p > .05). Intentions to breastfeed: Neither self-objectification nor body surveillance was related to women’s intentions to breastfeed (p > .05) or their planned duration of breastfeeding (p > .05). Use of breast milk pump: Interest in using a pump was positively correlated with self-objectification (r = .52, p < .01), body surveillance (r = .53, p < .01), and body shame (r = .35, p < .01). There were no differences between participants planning to breastfeed exclusively and those who were not.	12
Johnston-Robledo, Sheffield, et al. (2007)	U.S.	176 female university students, 18.49 (0.95)	OBCS (surv and shame)	Postpartum	Perceptions of public breastfeeding: Views that public breastfeeding is indecent were related to body shame (r = .20, p < .01) and body surveillance (r = .26, p < .01). Concerns about breastfeeding: Concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding on body and body shape were positively correlated with body shame (r = .28, p < .01) and body surveillance (r = .30, p < .01). Shame about breastfeeding was positively correlated with body shame (r = .21, p < .01) and body surveillance (r = .37, p < .01).	15
Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al. (2007)	U.S.	275 female university students, 18.50	OBCS (surv and shame), SOQ	Postpartum	Embarrassment to breastfeed was positively correlated with body shame (r = .17, p < .01), body surveillance (r = .23, p < .001), and SOQ scores (r = .17, p < .01). Impact of breastfeeding on bodies: Concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding on body and body shape were positively correlated with body shame (r = .23, p < .01) and body surveillance (r = .17, p < .01). Impact of breastfeeding on sexuality: Concerns about the negative impact of breastfeeding on their sexuality were positively correlated with body shame (r = .21, p < .01). Perceptions of public breastfeeding: Views that public breastfeeding is indecent were positively related to scores on the SOQ (r = .24, p < .01). Attitudes toward breastfeeding: None of the self-objectification constructs were significantly correlated with attitudes toward breastfeeding (p > .05). Duration of breastfeeding: None of the self-objectification constructs were significantly correlated with planned duration of breastfeeding (p > .05). Appearance: There was a positive correlation between women who endorsed the item that larger breasts due to breastfeeding would make them attractive and body surveillance (r = .27, p < .001) and SOQ scores (r = .27, p < .001).	11
Katz-Wise (2013)	U.S.	642 mothers and adolescent dyads. 179 female and 162 male adolescents, 15.5, and their mothers, 41.67	OBCS (surv and shame)	Maternal influence	Mothers’ body surveillance negatively predicted adolescents’ body surveillance (β = −.12, p < .05) but did not predict adolescents’ body shame (p = .90). Mothers’ body shame positively predicted adolescents’ body surveillance (β = .13, p < .01) but did not predict adolescents’ body shame (p = .56). Indirect effect: Body shame in mothers predicted lower body esteem in adolescents, with the effect mediated by adolescents’ body surveillance (β = −.02, p < .05). Quality of mother–adolescent relationship positively predicted lower body shame (β = −.17, p < .01) and higher body esteem (β = .20, p < .001) in adolescents. Indirect effect: Neither the relationships between mother and daughter body surveillance nor mother and daughter body shame were moderated by the quality of the mother–daughter relationship (ps > .05).	15
McKinley (1999)	U.S.	151 daughters, 18.41 (0.73), and their mothers, 46.32. (4.13)	OBCS	Maternal influence	Mothers’ body surveillance was positively correlated with their daughter’s body surveillance (r = .24, p < .01). Mothers had lower levels of body surveillance than their daughters (p < .001). Mothers’ body shame was negatively correlated with their daughter’s body esteem (r = −.19, p < .05). Mothers had lower levels of body shame than their daughters (p < .001).	13
Morris (2014, Study 1)	U.S.	93 university students (56% female, 44% male), 20.66 (4.19)	SOQ, DoHN	Pregnancy	Literal self-objectification: When mortality was made salient, self-objectification increased for women in the pregnant image condition, F(1, 85) = 4.69, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .052, but not the non-pregnant image condition (non-significant effect in opposite direction, p = .11). Men in the pregnant image condition responded in the opposite manner as women, that is, less literal self-objectification when mortality was salient, F(1, 85) = 4.43, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .049. No effect for men in the non-pregnant image condition (p = .79).	9
Morris (2014, Study 3)	U.S.	139 community members (57% female, 43% male), 37.24 (21.54)	DoHN	Pregnancy	Literal objectification: When mortality (rather than pain) was made salient, self-objectification increased for women in the pregnant image condition, F(1, 131) = 3.71, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .027. Among women in the non-pregnant image condition, there was no effect for mortality salience and the pattern was reversed (p = .07). There was no effect for men in either the pregnant (p = .34) or non-pregnant (p = .50) image condition.	9
