Sexualization of Adolescent Boys

Abstract

This study (N = 911) investigated how exposure to sexualizing prime-time television programs, music television, men’s magazines, and pornographic websites was related to the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance among adolescent boys. A structural equation model showed direct relationships between exposure to sexualizing television and pornographic websites and the internalization of appearance ideals. Indirect relationships between these types of sexualizing media, and self-objectification and body surveillance through the internalization of appearance ideals were also reported. A direct relationship with self-objectification was only found for sexualizing pornographic websites. Discussion warns attention for adolescent boys at risk of sexualization.

Keywords

masculinity media adolescence objectification theory sexualization

Appearance worries and related appearance modification behaviors, such as powerlifting, suntanning, using beauty products, and even taking anabolic steroids, have been found to be part of young men’s modern life (e.g., Frederick et al. 2007; Strelan and Hargreaves 2005). Not only are a number of young men preoccupied with their appearance, Western society in general appears to value male appearance, considering male appearance standards, such as muscularity, as important cues for succeeding in life or, more specifically, for being sexually attractive (e.g., Frederick et al. 2007). The focus of society on male appearance runs parallel with the prevalence of mass media focusing on handsome men. Both popular magazines and television programs have been shown to present unrealistic appearance ideals that ignore men’s personalities and are associated with romantic and sexual success (Fouts and Vaughan 2002; Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007).

This focus on male appearance in mass media (e.g., Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007) has been targeted by scholars as a possible reason for appearance worries among young men and adolescent boys (Frederick et al. 2007; Strelan and Hargreaves 2005) and raises questions on whether and, if so how, boys’ body image is affected by media. In this view, objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997) and research based on this theory (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Moradi and Huang 2008) expect that the so-called sexualizing mass media trigger self-objectification, that is, the adoption of an observer’s perspective toward one’s own body. Self-objectification, in turn, has been shown to lead to appearance worries and appearance modification behaviors (Moradi and Huang 2008).

The present study aims to examine the relationship between exposure to sexualizing media and self-objectification among adolescent boys. The study intends to build on multidisciplinary knowledge derived from the fields of psychology, cultural studies, media studies, and sociology to increase our understandings of media, objectification, and adolescent boys in three ways. First, scholars have noted that (theoretically driven) research is needed to understand how mass media may impact self-objectification among male media users (Choma et al. 2010). By applying Moradi and Huang’s (2008) multifaceted perspective toward self-objectification, the present study aims to increase scholarly knowledge about the occurrence of self-objectification among male media users. Second, the study will focus on boys in adolescence. Developmental changes, such as the emergence of secondary sex characteristics, are believed to make a young man more aware of his body and overall appearance (Lindberg, Grabe, and Hyde 2007). The increased awareness of the changing body is expected to make boys vulnerable for the focus on male bodies in mass media (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; Lindberg, Grabe, and Hyde 2007). In line with scholars’ call for attention to male body images (Markey 2010), the present study therefore concentrates on 12- to 18-year-old boys. Third, our study aims to examine the relationship between media exposure and boys’ self-objectification with attention for differences in how various media contents portray the male body. Such consideration seems critical as content analyses have hinted at the idea that various media contents—prime-time television shows, music television, men’s magazines, and pornographic websites—differ in how they present male appearance ideals (Aubrey and Frisby 2011; Fouts and Vaughan 2002; Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000).

Sexualization of the Male Body

Research has suggested that sexualization is a regularly occurring phenomena in modern Western media (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Edwards 1997; Rohlinger 2002) and has traditionally focused on and elaborated theory on female sexualization (Moradi and Huang 2008). However, sexualization may also occur among men. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007, 1) defines sexualization as evaluating individuals based on their sexual appeal or sexual behavior, equating standards of appearance to being sexually attractive, sexually objectifying a person, and/or inappropriately imposing sexuality on individuals. The four elements of this definition can also be applied to men, although with attention for the gendered meaning of this phenomenon (Gill 2009). This can be illustrated by looking at how media tend to portray men.

With respect to the first dimension of the definition, for instance, content analyses have suggested that in media content men often are primarily evaluated based on their sexual appeal or sexual behavior (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007). Television comedies have been found to focus on the (the lack of) sexual appeal of male characters by mocking with overweight men (Fouts and Vaughan 2002). In addition, Kelly (2010) has suggested that popular teen programs promote the message that boys without any sexual experience are “uncool,” regardless of their other capacities or characteristics. Such media contents may teach boys that one’s sexual appeal or behavior reflects a men’s reputation or personal value (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007).

Second, research has suggested that male standards of appearance, such as muscularity, are equated to being sexually attractive in media content (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Gill 2009). Ideal men have been described as “young, usually white, particularly muscularly, critically strong-jawed, clean shaven (often all over), healthy, sporty, successful, virile and ultimately sexy” (Edwards 1997, 41). The prevalence of such male appearance ideals has been reported in various types of media contents (Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000; Ricciardielli, Clow, and White 2007; Rohlinger 2002). Music entertainment television has been found to promote muscular men in sexually oriented scenes, suggesting that sexual acts are reserved for “good-looking” men (Vandenbosch, Vervloessem, and Eggermont 2013). McKee (2005) studied eight mainstream pornographic videos and also suggested that men’s sexual attractiveness was directly related to their outward appearances (McKee 2005).

Third, the observing and treating of men as objects for others’ sexual goals has been found in pornographic media and lifestyle magazines (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Attwood 2005). Analyses of pornographic media suggest that men are being depersonalized in pornographic media content (McKee 2005). Attwood (2005, 87) has suggested that pornographic media portray men’s bodies as “mechanized pieces of equipment” as they show men that are solely focused on the sexual act, while the women are focused on their own sexual pleasure. In addition, Attwood has argued that media “instrumentalize” the male body by seeing it as a project that can be “worked on”; in turn, more worked out bodies are expected to be more sexually attractive for women. For instance, popular lifestyle magazines have been shown to promote tips and tricks for modifying one’s appearance, suggesting they may increase men’s sexual success (Ricciardielli, Clow, and White 2007). Furthermore, an “undifferentiated” sexual gaze on the male body has been found in television advertisements by, for instance, showing young white attractive women gazing at a young, toned, muscular, and bare chested man (Gill 2009).

