In the current article, we tested the social interaction model of objectification to explore the effects of the activation and compatibility of sexual goals on women's perceptions of sexual objectification and behavioral intentions. Studies 1 (N = 272) and 2 (N = 141), conducted in Italy, demonstrated the importance of women's sexual goals in shaping favorable perceptions and subsequent behavioral intentions in sexually objectifying interactions. However, in both studies, when women desired sexual attention but did not receive it, they reported the highest levels of perceived benefits from remaining in the interaction, along with greater motivation for future interactions. Study 3 (N = 232), conducted in the United States, replicated the importance of women's sexual goal activation in fostering positive perceptions and intentions to continue the interaction. Nevertheless, contrary to the findings of the first two studies, the results showed that compatibility of sexual goals was preferable to incompatible conditions. The current research provides evidence supporting the social interaction model of objectification's proposition that, during objectifying interactions, women cognitively evaluate whether the interaction aligns with their own sexual goals. It also highlights the significant role of cultural differences in shaping perceptions of sexual goal compatibility in the objectifying interaction process.
BalintS. (2024). Women’s experiences of sexual agency under constrained choice: A systematic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(4), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684324124571
3.
BareketO.FiskeS. T. (2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11-12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400
4.
BareketO.KahalonR.ShnabelN.GlickP. (2018). The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy: Men who perceive women's nurturance and sexuality as mutually exclusive endorse patriarchy and show lower relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 79(9), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0895-7
5.
BartkyS. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. Routledge.
6.
BirnbaumG. E.ZholtackK.ReisH. T. (2020). No pain, no gain: Perceived partner mate value mediates the desire-inducing effect of being hard to get during online and face-to-face encounters. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(8-9), 2510–2528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520927469
7.
BohnsV. K.DeVincentL. A. (2019). Rejecting unwanted romantic advances is more difficult than suitors realize. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 1102–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618769880
8.
CalogeroR. M.JostJ. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021864
9.
CalogeroR. M.PinaA.ParkL. E.RahemtullaZ. (2010). Objectification theory predicts college women’s attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 63, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9759-5
10.
CampbellL.MarshallT. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship processes: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1219–1250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00723.x
11.
Carvalho SilvaR.VezzoliM.MeneselloV.MeattiniM.SartoriR.MinelliA. (2024). Everything changes but nothing changes: Gender stereotypes in the Italian population. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 27(4), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-024-01437-1
12.
ComiskeyA.ParentM. C.TebbeE. A. (2020). An inhospitable world: Exploring a model of objectification theory with trans women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319889595
13.
De WildeM.CarrierA.CasiniA.DemoulinS. (2021). The drawback of sexual empowerment: Perceiving women as emancipated but still as sexual objects. Sex Roles, 84(9), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01192-4
14.
DowneyG.FeldmanS. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.6.1327
15.
ErchullM. J.LissM. (2013). Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual empowerment: Development and validation of the Sex is Power Scale. Gender Issues, 30(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-013-9114-6
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
17.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (p. 5). Row & Peterson.
18.
FloresM. J.WatsonL. B.AllenL. R.FordM.SerpeC. R.ChooP. Y.FarrellM. (2018). Transgender people of color’s experiences of sexual objectification: Locating sexual objectification within a matrix of domination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000279
19.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). 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
20.
GarciaR. L.EarnshawV. A.QuinnD. M. (2016). Objectification in action: Self- and other-objectification in mixed-sex interpersonal interactions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315614966
21.
GervaisS. J.SáezG.RiemerA. R.KleinO. (2020). The social interaction model of objectification: A process model of goal-based objectifying exchanges between men and women. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 248–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12339
22.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K. (2007). The origins and consequences of subtle sexism. In A. N. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (4th ed., Vol. 49, pp. 137–166). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
23.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.AllenJ. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310386121
24.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
25.
GuD.ZhengL. (2025). Effects of sexually objectifying gaze on women's self-sexualization in a mating context: The tradeoff between safety pursuit and resource pursuit. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), e70018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.70018
26.
GuizzoF.CadinuM. (2017). Effects of objectifying gaze on female cognitive performance: The role of flow experience and internalization of beauty ideals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12170
27.
HainesM. E.ErchullM. J.LissM.TurnerD. L.NelsonJ. A.RamseyL. R.HurtM. M. (2008). Predictors and effects of self-objectification in lesbians. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00422.x
28.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Heimerdinger-EdwardsS. R.VogelD. L.HammerJ. H. (2011). Extending sexual objectification theory and research to minority populations, couples, and men. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010383894
31.
HollandE.KovalP.StratemeyerM.ThomsonF.HaslamN. (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
32.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
JackD. C.DillD. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x
35.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
36.
KahalonR.KleinV. (2025). Self-Objectification and sexuality: A systematic scoping review. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(9), 1722–1743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2552910
37.
KahalonR.ShnabelN.BeckerJ. C. (2018). “Don’t bother your pretty little head” appearance compliments lead to improved mood but impaired cognitive performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318758596
38.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010
39.
Kashubeck-WestS.ZeilmanM.DeitzC. (2018). Objectification, relationship satisfaction, and self-consciousness during physical intimacy in bisexual women. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(1-2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1419569
40.
KleinV.ImhoffR.ReiningerK. M.BrikenP. (2019). Perceptions of sexual script deviation in women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(2), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1280-x
41.
KovalP.HollandE.ZyphurM. J.StratemeyerM.KnightJ. M.BailenN. H.ThompsonR. J.RobertsT. A.HaslamN. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000161
42.
LangtonR. (2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford University Press.
43.
LissM.ErchullM. J.RamseyL. 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
44.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
45.
LouisW. R.TaylorD. M.DouglasR. L. (2005). Normative influence and rational conflict decisions: Group norms and cost–benefit analyses for intergroup behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205056465
46.