Morris (2014, Study 4)	U.S.	146 university students (47% female, 53% male), 34.80 (12.05)	Self/object overlap	Postpartum	Literal objectification: When mortality (rather than pain) was made salient, self-objectification increased with women in the breastfeeding condition, F(1, 138) = 3.93, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .028, but not for women in the bottle-feeding (p = .97) condition or men in either condition (breastfeeding: p = .11; bottle-feeding: p = .75).	9
Morris (2014, Study 5)	U.S.	125 community members (54% female, 46% male), 36.95 (12.43)	Implicit assoc.	Pregnancy	Literal objectification increased for women in the pregnant image condition when mortality was made salient, F(1, 117) = 5.15, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .042, but not for women in the non-pregnant condition (p = .92) or men in either condition (pregnant: p = .89; non-pregnant: p = .14).	9
Perez (2018)	U.S.	292 daughters, 5.91 (0.86), and their mothers, 35.19 (5.41)	SOQ	Maternal influence	Mother’s self-objectification was positively correlated with daughter’s thin-ideal internalization (r = .21, p < .05).	11
Rodgers (2018)	U.S.	151 postpartum women, 32.77 (4.47)	OBCS (surv)	Postpartum	Self-objectification was positively correlated with body dissatisfaction (r = .48, p < .001), eating disorder symptoms (r = .53, p < .001), depressive symptoms (r = .26, p < .01), and greater appearance barriers to breastfeeding (r = .22, p < .01).	15
Rubin (2011)	U.S.	156 pregnant women, 26–30 years	OBCS (surv)	Pregnancy	Body surveillance was negatively related to appreciation of body functionality (r = −.25, p < .01) and positively related to depressive symptoms (r = .23, p < .01). Interaction effects: The relationship between body surveillance and depression was stronger at higher levels of awareness of body functionality and attenuated at lower levels of awareness of body functionality.	14
Slater (2016)	Australia	225 daughters (5 years = 67; 6 years = 59; 7 years = 72; 8 years = 54) and their mothers, 37.95 (4.87)	OBCS (surv)	Maternal influence	Mothers’ self-objectification was positively correlated to sexualized child behaviors: engagement in teen culture (r = .32, p < .001), use of beauty products (r = .20, p < .01), and appearance concern in children (r = .20, p < .01). Influence on child engagement in teen culture: Maternal variables of age, BMI, education, self-objectification, materialism, and parenting styles were tested for influence on child engagement in teen culture, R ² = .583, F(9, 220) = 12.60, p < .001. Maternal self-objectification was an independent predictor (β = .24, p < .01). Influence on use of beauty products: Maternal variables of age, BMI, education, self-objectification, materialism and parenting styles were tested for influence on use of beauty products, R ² = .31, F(9, 218) = 2.65, p < 0.01. Maternal self-objectification was an independent predictor (β = .17, p < .05). Influence on child appearance concern: For child appearance concern, the overall model was not significant (p = .11), although maternal self-objectification was a significant unique predictor (β = .15, p < .05).	12
Talmon (2018)	Israel	470 pregnant women, 30.67 (4.49)	SOS	Childbirth	Self-objectification was positively associated with childhood maltreatment (r = .038, p < .001) and disrupted body boundaries (r = .42, p < .001). Body shame was positively associated with disrupted body boundaries (r = .31, p > .001). Fear of childbirth was positively correlated with self-objectification (r = .18, p > .001) and body shame (r = .20, p < .001). Indirect effects: The association between childhood maltreatment and fear of childbirth was mediated by both self-objectification (z = 2.52, p < .05) and disrupted body boundaries and body shame in serial (z = 2.52, p < .05).	15
Tiggemann (2014)	Australia	815 daughters (4–5 years = 339; 6–7 years = 209; 8–10 years = 267) and their mothers, 37.44 (5.12)	OBCS (surv), SOQ	Maternal influence	Mothers’ body surveillance was positively correlated with teen culture (r = .10, p < .01), use of beauty products (r = .10, p < .01), and overall appearance concern (r = .12, p < .001) in daughters. Mothers’ self-objectification was not correlated with child behaviors or appearance concerns.	13
Yager (2020)	Australia	282 women ≤5 years postpartum, 35.26 (4.80); 174 women with children aged 6–10 years, 40.83 (3.66); 429 women with no children, 33.12 (7.06)	OBCS (shame), SOQ	Postpartum	Age was negatively correlated with self-objectification (r = −.10, p = .002). Influence of motherhood status on body shame: A direct relationship existed between motherhood status and body shame (Wald χ² = 8.426, p = .015) as well as BMI and body shame (Wald χ² = 31.95, p < .001). An interaction emerged between BMI and motherhood status on body shame (Wald χ² = 33.427, p < .001). Findings indicated that mothers of young children who have a higher BMI reported greater body shame. Influence of motherhood status and maternal age on self-objectification: Direct effects of both motherhood status (Wald χ² = 7.805, p = .020) and maternal age (Wald χ² = 4.743, p = .029) on self-objectification were found. A significantly stronger effect was observed when examining the interaction between motherhood status and age (Wald χ² = 10.204, p = .017). The findings indicated that mothers of young children who are themselves older in age reported greater self-objectification.	14