Fourth, men and boys have also been sexualized by inappropriately imposing sexuality on them (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Sharp 2010). In this view, American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007, 2) has especially focused on concerns regarding “the imbuing of adult sexuality upon a child.” One scholar noticed, for instance, that the teenage star Jaden Smith has been admired while lifting up his shirt to demonstrate his “six pack” and that female adult stars have been found to wear shirts promoting the slogan “Kim can have Justin, Jaden’s mine” (Sharp 2010). Furthermore, indications of inappropriately imposing sexuality on men have been found by analyses of television programs suggesting that men are always longing for sex (Kim et al. 2007).

Together, research has suggested that sexualization of the male body is apparent in various media contents popular among adolescent boys.

Applying the Sexualization Framework to Adolescent Boys

While content analyses have thus reported on media’s focus on male appearance, survey research has documented the prevalence of appearance worries among young men (Olivardia et al. 2004). When discussing how men’s body perception works, scholars generally refer to the rich theoretical tradition of explaining female body image (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008). A theoretical explanation that received considerable attention during the last decade is the objectification theory as outlined by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997). This theory argues that experiencing a sexualized gaze on one's body during interpersonal encounters or while being exposed to media contents that treat characters as sexual objects leads to self-objectification. Self-objectification refers to taking on an observers' perspective to evaluate one's own body and considered as an important cause of various mental and physical health risks (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). While self-objectification has been found among both men and women, research has reported that women self-objectify to a greater extent than men and at the same time has warned for “the absence of a comprehensive theory for understanding men’s objectification experiences” (Choma et al. 2010, 653).

Regarding the latter criticism, Moradi and Huang (2008) have further developed the original objectification theory and identified three central processes in the objectification framework that may increase our understanding of how boys could experience self-objectification: internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance. When adolescent boys are confronted with sexualization, they gain knowledge about what society perceives as “an ideal appearance.” Boys may however not only learn the promoted physical features, they may also internalize these standards and consider them as their own personal ideals to pursue (Thompson and Stice 2001). Subsequently, this internalization of appearance standards may determine which observable body features one need to consider important (Daniel and Bridges 2010). Based on Noll and Fredrickson’s (1998) notions of objectification, self-objectification occurs when a higher level of importance is attached to those body features perceived to be essential for sexual attractiveness. This self-objectification, in turn, is expected to trigger related behavioral processes, such as body surveillance. Body surveillance is described as the active manifestation of self-objectification (Calogero 2010): Boys showing higher levels of body surveillance invest more time in monitoring their appearances to ensure that they comply with male body ideals (McKinley and Hyde 1996).

Thus far, empirical studies have not yet investigated the theoretically proposed multidimensional process of self-objectification among boys. However, empirical evidence suggests that this process is likely to occur among boys, since studies showed that singular aspects of the process, that is, internalization of appearance ideals and body surveillance, have been found in young male adolescents (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008; Slater and Tiggemann 2010).

Sexualizing Media and the Multidimensional Process of Self-Objectification

Research suggesting that the multidimensional process of self-objectification may occur among adolescent boys (Moradi and Huang 2008) together with research reporting on the prevalence of male appearance ideals in various media contents (e.g., Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007) form the basis for the present study. The study investigates how exposure to sexualizing prime-time television, music television, men’s magazines, and pornographic websites is related to the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance among boys. In this process, theory expects that exposure to sexualizing media teaches boys about muscular, stylish, suntanned male ideals and leads to the internalization of those ideals (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997; Moradi and Huang 2008). This suggestion is strengthened by two studies reporting positive associations between the internalization of appearance ideals and reading fitness magazines among male college students (Morry and Statska 2001) and the perceived media pressure among adolescents (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008).

In addition, exposure to sexualizing media may affect self-objectification and body surveillance through the internalization of appearance ideals (Moradi and Huang 2008). This theoretical suggestion is strengthened by a study among boys reporting partial mediation of internalization on the relationship between perceived pressure from media and body surveillance (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008). The possible mediating role of internalization on the relationship between media exposure and self-objectification has not yet been examined.

Thus, we expect that not only that exposure to sexualizing media directly impacts the internalization of appearance ideals but also internalization increases self-objectification and body surveillance. In line with theoretical and empirical evidence (Calogero 2010; Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008; Moradi 2010), our first hypothesis thus reads:

Hypothesis 1: Consumption of sexualizing television programs, music television, men’s magazines, and pornographic websites is directly related to the internalization of appearance ideals. The internalization of appearance ideals increases, in turn, body surveillance and self-objectification.

Objectification theory further argues that sexualization of the male body is apparent not only through emphasizing appearance ideals, but also by supporting an observer’s perspective toward the own body (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). For instance, sexual activities shown in pornographic media ignore one’s personality and exclusively focus on the physical body appearance (McKee 2005). Watching such content may directly stimulate the gradual development of an image of the physical self that evaluates one’s own body through the eyes of another individual (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). Aubrey (2006) supported this assumption by reporting that exposure to sexually objectifying television increased male college students’ self-objectification one year later (Aubrey 2006).

In addition, theoretical models also expect that the internalization of an observer’s perspective toward one’s body increases the monitoring of one’s body (Moradi and Huang 2008; Moradi 2010). The concept of self-objectification may thus be expected to mediate the relationship between exposure to sexualizing media and body surveillance (Calogero 2010; Moradi 2010). Boys who frequently monitor their body may use an observer’s perspective when evaluating their appearance and are likely to attach greater importance to appearance-based attributes in this evaluation (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). Thus, our second hypothesis reads as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Consumption of sexualizing television programs, music television, men’s magazines, and sexually explicit websites is directly related to self-objectification. Self-objectification, in turn, increases body surveillance.

Figure 1 presents our hypotheses. When testing these hypotheses, the study will take account of (a) differences in the impact of different media content and (b) measurement problems associated with self-objectification. With respect to the first, content analyses have suggested that sexualization differs across different media contents. Music television sexualizes men in a primarily visual way (Aubrey and Frisby 2011), whereas prime-time television programs and men magazines sexualize men through thematic messages and stories (Fouts and Vaughan 2002). Prime-time television highlights appearance in the context of comical situations (Fouts and Vaughan 2002), and magazines specifically provide advice for changing one’s appearance (Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007). In addition, while sexuality is rather suggested in traditional media, such as prime-time television or music television (Aubrey and Frisby 2011), pornographic messages sexualize men in a sexually explicit context (McKee 2005). These differences suggest that different media may have different influences on the process of self-objectification. Therefore, the study aims to explore and to describe whether and how the impact of sexualizing media content differs across different media contents.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized relationships between sexualizing media consumption and the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance.