MacKinnonC. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Harvard University Press.
47.
ManneK. (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.
48.
McKinleyN. M.HydeJ. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14716402.1996.tb00467.x
49.
MeltzerA. L. (2020). Women can benefit from sexual and physical valuation in the context of a romantic relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219854443
50.
MilesE.CrispR. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573
51.
ModicaC. A.MurnenS. K. (2024). Are men who identify as a feminist less likely to sexually objectify women?: A cross-sectional study of heterosexual men. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 30(1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2022.2097325
52.
MoffittL. B.SzymanskiD. M. (2011). Experiencing sexually objectifying environments: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 67–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010364551
53.
MosleyA. J.BharjN.BiernatM. (2023). Shifting standards of sexuality: An intersectional account of men’s objectification of Black and White women. Sex Roles, 89(9), 567–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01414-5
NollS. M.FredricksonB. L. (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
PacilliM. G.PagliaroS.GiovannelliI.SpaccatiniF.BerlinE.RolleroC. (2024). From non-traditional sexual behavior to non-legitimate victims: Moral virtue, victim blame, and helping intentions toward a woman victim of image-based sexual abuse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(10), 4079–4088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02970-x
58.
PagliaroS.PacilliM. G.GiannellaV. A.GiovannelliI.SpaccatiniF.BaldryA. C. (2021). Legitimizing intimate partner violence: Moral evaluations, attribution of responsibility, and (reduced) helping intentions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5-6), 2929–2941. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626051876061
59.
PeciniC.GuizzoF.BonacheH.Borges-CastellsN.MoreraM. D.VaesJ. (2023). Sexual objectification: Advancements and avenues for future research. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 50, 101261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101261
RawatP. S. (2014). Patriarchal beliefs, women’s empowerment, and general well-being. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 39(2), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920140206
62.
RiemerA. R.AllenJ.GullicksonM.GervaisS. J. (2020). “You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar”: Objectification valence interacts with women’s enjoyment of sexualization to influence social perceptions. Sex Roles, 83(11), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01143-z
63.
RinehartJ. K.YeaterE. A. (2012). The effects of male attractiveness and sexual attitudes on women’s risk perception. Violence Against Women, 18(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212443949
64.
RinehartJ. K.YeaterE. A.TreatT. A.VikenR. J. (2018). Cognitive processes underlying the self–other perspective in women’s judgments of sexual victimization risk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(10), 1381–1399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517713365
65.
RobertsT.-A.CalogeroR. M.GervaisS. J. (2018). Objectification theory: Continuing contributions to feminist psychology. In TravisC. B.WhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S.CookS. L.WycheK. F. (Eds.), APA Handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 249–271). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000059-013
66.
SáezG.RiemerA. R.KleinO.GervaisS. J. (2025). The evaluative process model of objectification: How men’s evaluations of patriarchal security and women’s fit with conventional beauty and sexuality norms interact to predict perpetration of sexually objectifying behaviors. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 2, 1466577. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2024.1466577
67.
SáezG.RiemerA. R.Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF. (2021). “I’ll stop talking now”: Decreased interaction length in mixed-sex interpersonal interactions as response to objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520958474
68.
SáezG.Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF. (2019). Interpersonal sexual objectification experiences: Psychological and social well-being consequences for women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516645813
69.
ScappiniA.DonatiM. A.FioravantiG. (2023). Heterosexual script in Italian young adults: Measurement across genders. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(3), 1152–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-022-00786-9
70.
ShepherdL. (2019). Responding to sexual objectification: The role of emotions in influencing willingness to undertake different types of action. Sex Roles, 80(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0912-x
71.
ShermanA. M.AllemandH.PrickettS. (2020). Hypersexualization and sexualization in advertisements for Halloween costumes. Sex Roles, 83, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01105-0
72.
ShiX.ZhengY. (2020). Perception and tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of feminist identity, sexism, and gender roles in a sample of Chinese working women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320903683
73.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
74.
SlaterA.TiggemannM. (2015). Media exposure, extracurricular activities, and appearance-related comments as predictors of female adolescents’ self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314554606
75.
StratmoenE.RiveraE. D.SaucierD. A. (2020). “Sorry, I already have a boyfriend”: Masculine honor beliefs and perceptions of women’s use of deceptive rejection behaviors to avert unwanted romantic advances. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519865615
76.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1370
77.
TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2009). Intergroup trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325004
78.
TebbeE. A.MoradiB.ConnellyK. E.LenzenA. L.FloresM. (2018). “I don’t care about you as a person”: Sexual minority women objectified. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000255
79.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.
80.
TreatT. A.VikenR. J.FarrisC. A.SmithJ. R. (2016). Enhancing the accuracy of men’s perceptions of women’s sexual interest in the laboratory. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039845
81.
TylkaT. L.SabikN. J. (2010). Integrating social comparison theory and self-esteem within objectification theory to predict women’s disordered eating. Sex Roles, 63, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9785-3
VescioT. K.GervaisS. J.SnyderM.HooverA. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.658
84.
VisintinE. P.RulloM.Lo DestroC. (2024). Imagine being humble: Integrating imagined intergroup contact and cultural humility to foster inclusive intergroup relations. Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010051
85.
WaltonK. A.PedersenC. L. (2022). Motivations behind catcalling: Exploring men’s engagement in street harassment behaviour. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(3), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1909648
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
88.
WatsonL. B.GrotewielM.FarrellM.MarshikJ.SchneiderM. (2015). Experiences of sexual objectification, minority stress, and disordered eating among sexual minority women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315575024
YoonE.AdamsK.HoggeI.BrunerJ. P.SuryaS.BryantF. B. (2015). Development and validation of the Patriarchal Beliefs Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000056
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