Note. Precise p-values are provided in this table whenever they were reported in the original article. BMI = body mass index; U.S. = United States; DoHN = denial of human nature 15 traits assessment (Morris et al., 2014); OBCS = Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (McKinley & Hyde, 1996), when only one or two subscales of the three available have been used, the subscale has been explicitly noted; SATAQ = Internalization/Acceptance subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (Heinberg et al., 1995); SOS = Self-Objectification Scale (Talmon & Ginzburg, 2016); SOQ = Self-Objectification Questionnaire (Noll & Fredrickson, 1998); TST = Twenty Statements Test (Fredrickson et al., 1998).

Results

Study Selection

We identified 149 articles using our search strategy and two articles using a call for unpublished data. After removing duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, 34 articles (22.5%) were judged eligible for full-text review. Full-text screening was conducted, and 23 studies within 20 articles (13.2%) met all inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review (see Table 1). The process of study selection is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart for the study selection process.

Study Characteristics

All but one of the 18 published articles (N _studies = 21) were published between 2007 and 2018. The exception was published in 1999. We identified two unpublished data sets, both of which were collected in 2019. This range of dates suggests that the study of the objectification of motherhood is a new addition to the wider field of research on objectification theory (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). Nineteen studies (82.6%) explored self-objectification either in mothers or by priming motherhood, and four studies (20%) investigated literal objectification in university and college samples. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (U.S.; n = 16, 69.6%), followed by Australia (17.4%), Jordan (4.3%), Israel (4.3%), and cross-culturally across Nepal and the U.S. (4.3%). All studies used cross-sectional study designs, with the exception of a single study that used a longitudinal design. This longitudinal study only measured self-objectification constructs at one time point, which was included in the review (Katz-Wise et al., 2013). Eighteen studies (78.3%) used only female participants and five used mixed gender samples (21.7%). Eight studies (34.8%) used mother/child dyads, six studies (26.1%) used university students, four studies (17.4%) used samples of pregnant women, three studies (13%) used a sample of postpartum women, and two studies (8.7%) used community samples. Key data extracted from these articles including the results and findings from the AXIS quality assessment have been included in Table 2. All of the studies reviewed were of medium quality (scores of 8–15). During the process of researching and reading the literature, some key findings emerged.

Pregnancy

Five studies (in three articles) examined objectification during pregnancy (Hopper & Aubrey, 2013; Morris et al., 2014; Rubin & Steinberg, 2011). All studies found evidence for objectification, but the findings differed depending on the research objective, construct measured, and sample used. There was evidence for trait-based self-objectification in pregnant women. For instance, Rubin and Steinberg (2011) found self-objectification (measured by body surveillance—a habitual monitoring of one’s body) was related to increases in depressive symptoms in a sample of 156 pregnant women in the U.S. Self-objectification was also related to less appreciation of body functionality (i.e., an appreciation of what the body is capable of doing). The relationship between self-objectification and depression was stronger at higher levels of awareness of body functionality and attenuated at lower levels of awareness of body functionality.

There was also evidence for state-based self-objectification in pregnant women. In a sample of pregnant women who were asked to look at images of objectified celebrities, Hopper and Aubrey (2013) found headshot images produced significantly higher levels of self-objectification than the control image (baby products). In a regression model, age, stage of pregnancy, and number of previous live births were influential. Women in their first trimester, in the youngest sample group, or with no previous live births reported significantly more self-objectification after exposure to the headshot images. The sexually objectifying imagery significantly predicted self-objectification for participants in the middle age group.

In support of the literal objectification of pregnant women, Morris et al. (2014) found that in a mixed gender college student sample, women primed with both an image of a pregnant woman and mortality salience reported increases in literal objectification (measured through the denial of human nature) and self-objectification (SOQ; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). This effect did not hold for women primed with a non-pregnant image or men in either condition. In a second study, literal objectification was tested in a community sample and similarly, participants primed with pregnancy tended to deny themselves human-relevant traits. In a third study, literal objectification was measured using an implicit measure of self-objectification. Women simultaneously primed with pregnancy and mortality salience reported higher levels of implicit self-objectification. This suggests that literal objectification works on an automatic level, with pregnancy leading women to directly associate themselves with an object.

Childbirth

One study examined childbirth attitudes in a sample of 470 pregnant women in Israel (Talmon & Ginzburg, 2018). Higher levels of self-objectification (measured by the Self-Objectification Scale, which measures invisibility and lack of autonomy; SOS; Talmon & Ginzburg, 2016) and body shame (measured by the Experience of Shame Scale; ESS; Andrews et al., 2002) were related to higher levels of fear of childbirth. In addition, both self-objectification and disruptions in body boundaries and body shame in serial mediated the relations between childhood maltreatment (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect) and fear of childbirth. This study suggests that people may have higher levels of self-objectification due to the experience of being objectified by others—in this case through experiences of childhood maltreatment. Survivors may be denied their autonomy and humanity as their perpetrators use their bodies as passive objects to gratify their urges and impulses (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). These findings suggest that childhood maltreatment may lead to greater levels of fear and anxiety about childbirth through a sense of self-objectification or disrupted body boundaries and body shame.

Postpartum

Nine studies examined the objectification of mothers during the postpartum period. Five of these studies explored breastfeeding-related outcomes, and all found a correlation between measures of self-objectification and negative breastfeeding-relevant outcomes including negative attitudes toward breastfeeding, barriers to breastfeeding, and fewer intentions to breastfeed (Al-Ali et al., 2013; Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008; Johnston-Robledo, Sheffield, et al., 2007; Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al., 2007; Rodgers et al., 2018). One study found increases in literal objectification after priming pregnancy (Morris et al., 2014), and another found increases in self-objectification after exposing college students who had never been pregnant to images of postpartum celebrities (Hopper & Aubrey, 2016). There were two unpublished studies from Australia. One explored the pathways between body surveillance and disordered eating in mothers and found that this pathway was exacerbated by body shame and attenuated by body functionality appreciation, but only in mothers who were breastfeeding (Donati Beech et al., 2020). The other explored differences in self-objectification, body shame, internalization of appearance ideals, and body appreciation in women and found that those with children had higher levels of body shame than those who did not (Yager et al., 2020). Moreover, these authors found that, for the mothers in their sample, there was a positive relationship between body shame and body mass index (BMI).