Second, research measuring men’s body image is expected to take account of differences between the cultural appearance standards of men (e.g., muscular body) and women (e.g., slender body; Moradi 2010). Empirical studies on men’s body image support this gendered approach, as prior scholars have found more theoretically consistent results when adapting measures that were originally developed for women’s body image according to the cultural norms of men’s attractiveness (Morry and Statska 2001).

Against this background, the application of the original Self-Objectification Questionnaire of Noll and Fredrickson (1998) in objectification research among men warrants attention. This measure evaluates the level of importance attached to appearance-based body attributes (e.g., physical attractiveness, coloring, and weight) as opposed to competence-based body attributes (e.g., health, physical fitness, and physical energy level). However, the division of attributes in appearance-based attributes and competence-based attributes is based on cultural standards considered important for women’s attractiveness, as the measure was originally developed for research among women (Moradi 2010; Noll and Fredrickson 1998). Therefore, the present study will investigate whether the division of attributes in appearance-based attributes and competence-based attributes proposed by the original Self-Objectification Questionnaire of Noll and Fredrickson (1998) also applies to adolescent boys.

Method

Sample and Participant Selection

In March 2010, a quantitative survey was conducted in thirteen schools that were selected from different parts of Belgium, different schooling levels, and different ages. All pupils of the thirteen schools that were present at the moment the researchers visited the school completed pencil-and-paper survey. The response rate was considerably high (93.8 percent): Of the 1,613 targeted participants, 1,513 filled in the survey. Participants were told that the goal of the study was to investigate their leisure habits and were guaranteed that the questionnaire would be processed confidentially and anonymously. As Belgian pupils are not used to incentives in a school context, these were not provided. Approval for the survey was received from the institutional review board of the host university; as customary in Belgium, informed consent was obtained from the school head.

This study only examined the data gathered among 911 adolescent boys. The mean age was 15.24 (SD = 1.42). Almost 60 percent of the respondents’ mothers (58.8 percent) had a postsecondary degree as the highest obtained degree and 34.3 percent of the mothers had graduated from secondary school; 2.4 percent had only completed an elementary school degree; and 4.5 percent did not have a degree. The majority of the fathers obtained a postsecondary degree (48.5 percent) or had obtained a secondary school diploma (42.3 percent). Nine percent had an elementary school degree (4.3 percent) or had no degree (4.8 percent). Finally, 92.9 percent were born in Belgium, 1.8 percent in Europe, and 5.3 percent in a non-European country.

Measures

Exposure to Sexually Objectifying Media

Participants rated how often they consumed sexualizing media content. First, respondents indicated on a 5-point scale (1 = (almost) never through 5 = (almost) every week), how often they watched each of forty-eight television programs broadcast on the most important channels during the period of three weeks prior to data collection. Second, respondents indicated on a 7-point scale (1 = (almost) never through 7 = (almost) every day), how often they watched the music video channels TMF, JIMtv, and MTV. Third, respondents indicated on a 5-point scale (1 = (almost) never through 5 = (almost) every week), how often they read male lifestyle magazines, such as P-magazine (a local version of Maxim). Fourth, respondents indicated on a 7-point scale (1 = never through 7 = several times a day), how often they had intentionally exposed themselves during the last six months to photographs of nude individuals with clearly exposed genitals, pornographic videos involving nudity, photographs of people having sex, and videos of people having sex (Peter and Valkenburg 2008, 585).

In order to attribute more weight to the media contents seen as more sexualizing, a procedure similar to the one reported by Aubrey (2006) and Zurbriggen, Ramsey, and Jaworski (2011) was applied. First, twenty-nine college students were trained to address in different media the level of sexualization described as a visual as well as a thematic focus on appearance and the body in a sexualizing way (Aubrey 2006; American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007; Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). After the training, they were asked to answer three questions on a 5-point scale about each medium included in the adolescent survey (Zurbriggen, Ramsey, and Jaworski 2011). The questions referred to the frequency and intensity of sexualization and the college student’s familiarity with the media content (for a further description see Zurbriggen, Ramsey, and Jaworski 2011).

Based on the frequency, intensity, and familiarity ratings, a four-step procedure was followed to calculate a sexualization score for each media content. First, for each media content, the frequency, intensity, and familiarity scores were multiplied. Second, for each media content the total sum of familiarity ratings of all college students was calculated. Third, weighted sexualization scores were calculated by dividing the product of Frequency × Intensity × Familiarity (step 1) by the total sum of familiarity ratings of that particular content (step 2). Fourth, the sum of the weighted sexualization scores was calculated for each media content. The result of this procedure, that is, a sexualization score per content, was used to weigh the adolescent boys’ frequency ratings of their media consumption. Those calculations indicated that several television programs were rarely being viewed or contained no sexualizing content. In order to enhance interpretation of the results, we selected the five most sexualizing programs, as their scores were considerably higher than the scores of the other forty-three programs (i.e., “Beauty and The Geek,” “Crime Night Las Vegas,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Totally Busted,” and the local program “Wag’s”). Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations (SDs) for the consumption of music television, prime-time television programs, male magazines, and pornographic sites with and without weight correction.

Table 1.

Mean and Standard Deviations of Media Consumption and Sexualizing Media Consumption.

	Media consumption				Sexualizing media consumption				Sexualizing weight
	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
TV
Crime Night Las Vegas	1	5	2.26	1.67	0.50	2.51	1.13	0.84	0.79
Wags	1	5	2.04	1.52	0.56	2.80	1.14	0.85	0.56
Totally Busted	1	5	1.61	1.22	0.73	3.67	1.18	0.89	0.50
Beauty and the Geek	1	5	1.55	1.15	0.79	3.97	1.23	0.91	0.50
The Big Bang Theory	1	5	2.58	1.76	0.50	2.50	1.29	0.88	0.45
Total TV programs	1	5	1.99	0.85	0.62	3.09	1.19	0.51	0.62
Music TV
TMF	1	7	4.46	2.21	0.57	3.97	2.53	1.25	.57
JIMtv	1	7	4.14	2.17	0.53	3.72	2.20	1.15	.53
MTV	1	7	4.49	2.13	0.57	3.96	2.54	1.21	.57
Total Music TV	1	7	4.32	1.92	0.55	3.88	2.40	1.06	.55
Magazines
Men’s magazines	1	5	1.61	1.03	0.72	3.60	1.16	0.740	.72
Pornographic websites
Pictures showing genitals	1	7	2.02	1.41	0.67	4.69	1.35	0.94	.67
Videos showing genitals	1	7	2.29	1.48	0.76	5.31	1.74	1.12	.76
Pictures showing sex	1	7	1.80	1.29	0.76	5.31	1.37	0.98	.76
Videos showing sex	1	7	2.47	1.55	0.79	5.55	1.96	1.23	.79
Total sexually explicit websites	1	7	2.14	1.25	0.75	5.22	1.60	0.93	.75

The Internalization of Appearance Ideals

In the internalization subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes toward Appearance Questionnaire (Thompson et al. 2003), respondents used a 5-point scale, ranging from I totally disagree (= 1) to I totally agree (= 5), to evaluate 9 items, such as I wish I looked like the models in music videos and I try to look like the people on TV. The internalization subscale has a demonstrated validity and test–retest reliability among college students (Thompson et al. 2003), but research among adolescents has suggested that the scale may need to be adapted to be reliable for younger respondents (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008; Vandenbosch and Eggermont 2012) and that preliminary tests are thus required before summing the items into a general internalization variable.

Self-Objectification

The measurement of self-objectification was based on the original version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire of Noll and Fredrickson (1998). This scale asks respondents to rank appearance-based and competence-based body attributes according to their importance. However, Calogero (2010) has noted that respondents often make mistakes when ranking the attributes. The ranking is also expected to increase measurement error and precludes calculation of reliability scores. Hence, we chose not to apply a ranking system and asked respondents to evaluate the importance of each attribute on a 10-point scale (1 = not at all important to 10 = very important ) instead. The difference between the mean score on the appearance-based factor and the mean score on the competence-based factor addressed the level of self-objectification (range −9 to 9). The higher the scores on this measure, the higher the level of self-objectification.

Body Surveillance

The questionnaire included the body surveillance subscale from the Objectified Body Consciousness scale for Adolescents (Lindberg, Hyde, and McKinley 2006), for which prior research has demonstrated its validity and reliability (e.g., Grabe and Hyde 2009; Lindberg, Hyde, and McKinley 2006). On a 5-point scale (1 = (almost never) through 5 = (almost) always), respondents evaluated four statements (α = 0.77) such as “I often compare how I look with how other people look” and “During the day, I think about how I look many times.”

Analysis

Prior to testing the proposed model, principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to explore which items belonged to (a) the internalization subscale and (b) the appearance-based and the competence-based factor for the adapted scale of self-objectification (AMOS). Next, descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations were calculated for all main variables included in the study. Third, the proposed model was tested with structural equation modeling (AMOS), using the maximum likelihood method. The chi-square to degrees-of-freedom ratio (χ²/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) were used to address the fit of the models (Byrne 2010). To address whether relationships differed significantly across media contents, two constrained models were tested and their fit indices were compared to the fit of the unconstrained model.

Further analyses focused on the model with the best fit. Following Aish and Jöreskog (1990), insignificant pathways were removed. Fit indices for the model prior to removing insignificant paths (fully saturated model) and for the model after removing insignificant paths (alternative trimmed model) will be reported and compared. We calculated indirect effects by multiplying the indirect standardized path coefficients. To test whether the indirect effects were different from zero, Sobel’s formula was applied.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

The Internalization of Appearance Ideals

A PCA extracted one factor (eigenvalue: 4.83; explained variance: 53.68 percent). Except for 2 items, all items had a factor loading higher than .70. In line with the results of Vandenbosch and Eggermont (2012), the factor loadings of the items I compare my body to the bodies of TV and movie stars and I compare my appearance to the appearance of TV and movie stars were below the general acceptance level of .40. Reliability tests indicated that these 2 items reduced α (α = .78). Subsequently, these items were dropped, resulting in a reliable 7-item scale (α = .92). Results from CFA further indicated that the measurement model fits the data well, χ²(6) = 20.67, p < .001, CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.05; AGFI = 0.97; χ²/df = 3.45.

Self-Objectification

A PCA using direct oblimin extracted one appearance-based factor (eigenvalue: 4.77; explained variance: 39.76 percent; α = .84), including physical attractiveness (factor loading = .84), coloring (.67), weight (.65), sex appeal (.65), measurements (.59), muscular strength (.69), and muscle tone (.72) and one competence-based factor (eigenvalue: 1.75; explained variance: 14.55 percent; α = .82) including stamina (.81), health (.76), physical fitness (.79), and physical energy level (.78). Muscle strength thus appeared to be an appearance-based attribute instead of a competence-based attribute. Physical coordination was removed as its factor loading was less than .40. Next, a measurement model tested the newly proposed appearance and competence factor. Results from CFA showed that the measurement model fits the data well, χ²(41) = 230.97, p < .001, CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.07; AGFI = 0.93; χ²/df = 5.63).

Descriptive Statistics

On average, boys were regularly exposed to sexualizing media as they watched prime-time (M = 1.99, SD = 0.85) and music (M = 4.32, SD = 1.92) television programs on a regular basis and occasionally visited sexually explicit websites (M = 2.14, SD = 1.25) or read men’s magazines (M = 1.61, SD = 1.03). The mean level of self-objectification suggested that boys valued competence-based attributes above appearance-based attributes (M = −1.45, SD = 1.60). A paired samples t-test further indicated that the mean level of importance attached to competence-based attributes (M = 8.00, SD = 1.46) was significantly higher than appearance-based attributes (M = 6.54, SD = 1.51), t(880) = −26.96, p < .001. Other research has also suggested that men value competence-based attributes higher than appearance-based attributes (e.g., Aubrey 2006). In addition, the mean levels of the internalization of appearance ideals (M = 2.26, SD = 0.81) and body surveillance (M = 2.74, SD = 0.80) were comparable to the findings of other research among boys (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008).

Table 2 presents zero-order correlations between consumption of sexualizing media and the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance. All were significant (p < .05), except for the relationships between exposure to sexualizing prime-time television, music television, and men’s magazines with self-objectification, and viewing sexualizing prime-time television and body surveillance.