Several studies looked at potential barriers to breastfeeding. In four studies, undergraduates who reported higher levels of self-objectification viewed public breastfeeding as embarrassing, shameful, or indecent (Al-Ali et al., 2013; Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008; Johnston-Robledo, Sheffield, et al., 2007; Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al., 2007). Higher self-objectification (measured by ranking self-relevant, appearance-based attributes as more important than competence-based attributes) was also predictive of concern that breastfeeding would be embarrassing. In a study on postpartum mothers, Rodgers and colleagues (2018) found a relationship between body surveillance and greater appearance barriers to breastfeeding (concerns that appearance will be affected by breastfeeding; e.g., breastfeeding will make breasts sag). In contrast to this finding, Johnston-Robledo and Fred (2008) found that body surveillance was not significantly correlated with breastfeeding concerns in a pregnant sample. This effect may be driven by the lack of direct experience of breastfeeding for these expecting mothers.

Self-objectification has also been linked to attitudes toward breastfeeding. In a sample of 496 Jordanian university students, Al-Ali and colleagues (2013) found that students with lower levels of self-objectification were more likely to support breastfeeding. Students who had more negative attitudes toward breastfeeding had more positive attitudes to artificial feeding. Relatedly, a study on pregnant women (Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008) found a significant, positive relationship between self-objectification and interest in the use of a pump to express milk. Using a sample of 258 women within 12 months postpartum, Donati Beech and colleagues (2020) found breastfeeding mothers had lower levels of body surveillance compared to non-breastfeeding mothers. These findings suggest that mothers who identify more strongly with the ability of their body (over its appearance) may have a more positive attitude toward breastfeeding.

Self-objectification was negatively related to intention to breastfeed in one study, but this association was not replicated in another. Al-Ali et al. (2013) found that lower levels of self-objectification and higher likelihood to reject socio-cultural attitudes toward appearance led to greater intentions to breastfeed. In contrast, Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al. (2007) found self-objectification (measured by both the SOQ and the OBCS) was unrelated to women’s intentions to breastfeed or planned duration of breastfeeding (although they were related to views that public breastfeeding is indecent, would be embarrassing, and would negatively impact their bodies and sexuality).

Physical changes and concerns about the impact on sexuality caused by breastfeeding were explored in several studies. Three studies found evidence for a positive relationship between body shame and negative impact on sexuality and body concerns (Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008; Johnston-Robledo, Sheffield, et al., 2007; Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al., 2007). Johnston-Robledo and Fred also found self-objectification was predictive of pregnant women feeling that breastfeeding would have a negative impact on their bodies. The idea that breastfeeding would increase attractiveness was explored by Johnston-Robledo, Wares, et al. (2007). Among undergraduate women, they found a positive correlation between both body surveillance and self-objectification and the belief that larger breasts due to breastfeeding would make them more attractive.

Literal objectification was explored using an experimental design in a university sample with a self/object overlap task (Morris et al., 2014). Women in the breastfeeding condition (compared to women in a bottle-feeding condition) reported an increase in literal objectification when primed with mortality salience (relative to a pain condition). This effect did not hold when women were primed with bottle-feeding and neither condition held for men. This suggests that motherhood-based objectification might be linked to very specific biological components of motherhood (e.g., breastfeeding highlights a dimension of women’s reproductive features; bottle feeding does not).

Four studies investigated other outcomes for postpartum women. In a sample of postpartum women, Rodgers et al. (2018) found that self-objectification was positively associated with depressive symptoms, eating disturbance, and body dissatisfaction. Also using a postpartum sample, Donati Beech and colleagues (2020) found body surveillance, body shame, and disordered eating were positively inter-correlated. Higher levels of reported body functionality appreciation attenuated the relationships between body surveillance and body shame. In addition, breastfeeding mothers reported higher body functionality appreciation and less body surveillance, body shame, and disordered eating compared to non-breastfeeding mothers. Yager et al. (2020) explored differences in self-objectification, body shame, internalization of appearance ideals, and body appreciation in samples of women within two distinct postpartum brackets (youngest child < 5 years old; youngest child 6–10 years old) and a control group of women with no children. After controlling for age, BMI, and level of education, no significant differences were found among the three groups of women on any variable. However, age was correlated with self-objectification: Mothers of young children with a higher BMI reported greater body shame, and older mothers of young children reported greater self-objectification. Hopper and Aubrey (2016) addressed postpartum appearance and body shape concerns in an experimental design using stimuli to induce self-objectification. They exposed never-pregnant university students to objectifying images (low and high-sexually objectifying) of recently postpartum celebrities. Participants who were shown the celebrity images reported more appearance-related statements on the Twenty Statements Test (TST; a measure simply asking participants to complete the stem “I am…” 20 times; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) compared to participants in the control condition. However, the difference between scores on the TST was not significant between the low and high-sexually objectifying conditions. These findings support the idea that self-objectification can be induced by exposure to media but reject the claim that high-sexually objectifying images will induce higher levels of self-objectification.