Table 2.

Zero-Order Intercorrelations.

	Internalization	Self-objectification	Body surveillance	Sexualizing TV	Sexualizing Music TV	Sexualizing magazines	Sexualizing Websites
Internalization	1	.18***	.45***	.15***	.10**	.10**	.18***
Self-objectification		1	.26***	.01	.06	.01	.16***
Body surveillance			1	.07	.11**	.07*	.17***
Sexualizing TV				1	.43***	.24***	.15***
Sexualizing Music TV					1	.22***	.14***
Sexualizing magazines						1	.24***
Sexualizing websites							1

Note. *p < .05; **p <. 01; ***p < .001.

Testing Hypothesized Model

Prior to testing the entire models, the relationships among internalization, self-objectification, and body surveillance were modeled. The fit indices indicated a good fit of the model; all defined paths were significant, χ²(51) = 304.4, p < .001, CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.07; AGFI = 0.92; χ²/df = 5.97, implying that internalization affects both self-objectification (standardized regression coefficient β = .20) and body surveillance (β = .54) and that self-objectification has an influence on body surveillance (β = .19). Thus, Moradi’s (2010) multifaceted model of self-objectification seems to be suitable for boys.

The model visualized in Figure 1 was used to test the hypothesized relationships. The final model is presented in Figure 2. For clarity, the measurement part is not shown. The model showed an adequate fit of the data and yielded a chi-square value of 714.76 with 259 degrees of freedom, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04, AGFI = 0.92, χ² /df = 2.76.

Figure 2.

Trimmed model on sexualizing media use for examining links among variables of interest. Note: Values reflect standardized coefficients and all paths are significant at p < .01. For clarity, error terms and observed variables are not shown.

Model comparison tests showed that different types of media content are differently related to internalization and self-objectification. More specifically, results showed that the unconstrained, hypothesized model, had a more acceptable fit than the model constraining relationships of media consumption with the internalization of appearance ideals, χ²(262) = 724.09, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04, AGFI = 0.92, χ²/df = 2.76, to be equal across media contents, p < .05. In addition, the unconstrained, hypothesized model had a more acceptable fit than the model constraining relationships of media consumption with self-objectification, χ²(262) = 728.87, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, AGFI = 0.92, χ² /df = 2.78, to be equal across media contents, p < .05.

Next, the unconstrained, hypothesized model was analyzed. Following Aish and Jöreskog (1990), insignificant arrows were removed from the unconstrained model, χ²(264) = 717.37, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04, AGFI = 0.92, χ²/df = 2.71. The final model provided a reasonable fit, but it did not fit significantly better than the original model (p > .05). Moreover, a first remarkable finding of the model was that viewing sexualizing music television and reading sexualizing magazines were not related to internalization or to self-objectification. However, watching television and visiting pornographic websites were directly and indirectly associated with the multidimensional process of self-objectification. More specifically, in accordance with the hypothesized relationships, the model showed that consuming sexualizing television, β = .16, B = 0.48, standard error (SE) = 0.14, p < .001, and pornographic websites, β = .18, B = 0.15, SE = 0.03, p < .001, were significantly related to the internalization of appearance ideals. The hypothesized relationships of self-objectification with consuming pornographic websites, β = .15, B = 0.23, SE = 0.05, p < .001, were also significant.

Furthermore, mediation tests examining possible indirect mechanisms revealed that when boys consumed sexualizing television or pornographic sites more often, their internalization of appearance ideals increased, which was, in turn, related to higher levels of self-objectification (television 0.02 = 0.16 × 0.15, z = 2.66, p < .005, pornographic sites 0.03 = 0.18 × 0.15, z = 3.21, p < .005) and body surveillance (television 0.08 = 0.16 × 0.49, z = 3.29, p < .001, pornographic sites 0.09 = 0.18 × 0.49, z = 4.53, p < .001). An indirect relationship with body surveillance was further found when examining self-objectification as a mediator: Higher consumption of pornographic sites was related to an increase in self-objectification, and this increase was associated with higher levels of body surveillance (0.03 = 0.15 × 0.20, z = 3.43, p < .001).

Discussion

Researchers have recently requested to examine self-objectification among male media users (Choma et al. 2010; Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008; Moradi 2010), to increase scholarly knowledge about adolescent boys’ body image (Markey 2010), and to be sensitive to differences in sexualization across media contents (e.g., Aubrey and Frisby 2011). In an attempt to address these requests, the proposed pathways between exposure to sexualizing media, the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance were examined in a large sample of adolescent boys. In general, this study not only provided the first empirical evidence that the objectification model recently proposed by Moradi and Huang (2008) in relation to sexualizing media exposure may explain sexualization experiences among boys (Moradi and Huang 2008) but also extended how different media-induced sexualization experiences work among boys.

The Multifaceted Process of Self-Objectification

The findings of the present study suggest that the multidimensional model of self-objectification (Moradi 2010) is an empirically valuable explanatory model for boys’ body image. Among a representative sample of adolescent boys, the cognitive processes of the internalization of appearance ideals and self-objectification were found to be closely related to each other and both triggered the behavioral tendency to monitor one’s own appearance. Thus, in contrast to prior research conceptualizing boys’ self-objectification as a singular process, that is, body surveillance (Aubrey 2006), our study suggests that self-objectification encompasses not only body surveillance but also the internalization of appearance ideals and the adoption of an observer’s perspective toward one’s own body.

Moreover, the present study showed that boys’ exposure to sexualizing prime-time television and pornographic websites enhanced the direct and indirect relationships between the internalization of appearance ideals, self-objectification, and body surveillance. Within the multifaceted process of self-objectification triggered by exposure to these media contents, we notice, first, that the internalization of appearance ideals is an important explanatory mechanism. In accordance with Hypothesis 1, consumption of sexualizing television shows and pornographic websites was directly related to the internalization of appearance ideals. The internalization of appearance ideals increased, in turn, body surveillance and self-objectification. The findings thus indicated that the internalization of appearance ideals is an important concept for explaining how adolescent boys perceive themselves and monitor their appearances and strongly relate to Moradi’s (2010, 143) suggestion that the role of the internalization of appearance ideals needs to be reemphasized in objectification literature. Moreover, the crucial role of the internalization of appearance ideals in the multifaceted process of self-objectification is in line with the reported prevalence of sexualizing appearance ideals in media content (e.g., Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007; Vandenbosch, Vervloessem, and Eggermont 2013). Our findings underscore that if the current prevalence of sexualizing male bodies in both traditional and new media persists (Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000; Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007), male media users may become equally at risk for sexualization as female media users.

Furthermore, our study was the first study to examine self-objectification among adolescent boys. The findings showed that self-objectification was only increased directly by exposure to sexualizing websites, suggesting that sexually explicit media content is the only media content directly triggering an observer’s perspective toward one’s own body. This finding is in contrast with objectification theory’s expectation that exposure to messages promoting appearance as the main criterion to evaluate a person increases the tendency to evaluate one’s own body with an observers’ perspective (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). Apparently, dialogues discussing boys’ appearance, music videos showing good-looking boys in sexual contexts, and articles giving advice on how to improve one’s appearance to gain social status do not directly trigger self-objectification (Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2007; Vandenbosch, Vervloessem, and Eggermont 2013). A direct effect did emerge, however, for online pornography. Pornographic media content is the only media content that (almost) continuously explicitly shows sexualized body parts, such as a (muscular) chest and genitals (Stulhofer, Busko, and Landripet 2010). These body parts have traditionally been perceived as an important aspect of male pride. For instance, male stereotypes ascribe more sexual pleasure and a higher status to (muscular) men with a large penis size (McKee 2004; Stulhofer, Busko, and Landripet 2010). Possibly, the pervasive focus on sexualized body parts may make young developing boys more conscious about the sexual attractiveness/unattractiveness of their own body, implying an increased tendency to evaluate their body through the eyes of an observer.

Furthermore, both music videos and men’s magazines did not significantly relate to the multidimensional process of self-objectification. These findings stand in contrast to the results of content analyses and underscore the importance of examining media contents separately. A tentative explanation for these insignificant relationships may be that the variance in the self-objectification components explained by music television and men’s magazines has already been captured by the other media variables. Body ideals are also extensively promoted in the more sexually explicit pornographic websites. Additionally due to the popularity of prime-time television (Schooler et al. 2009), this factor may overrule the impact of less frequently used media, such as men’s magazines.

Regardless of the suggested explanations on the reported media relations, our findings in sum suggest that boys who are in the middle of or just finished transitioning to an adult male body learn to value a muscular, suntanned, spotless, and ultimately handsome appearance as an important, if not ultimate, goal through watching their favorite prime-time television shows and visiting highly sexually arousing websites. The latter media content also directly supports boys to view their body as a sexually objectified instrument. Indirectly, through the internalization mechanism, prime-time television will have a similar impact on them and increase their levels of self-objectification. Together, the learning of appearance ideals and self-objectification will support behavioral actions among boys that imply a regular “checking” of themselves to ensure that their objectified body still complies with the internalized appearance ideals.

Sexualization From a Male Gender Perspective

The reported relation between the multifaceted process of self-objectification and exposure to sexualizing prime-time television and pornographic websites may have some important implications for boys’ psychological well-being because the self-objectification process has been linked with several mental health risks, such as body dissatisfaction (Knauss, Paxton, and Alasker 2008) and drive for muscularity (Daniel and Bridges 2010), and with appearance modification behaviors, such as disordered eating (Strelan and Hargreaves 2005) and consuming commercial commodities promising increased attractiveness (Olivardia et al. 2004).

Just as the sexualization of girls is perceived as a risky cultural practice (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007), the current study together with a rising body of research suggests the sexualization of boys may also be an increasing, potentially harmful problem (e.g., Olivardia et al. 2004). During adolescence, secondary sex characteristics emerge together with romantic feelings, making adolescents for the first time conscious about their appearance and their sexual attractiveness (Lindberg, Grabe, and Hyde 2007). Our study indicates that boys may evaluate their own appearance based on appearance ideals promoted in popular media contents. Moreover, the findings from this study also relate to the notion of hegemonic masculinity, denoting that boys are expected to be not only physically attractive but also self-assured, rational, and mentally strong (Connell 1987; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Donaldson 1993; Rohlinger 2002), thus perhaps exacerbating the consequences of appearance pressure. More specifically, traditional gender socialization agents, such as media, highlight the importance of appearance for men (Ricciardelli, Clow, and White 2010), while at the same time also expecting men to look beautiful without “trying,” as they have “more important” things to do (Donaldson 1993). This is especially true for a broad range of appearance-modification behaviors, such as shopping, going to the hairdresser or shaving body parts, which are typically framed as girl activities (Donaldson 1993; APA 2010). The pressure is there, but yield to the pressure is not accepted, which makes the situation particularly challenging. This relates to Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005, 851) call for “a more sophisticated treatment of embodiment in hegemonic masculinity.” The notion of hegemonic masculinity further implies that men can show emotional concerns when it relates to achievement, but not to personal situations, such as dissatisfaction about one’s appearance (Kelly and Hutson-Comeaux 1999).

It is in this specific gender-stereotyped context that the multifaceted process of self-objectification (triggered by sexually objectifying media) occurs. Our study showed that exposure to sexualizing media may increase self-objectification and body surveillance among boys. The increase in self-objectification and body surveillance is likely to be triggered by the same media that do not promote or accept boys talking about feelings, as this can be seen as “mental weakness” (Donaldson 1993). Thus, as a result of media-induced appearance pressures, a boy may increasingly monitor his own body and become dissatisfied with his appearance, without having the opportunity to share these feelings with his parents or friends, because the same media have taught him that talking about emotions is “taboo” (Donaldson 1993; Kelly and Hutson-Comeaux 1999). This seems to be different for girls. Being concerned about one’s body is promoted by media for girls, thus reducing the barrier to talk about their body worries (American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007). Therefore, research on the sexualization of boys faces other (and perhaps even additional) challenges. It may not only be socially undesirable for boys to admit body dissatisfaction in questionnaires, they may also experience difficulties in expressing themselves about their feelings on appearance or in admitting how important appearance may be in their personal life. Possibly, this may even be a partial explanation for the increased level of body dissatisfaction that is reported among girls as compared to boys (e.g., Cusumano and Thompson 2001) and imply that the current study underestimates the influence of sexualizing media exposure. Future research is therefore advised to take into account the “macho” culture in which the sexualization of boys occurs and may consider using a qualitative approach as the interviewer can especially try to create an open stimulating context for examining how sexualization is perceived by boys (e.g., Brennan et al. 2012). Moreover, new issues may emerge by applying a qualitative approach as research on sexualization among boys has predominantly been quantitative and this limits our current research knowledge (Moradi and Huang 2008).