Maternal influence

Eight studies examined self-objectification in mothers and the impact it may have on their children. Three studies found that mothers’ body surveillance scores were positively correlated with their children’s body surveillance scores (Arroyo & Andersen, 2015; Katz-Wise et al., 2013). This relationship was non-significant in a cross-cultural study between mothers and daughters in the U.S. and Nepal (Crawford et al., 2009). Generational and cultural effects were found, and daughters in Nepal and the U.S. reported higher levels of body surveillance than their mothers, and the U.S. sample reported higher levels compared with the Nepali participants. Hopper and Aubrey (2013) and McKinley (1999) also found evidence for generational effects, suggesting that younger generations are exposed to, and affected by, more objectifying experiences than older women.

In a study in the U.S., Perez and colleagues (2018) reported a positive relationship between maternal self-objectification and thin-ideal internalization in 3- to 7-year-old daughters. In contrast, an Australian study found that mothers’ self-objectification was not correlated with appearance concerns in daughters (although mothers’ body surveillance was; Tiggemann & Slater, 2014). This relationship between body surveillance in mothers and sexualized child behaviors (e.g., engagement in teen culture, use of beauty products, and appearance concern) was replicated in a different sample of Australian mother/daughter dyads (Slater & Tiggemann, 2016).

Maternal care influenced the strength of the relationship between mothers and daughters’ level of self-objectification. A positive maternal–child relationship had protective effects in two studies. Maternal care, defined as how caring and affectionate the child perceived their mothers to be, significantly moderated the relationship between mothers’ and daughters’ body surveillance (Arroyo & Andersen, 2016) and predicted lower body shame and higher body esteem in adolescents (Katz-Wise et al., 2013). In contrast, the interaction between mothers’ body surveillance and the quality of the mother–adolescent relationship on the adolescents’ body surveillance was not significant. Taken together, this suggests that mothers may protect against the self-objectifying behaviors in their children through the level of care provided and quality of their relationship.

Discussion

The primary aim of the current systematic review was to summarize the available evidence for objectification during motherhood. A systematic search identified 23 studies across 20 articles, all of which found evidence for objectification during motherhood. However, the objectification of motherhood (typically measured by exposing non-mother participants to motherhood-related stimuli, e.g., imagery of pregnant women, and then assessing their responses, e.g., denial of human-relevant attributes) elicited different patterns of responses to self-objectification by mothers (participants who were mothers and were tested in different stages of motherhood including during pregnancy and postpartum). Mothers and motherhood appear to be consistently subjected to objectification processes, be it at their hand or the hands of others—although there were some cultural and age effects found (and also mixed gender effects in the case of the objectification of mothers by non-mothers).

The secondary aim was to understand specific correlates, effects, and outcomes of objectification during motherhood. Processes of literal, sexual, and self-objectification are similar but differently related to relevant outcomes. For example, literal self-objectification was shown to be potentially protective for mothers in four studies as it increased their ability to see themselves as an object in conditions where their reproductive features were salient. Adopting the view of oneself as an object may assist expectant mothers in situations such as childbirth because objects do not possess the ability to feel pain. The pattern of findings was much less straightforward for self-objectification. There was strong evidence to suggest that self-objectification was related to poorer breastfeeding-related outcomes including greater shame, the view that it was indecent, and the impact it would have on their bodies. In addition, self-objectification was correlated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, and body shame. Mothers who self-objectified were at risk of impacting their children by influencing body surveillance, thin-ideal internalization in their daughters, and greater appearance concerns. In addition, some evidence suggested that maternal care and the quality of the mother–child relationship may play a protective role for daughters, having direct benefits of lower body shame and higher body esteem for daughters, as well as attenuating the relationship between mother–daughter body surveillance. It was also found that mothers may actually self-objectify less than their children; however, this is likely a generational effect.

Practice Implications

There are both theoretical and practical contributions that arise from the synthesis of this literature. The findings provide support for the framework underpinning objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and the subsequent framework proposed by Moradi and Huang (2008), extending it to include outcomes unique to the experiences of women during motherhood. In addition to supporting theoretical claims about sexualized objectification (or the reduction of women to their sexual or reproductive parts), these findings bolster the relatively small literature that has moved beyond the original “sexual” part of objectification (the second wave feminist version as originally posited by Fredrickson and Roberts) into more literal forms of objectification.

The findings of this review provide a possible explanation for high rates of negative perinatal mental health outcomes and have the potential to guide the development of refinement of related motherhood-specific interventions. For example, pregnant women in the maternal health system could be educated on the capability of their bodies as they proceed through pregnancy to shift their focus away from their appearance, in an effort to try and buffer against the harmful effects of self-objectifying, during such a vulnerable period of transition. Psychoeducation could also help a range of other people preparing for motherhood, including women and couples who are planning pregnancy and the practitioners working with them. In addition, this knowledge could assist with planning for motherhood related decisions including decision about surrogacy, breastfeeding, and choice of birthing method (live birth vs. caesarean). Finally, postpartum education programs could focus on body positivity in mothers so they can demonstrate positive modeling for their children and help buffer against the harmful ramifications of objectification in their children from birthright through to adulthood.

Limitations of the Studies

There are a series of limitations to this literature that warrant discussion—some pertain to the literature broadly and some pertain specifically to this review. Several different measures of self-objectification exist, and despite the common aim of these scales to measure self-objectification, some of them (e.g., OBCS and SOQ) measure slightly different concepts of the same construct. As discussed above, there are concerns about the validity of the OBCS as a measure of self-objectification—its development does not align with the tenets of the theory, and studies using both the OBCS and SOQ find that they are fairly strongly related yet produce different patterns of findings. This limits interpretation and comparison between studies (Calogero, 2011). Furthermore, self-objectification can be conceptualized as either state (i.e., temporary condition) or trait (i.e., relatively enduring) based.