Finally, our findings may be especially relevant for adolescent boys who identify themselves as gay. Media targeted at the homosexual community have been suggested to have even more pronounced forms of sexualization, implying that the multifaceted process of self-objectification may be triggered even more intensely among this particular group of media users (Duggan and Mccreary 2004). Moreover, these relationships may be intensified by prior negative experiences, with their sexual orientation stimulating the perception that they need to “prove” their masculinity, possibly by showing their “male” body (Duggan and Mccreary 2004; Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000). Additionally, the race of gay men may also intensify the relationships between using sexualized media and self-objectification, as especially gay men of non-Caucasian origins have been shown to struggle with the predominant white male appearance ideal (Brennan et al. 2012).

Limitations

The findings of this study are limited in some respects. On the whole, this study was restricted by its cross-sectional design. Future experiments or longitudinal studies should explore the temporal or causal order of the proposed relationships. In addition, more research is needed to explore the external validity of self-objectification and the internalization of appearance ideals and how their operationalization can be improved. A first attempt to adapt the measure of self-objectification was undertaken in the present study, showing, first, that muscular strength is considered as an appearance-based attribute by boys, and second, that physical coordination is considered as neither an appearance-based attribute nor a competence-based attribute by boys. Future research may explore whether other important characteristics of men’s appearance need to be included in this measure. Similarly, future research can test how the internalization subscale could be extended or modified to increase its external validity among (male) adolescents. Future studies are also necessary to test whether the proposed relationships hold when controlling for other relevant variables, such as body mass index (Moradi and Huang 2008), or are moderated by developmental factors, such as pubertal timing (Lindberg, Grabe, and Hyde 2007). Finally, this study was conducted in the context of a Western European country, Belgium. Although the results were consistent with American research (Moradi and Huang 2008), we cannot preclude this context from affecting our findings. However, the study’s findings may have considerable relevance for research conducted in other Western and Northern European countries and in the United States, especially because scholars have stressed similarities in exposure to media content (e.g., Vandenbosch, Vervloessem, and Eggermont 2013) and sexual objectification processes (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997) among Western (Caucasian) men.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a subsidy from the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO).

References

Aish

A. M.

Jöreskog

K. G.

. 1990. “A Panel Model for Political Efficacy and Responsiveness: An Application of LISREL 7 with Weighted Least Squares.” Quality and Quantity 24:405–26. doi:10.1007/BF00152013.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. 2007. “Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.”Accessed January 12, 2012. http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html.

Attwood

2005. “‘Tits and Ass and Porn and Fighting’: Male Heterosexuality in Magazines for Men.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 8:83–100. doi:10.1177/1367877905050165.

Aubrey

J. S.

2006. “Effects of Sexually Objectifying Media on Self-objectification and Body Surveillance in Undergraduates: Results of Two-year Panel Study.” Journal of Communication 56:1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00024.x.

Aubrey

J. S.

Frisby

C. M.

. 2011. “Sexual Objectification in Music Videos: A Content Analysis Comparing Gender and Genre.” Mass Communication and Society 14:475–501. doi:10.1080./15205436.2010.513468.

Brennan

D. J.

Asakura

Newman

P. A.

Ceranto

Clemon

Hart

T. A.

Persad

. 2012, January. “Racism, Homophobia & Body Image among Ethnoracialized Gay/Bisexual Men.” Sixteenth Annual Conference Research That Makes A Difference: Advancing Practice and Shaping Public Police, Washington, DC.

Byrne

B. M.

2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calogero

R. M.

2010. “Operationalizing Self-objectification: Assessment and Related Methodological Issues.” In Self-objectification in Women. Causes, Consequences and Counteractions, edited by Calogero

R. M.

Tantlfeff-Dunn

Thompson

J. K.

, 23–50. Wachington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Choma

B. L.

Visser

B. A.

Pozzebon

J. A.

Bogaert

A. F.

Busseri

M. A.

Sadava

S. W.

. 2010. “Self-objectification, Self-esteem, and Gender: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model.” Sex Roles 63:645–56. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9829-8.

10.

Connell

R. W.

1987. Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

11.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. R.

. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society 19:829–59. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

12.

Cusumano

D. L.

Thompson

J. K.

2001. “Media Influence and Body Image in 8-11-year-old Boys and Girls: A Preliminary Report on the Multidimensional Media Influence Scale.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 29:37–44. doi:10.1002/1098-108X(200101)29:1<37:: AID-EAT6>3.0.CO;2-G.

13.

Daniel

Bridges

S. K.

. 2010. “The Drive for Muscularity in Men: Media Influences and Objectification Theory.” Body Image 7:32–38. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.08.003.

14.

Donaldson

1993. “What is Hegemonic Masculinity.” Theory and Society 22:643–57. doi:10.1007/BF00993540.

15.

Duggan

S. J.

Mccreary

D. R.

. 2004. “Body Image, Eating Disorders, and the Drive for Muscularity in Gay and Heterosexual Men: The Influence of Media Images.” Journal of Homosexuality 47:45–58. doi:10.1300/J082v47n03_03.

16.

Edwards

1997. Men in the Mirror: Men’s Fashion, Masculinity and Consumer Society. London, UK: Cassell.

17.

Fouts

Vaughan

. 2000. “Television Situation Comedies: Male Weight, Negative References, and Audience Reactions.” Sex Roles 46:439–42. doi:10.1023/A:1020469715532.

18.

Frederick

D. A.

Buchanan

G. M.

Sadeghi-Azar

Peplau

L. A.

Haselton

M. G.

Berezovskaya

Lipinski

R. E.

2007. “Desiring the Muscular Ideal: Men’s Body Satisfaction in the United States, Ukraine, and Ghana.” Psychology of Men and Masculinity 8:103–17. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.2.103.

19.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

T. A.

. 1997. “Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21:173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

20.

Gill

2009. “Beyond the Sexualization of Culture Thesis: An Intersectional Analysis of Sixpacks, Midriffs, and Hot Lesbians in Advertising.” Sexualities 12:138–60. doi:10.1177/1363460708100916.

21.