A relatively large portion of this literature comes from student samples—over one third of studies used university or community samples. This is not problematic in its own right but does warrant consideration, given the relative youth and parenting status of the average student sample. We explored diverging or similar patterns of findings between student and non-student samples, and for the most part, the findings were congruent, although we concede it is somewhat risky to overinterpret this congruency. For example, self-objectification was related to negative beliefs about public breastfeeding (e.g., is embarrassing, shameful, indecent) in both samples of university students and in pregnant and postpartum samples. Moreover, the nature of the research question was quite different for various sample. For example, university students were asked about their attitudes toward others breastfeeding in public (Al-Ali et al., 2013), while pregnant women were asked about their own intentions to breastfeed (Johnston-Robledo & Fred, 2008), and postpartum women were asked about barriers to their own actual breastfeeding behaviors (Rodgers et al., 2018). While these findings triangulate evidence for the harmful impact of motherhood-relevant objectification, they are not directly comparable.

There were some method-relevant concerns for some studies. Four studies measured levels of state-based self-objectification in non-mothers (i.e., in samples of men and never-pregnant women participants, after exposure to motherhood related stimuli). Six studies used experimental methods, none of which had been adequately tested or previously used (Hopper & Aubrey, 2013, 2016; Morris et al., 2014). This may have limited validity of these findings.

There are some gaps in this literature that have been identified by this review, which can drive future directions for research in this field. While the body of literature on motherhood and objectification is small, there are some areas where research is scant. For example, almost three quarters of the studies in this review explored the postpartum stage or the role of maternal influence (i.e., the latter stages of motherhood). Comparatively little research looked at pregnancy (k = 5), and only a single study has looked at childbirth (i.e., the earlier stages of motherhood). About three quarters of the evidence in this field in based on data from the U.S. A handful of studies are based on data from Australia (k = 4), and single studies used data from Israel, Jordan, and Nepal. While the evidence shows that sexual objectification is more prevalent in Westernized societies (Loughnan et al., 2015), different cultures have unique values and identities associated with motherhood, and research across a wider representation of cultures would allow for an understanding of how objectification during motherhood may be influenced by cultural differences.

Finally, there were no studies exploring temporal changes in the relationship between motherhood and objectification. This might be a pertinent point for researchers in this field, particularly in the research exploring maternal influence. For instance, there is older research in this field indicating a strong and consequential role of maternal influence (e.g., mother’s body shame was related to daughter’s poorer self-esteem; McKinley, 1999), while newer research in the field is producing different findings (e.g., mother’s body shame was unrelated to child’s body shame; Katz-Wise, 2013). Research with longitudinal data or research that explores cohort effects is needed to advance this field.

Conclusion

This review provides consistent evidence for objectification during motherhood. Mothers may be subjected to unique objectifying experiences and representations. The objectification and self-objectification of mothers is associated with specific negative effects for motherhood (e.g., barriers to breastfeeding, fear of childbirth), as well as the more typical negative consequences observed for all objectified women (e.g., depression, eating disturbances). Literal self-objectification can be protective for some mothers (e.g., as a terror management strategy during stages of reproduction), and an increased focus on the capability and functionality of their body (over appearance) may be able to buffer against the negative effects of self-objectification. However, more commonly, self-objectification was linked to negative outcomes (e.g., increased fear of childbirth, breastfeeding shame, higher rates of postpartum depression, greater body shame, and raising children with more sexualized child behaviors).

Motherhood is a challenging period, characterized by enormous physical, physiological, and emotional change. It is clear that different stages of motherhood may be subject to unique objectifying behaviors, treatment, and representations. In order to support women through the different stages of motherhood, a sense of personal value derived from all aspects of their identity and the enormity of the undertaking that is motherhood is essential. Examining how mothers are objectified, and how they self-objectify, will enable better understanding of the links between objectification, self-objectification, and negative consequences, as well as identifying when and how it can be avoided. Such results would have the potential to lessen the gender-based pressure on mothers, and on mother–child bonds, and positively contribute to the psychological and physical wellbeing of mothers, their partners, and their child. In conclusion, we would like to highlight the utility of these findings for women who are (or are considering becoming) mothers, particularly as they negotiate the relationship that they have with their changing bodies. There are mostly detrimental effects for mothers when excessive importance is placed on their appearance. In order to counter these effects, we would encourage placing emphasis on appreciating the functionality of their body and what the human body can achieve during motherhood.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Joel Anderson

References

References marked with an * were included in the systematic literature review.

Abraczinsakas

Fisak

Barnes

R. D.

(2012). The relation between parental influence, body image, and eating behaviors in a nonclinical female sample. Body Image, 9(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.10.005

Anderson

J. R.

Holland

Heldreth

Johnson

(2018). Revisiting the Jezebel stereotype: The impact of target race on sexual objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318791543

Anderson

J. R.

Holland

Koc

Haslam

(2018). iObjectify: Self- and other-objectification on Grindr, a geosocial networking application designed for men who have sex with men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2350

Andrews

Qian

Valentine

J. D.

(2002). Experience of Shame Scale [PsycTESTS data set]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t39071-000

*Al-Ali

Hatamleh

Khader

(2013). Female public Jordanian university undergraduate students’ intentions and attitudes toward breastfeeding: Application of self-objectification theory. Breastfeeding Review, 21(3), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcd.2016.67022

*Arroyo

Andersen

(2015). The relationship between mother-daughter self-objectification: Identifying direct, indirect, and conditional direct effects. Sex Roles, 74(5), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0554-1

*Arroyo

Andersen

(2016). Appearance-related communication and body image outcomes: Fat talk and old talk among mothers and daughters. Journal of Family Communication, 16(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1144604

Bernard

Gervais

S. J.

Allen

Campomizzi

Klein

(2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23(5), 469–471. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797611434748

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

11.

Budesheim

T. L.

(2014). Exploring the dark matter of objectification. In Bornstein

B. H.

Wiener

R. L.

(Eds.), Justice, conflict, and wellbeing (pp. 97–122). Springer.

12.

Calogero

(2011). Operationalizing self-objectification: Assessment and related methodological issues. In Calogero

Tantleff-Dunn

Thompson

J. K.

(Eds.), Self-objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions (pp. 23–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12304-002

13.

Cogoni

Carnaghi

Silani

(2018). Reduced empathic responses for sexually objectified women: An fMRI investigation. Cortex, 99, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.11.020

14.

*Crawford

Lee

Portnoy

Gurung

Khati

Jha

Regmi

(2009). Objectified body consciousness in a developing country: A comparison of mothers and daughters in the US and Nepal. Sex Roles, 60(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9521-4

15.

Deans

Clarke

Newson

(2015). For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test ‘purely for information.’ Bioethics, 29(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12125

16.

Donati Beech

Kaufmann

Anderson

J. R.

(2020). Is breastfeeding a risk factor for disordered eating in postpartum mothers? An exploration through the lens of objectification theory. [Manuscript under review].

17.

Downes

Brennan

Williams

Dean

(2016). Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open, 6(12), E011458. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458

18.

Dryden

Anderson

(2019). The dark triad, trait-based self-objectification, and body image concerns in young women. Personality and Individual Differences, 145, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.015

19.

Evenson

K. R.

Mottola

M. F.

Owe

K. M.

Rousham

E. K.

Brown

W. J.

(2014). Summary of international guidelines for physical activity after pregnancy. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 69(7), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000077

20.

Fenwick

Staff

Gamble

Creedy

D. K.

Bayes

(2010). Why do women request caesarean section in a normal, healthy first pregnancy? Midwifery, 26(4), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.011

21.

Fogarty

Elmir

Hay

Schmied

(2018). The experience of women with an eating disorder in the perinatal period: A meta-ethnographic study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1762-9

22.

Franchak

J. M.

Adolph

K. E.

(2014). Gut estimates: Pregnant women adapt to changing possibilities for squeezing through doorways. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0578-y

23.

Francis

L. A.

Birch

L. L.

(2005). Maternal influences on daughters’ restrained eating behavior. Health Psychology, 24(6), 548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.6.548

24.

Franzoi

(1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33(5), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954577

25.

Fredrickson

Roberts

(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

26.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

T. A.

Noll

S. M.

Quinn

D. M.

Twenge

J. M.

(1998). That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269

27.

Gervais

S. J.

Holland

A. M.

Dodd

M. D.

(2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69(11–12), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x

28.

Gill

(2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology, 18(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507084950

29.

Grabe

Ward

L. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

30.

Harper

Tiggemann

(2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9379-x

31.

Heflick

N. A.

Goldenberg

J. L.

(2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008

32.

Heflick

Goldenberg

(2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531599

33.

Higgins

Green

(2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons.

34.

Hill

M. S.

Fischer

A. R.

(2008). Examining objectification theory: Lesbian and heterosexual women’s experiences with sexual-and self-objectification. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(5), 745–776. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000007301669

35.

Holanda

Gonçalves

Medeiros

Oliveira

Maranhão

(2016). Ultrasound findings of the physiological changes and most common breast diseases during pregnancy and lactation. Radiologia Brasileira, 49(6), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0076

36.

Holland

Koval

Stratemeyer

Thomson

Haslam

(2016). 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

37.

*Hopper

K. M.

Aubrey

J. S.

(2013). Examining the impact of celebrity gossip magazine coverage of pregnant celebrities on pregnant women’s self-objectification. Communication Research, 40(6), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211422062

38.

*Hopper

K. M.

Aubrey

J. S.

(2016). Bodies after babies: The impact of depictions of recently post-partum celebrities on non-pregnant women’s body image. Sex Roles, 74(1–2), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0561-2

39.

Institute of Medicine. (1990). Nutrition during pregnancy: Part I, Weight gain. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

40.

Johnson

Burrows

Williamson

(2004). ‘Does my bump look big in this?’ The meaning of bodily changes for first-time mothers-to-be. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(3), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304042346

41.

*Johnston-Robledo

Fred

(2008). Self-objectification and lower income pregnant women’s breastfeeding attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00293.x

42.

*Johnston-Robledo

Sheffield

Voigt

Wilcox-Constantine

(2007). Reproductive shame: Self-objectification and young women’s attitudes toward their reproductive functioning. Women & Health, 46(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v46n01_03

43.