Grabe, S., and J. S. Hyde. 2009. “Body objectification, MTV, and psychological outcomes among female adolescents.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39:2840-2858. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00552.x

22.

Kelly

J. R.

Hutson-Comeaux

S. L.

. 1999. “Gender-emotion Stereotypes are Context Specific.” Sex Roles 40:107–20. doi:v531-1999-040-01-000007.

23.

Kelly

2010. “Virginity Loss Narratives in “teen drama” Television Programs.” Journal of Sex Research 47:479–89. doi: 10.1080/00224490903132044.

24.

Kim

J. L.

Sorsoli

Colins

Zylbergols

B. A.

Schooler

Tolman

D. L.

. 2007. “From Sex to Sexuality: Exposing the Heterosexual Script on Primetime Network Television.” Journal of Sex Research 44:145–57. doi: 10.1080/00224490701263660.

25.

Knauss

Paxton

S. J.

Alasker

F. D.

. 2008. “Body Dissatisfaction in Adolescent Boys and Girls: Objectified Body Consciousness, Internalization of the Media Body Ideal and Perceived Pressure from Media.” Sex Roles 59:633–43. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9474-7.

26.

Lindberg

S. M.

Hyde

J. S.

McKinley

N. M.

. 2006. “A Measure of Objectified Body Consciousness for Pre-adolescent and Adolescent Youth.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30:65–76. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00263.x.

27.

Lindberg

S. M.

Grabe

Hyde

J. S.

. 2007. “Gender, Pubertal Development, and Peer Sexual Harassment Predict Objectified Body Consciousness in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 17:723–42. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00544.x.

28.

Markey

2010. “Invited Commentary: Why Body Image is Important to Adolescent Development.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39:1387–91. doi 10.1007/s10964-010-9510-0.

29.

McKee

2004. “Does Size Matter? Dominant Discourses about Penises in Western Culture.” Cultural Studies Review 10:168–82.

30.

McKee

2005. “The Objectification of Women in Mainstream Pornographic Videos in Australia.” Journal of Sex Research 42:277–90. doi:10.1080/00224490509552283.

31.

McKinley

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

1996. “The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale: Development and Validation.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 20:181–215. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x.

32.

Moradi

2010. “Addressing Gender and Cultural Diversity in Body Image: Objectification Theory as a Framework for Integrating Theories and Grounding Research.” Sex Roles 63:138–48. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9824-0.

33.

Moradi

Huang

. 2008. “Objectification Theory and Psychology of Women: A Decade of Advances and Future Directions.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 32:377–98. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.

34.

Morry

M. M.

Statska

S. L.

. 2001. “Magazine Exposure: Internalization, Self–objectification, Eating Attitudes, and Body Satisfaction in Male and Female University Students.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 33:269–79. doi:10.1037/h0087148.

35.

Noll

S. M.

Fredrickson

B. L.

. 1998. “A Mediational Model Linking Self-objectification, Body Shame, and Disordered Eating.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 22:623–36. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x.

36.

Olivardia

Pope

H. G.

Jr Borowiecki

J. J.

Cohane

G. H.

. 2004. “Biceps and Body Image: The Relationship between Muscularity and Self-esteem, Depression, and Eating Disorder Symptoms.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity 5:112–20. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.112.

37.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

. 2008. “Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material, Sexual Uncertainty, and Attitudes Toward Uncommitted Sexual Exploration: Is There a Link? Communication Research 35:579–601. doi:10.1177/0093650208321754.

38.

Pope

Phillips

Olivardia

. 2000. The Adonis Complex: How to Identify, Treat and Prevent Body Obsession in Men and Boys. New York: Simon and Schuster.

39.

Ricciardelli

Clow

K. A.

White

. 2010. “Investigating Hegemonic Masculinity: Portrayals of Masculinity in Men’s Lifestyle Magazines.” Sex Roles 63:64–78. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9764-8.

40.

Rohlinger

D. A.

2002. “Eroticizing Men: Cultural Influences of Advertising and Male Objectification.” Sex Roles 46:61–74. doi:10.1023/A:1016575909173.

41.

Schooler

Sorsoli

C. L.

Kim

J. L.

Tolman

D. L.

2009. “Beyond Exposure: A Person-oriented Approach to Adolescent Media Diets.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 19:484–508. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00604.x.

42.

Sharp

2010. Kim can Have Bieber. Jaden’s Mine!”: More Sexualization of Boys. New York: W. W. Norton. Accessed March 18, 2012. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/07/15/kim-can-have-bieber-jadens-mine-more-sexualization-of-boys/.

43.

Slater

Tiggemann

. 2010. “Body Image and Disordered Eating in Adolescent Girls and Boys: A Test of Objectification Theory.” Sex Roles 63:42–49. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9794-2.

44.

Strelan

Hargreaves

. 2005. “Reasons for Exercise and Body Esteem: Men’s Responses to Self-objectification.” Sex Roles 53:495–503. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7137-5.

45.

Stulhofer

Busko

Landripet

. 2010. “Pornography, Sexual Socialization, and Satisfaction among Men.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 39:168–78. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9387-0.

46.

Thompson

J. K.

Stice

. 2001. “Thin-ideal Internalization: Mounting Evidence for a New Risk Factor for Body Image Disturbance and Eating Pathology.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 10:181–83. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00144.

47.

Thompson

J. K.

Van den Berg

Roehrig

Guarda

A. S.

Heinberg

. 2003. “The Sociocultural Attitudes towards Appearance Scale-3: Development and Validation.” The International Journal of Eating Disorders 35:293–304. doi:10.1002/eat.10257

48.

Vandenbosch

Eggermont

. 2012. “Understanding Sexual Objectification: A Comprehensive Approach toward Media Exposure and Girl’s Internalization of Beauty Ideals, Self-objectification and Body Surveillance.” Journal of Communication 62:869–87. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01667.x.

49.

Vandenbosch

Vervloessem

Eggermont

. 2013. “I Might get your Heart Racing in My Skin-Tight Jeans: Sexualization on Music Entertainment Television.” Communication Studies 64:1–17. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2012.755640

50.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Ramsey

L. R.

Jaworski

B. K.

. 2011. “Self- and Partner-objectification in Romantic Relationships: Associations with Media Consumption and Relationship Satisfaction.” Sex Roles 64:449–62. doi:10.1007/S11199-011-9933-4.