*Johnston-Robledo

Wares

Fricker

Pasek

(2007). Indecent exposure: Self-objectification and young women’s attitudes toward breastfeeding. Sex Roles, 56(7), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9194-4

44.

*Katz-Wise

Budge

Lindberg

Hyde

(2013). Individuation or identification? Self-objectification and the mother–adolescent relationship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312468425

45.

Kozee

H. B.

Tylka

T. L.

(2006). A test of objectification theory with lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00310.x

46.

Koval

Holland

Zyphur

Stratemeyer

Knight

Bailen

Thompson

Roberts

Haslam

(2019). How does it feel to be treated like an object? Direct and indirect effects of exposure to sexual objectification on women’s emotions in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 885–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000161

47.

Kuhn

M. H.

McPartland

T. S.

(1954). Twenty statements test [PsycTESTS data set]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t05100-000

48.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Ramsey

L. R.

(2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the enjoyment of sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386119

49.

Loughnan

Fernandez-Campos

Vaes

Anjum

Aziz

Harada

Holland

Singh

Puvia

Tsuchiya

(2015). Exploring the role of culture in sexual objectification: A seven nations study. International Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 125–152. https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologiesociale-2015-1-page-125.htm

50.

Loughnan

Pina

Vasquez

E. A.

Puvia

(2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313485718

51.

*McKinley

N. M.

(1999). Women and objectified body consciousness: Mothers’ and daughters’ body experience in cultural, developmental, and familial context. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 760–769. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6il.4

52.

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%2Fj.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

53.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

Ghersi

Liberati

Petticrew

Shekelle

Stewart

(2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

54.

Moradi

Huang

(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

55.

*Morris

Goldenberg

Heflick

(2014). Trio of terror (pregnancy, menstruation, and breastfeeding): An existential function of literal self-objectification among women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036493

56.

Myers

Crowther

(2007). Sociocultural pressures, thin-ideal internalization, self-objectification, and body dissatisfaction: Could feminist beliefs be a moderating factor? Body Image, 4(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.04.001

57.

Noll

Fredrickson

(1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x

58.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(1999). Sex and social justice. Oxford University Press.

59.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Elmagarmid

Fedorowicz

(2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

60.

*Perez

Kroon Van Diest

Smith

Sladek

(2018). Body dissatisfaction and its correlates in 5- to 7-year-old girls: A social learning experiment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(5), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1157758

61.

Polivy

J. C.

Herman

(2004). Sociocultural idealization of thin female body shapes: An introduction to the special issue on body image and eating disorders. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1.1.26986

62.

Puvia

Vaes

(2012). Being a body: Women’s appearance related self-views and their dehumanization of sexually objectified female targets. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0255-y

63.

*Rodgers

O’Flynn

Bourdeau

Zimmerman

(2018). A biopsychosocial model of body image, disordered eating, and breastfeeding among postpartum women. Appetite, 126, 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.007

64.

*Rubin

Steinberg

(2011). Self-objectification and pregnancy: Are body functionality dimensions protective? Sex Roles, 65(7), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9955-y

65.

*Slater

Tiggemann

(2016). The influence of maternal self-objectification, materialism and parenting style on potentially sexualized ‘grown up’ behaviours and appearance concerns in 5–8 year old girls. Eating Behaviors, 22, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.05.002

66.

Smolak

Murnen

S. K.

(2011). Gender, self-objectification and pubic hair removal. Sex Roles, 65(7–8), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9922-z

67.

Strelan

Hargreaves

(2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52(9–10), 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3

68.

Talmon

Ginzburg

(2016). The nullifying experience of self-objectification: The development and psychometric evaluation of the Self-Objectification Scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 60, 46–57. doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.007

69.

*Talmon

Ginzburg

(2018). Chased by the past: The relation between childhood maltreatment and fear of childbirth. Sex Roles, 81, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0984-7

70.

Tieu

(2009). Altruistic surrogacy: The necessary objectification of surrogate mothers. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(3), 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024679

71.

Tiggemann

Boundy

(2008). Effect of environment and appearance compliment on college women’s self-objectification, mood, body shame, and cognitive performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00453.x

72.

Tiggemann

Kuring

(2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752925

73.

Tiggemann

Lynch

J. E.

(2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.243

74.

*Tiggemann

Slater

(2014). Contemporary girlhood: Maternal reports on sexualized behaviour and appearance concern in 4–10 year-old girls. Body Image, 11(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.06.007

75.

Toledo

Cianelli

(2018). Self-objectification in the context of breastfeeding: A concept analysis. Public Health Nursing, 36(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12570

76.

Vaes

Cristoforetti

Ruzzante

Cogoni

Mazza

(2019). Assessing neural responses towards objectified human targets and objects to identify processes of sexual objectification that go beyond the metaphor. Scientific Reports, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42928-x

77.

Vaes

Paladino

Puvia

(2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.824

78.

Ward

V. B.

(2008). Eating disorders in pregnancy. BMJ, 336(7635), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39393.689595.be

79.

*Yager

Prichard

Hart

Damiano

S. R.

(2020). Mumbod: A comparison of body image and dietary restraint among women with younger, older, and no children. [Manuscript under review].

80.

Zogmaister

Durante

Mari

Crippa

Volpato

(2020). Measuring objectification through the Body Inversion Paradigm: Methodological issues. PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0229161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229161