User:Charismatic88/sandbox

Sculpture by Degas

Edgar Degas created that sculpture to the right. It is made of bronze and cloth. This is my favorite sculpture; I've seen three different versions in three different states.

I like to read. One of my favorite books is Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. I also love to cook a lot, specifically desserts of any kind. Recently, The Great British Baking Show has been making me want to bake.

Articles I'm thinking about working on:

• Eating disorder
• Gender identity
• Sexual objectification
• Rape culture

Topic Statement:

A study by the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry suggests that women's exporsure to images of the ideal body type cause them to feel angrier and more depressed.

Gender Identity edit:

Research suggests that the same hormones that promote differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the norm of the actual sex, and in a person acting and looking like the opposite sex.

Change term "actual sex" to "sex assigned at birth". Change "the opposite sex" to "their preferred sex"

Research suggests that the same hormones that promote differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in a person acting and looking like their preferred gender.

Talk Section: Hi! Under the section 'Biological causes of transgender and transsexuality, I edited the last sentence. Originally, it said "...do not match up with the norm of the actual sex, and in a person acting and looking like the opposite sex." I changed it to "...do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in a person acting and looking like their preferred gender" to better clarify what the hormones effect biologically and how that shows in a persons gender expression. Charismatic88 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Objectification edit (Objectification Theory):

Edit 1:

"The objectification theory states that, through sexual objectification, females are conditioned to internalize other's views of their bodies as the primary view of themselves. In this way, women and girls can begin to view their bodies as objects separate from themselves. American professors Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts suggest that some consequences of this objectification could include: shame, anxiety, limited peak motivational state, and lack of awareness of internal bodily states. They also suggest that, as a result of the formerly mentioned consequences, objectification could negatively influence women's mental health and sexual satisifaction. " Added to sexual objectfication article

In talk page:

Hi! I added a small section at the beginning of the subsection on objectification theory. This section seemed to be lacking a clear definition of the theory and its consequences, and I thought the section would be better clarified if this was stated first. I'm a student editor, so I'm still new to this process. If anyone has anything to add or anything that needs to be changed about my addition, the advice would be greatly appreciated. Charismatic88 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit 2:

In talk page:

"Hi! On this page, I would like to edit the section on objectification theory and self-objectification for clarity and to expand the overview of information given. Right now, it’s repetitive and hard for readers to understand; I believe an edit would better further reader’s understanding. Because there needs to be an understanding about self-objectification before one can fully understand objectification theory, I would like to integrate the self-objectification sub-heading into the objectification theory heading. I’ll then define them both, explain how they interact, explain the suggested consequences of objectification, and give a brief overview of how mental health could be influenced by this. Lastly, since the content of Frederickson and Roberts article is about 20 years old, I would like to give some updates and discoveries from a more recent article by Moradi and Huang. The citations I plan to use will be on my user page. The structure in this section is also lacking, and I was wondering if anyone had ideas about how to improve upon that. This is my plan right now, but I would really appreciate any suggestions or insight. Charismatic88 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary Citations:

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification Theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206. Retrieved September 26, 2017.

Calogero, R. M., & Pina, A. (2011). Body Guilt: Preliminary Evidence for a Further Subjective Experience of Self-Objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 428-440. doi:10.1177/0361684311408564

Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification Theory and Psychology of Women: A Decade of Advances and Future Directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377-398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x

Contribution:

Objectification theory is a framework for understanding the experiences of women in cultures that sexual objectify them, proposed by Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts in 1997. Within this framework, Fredrickson and Roberts draw conclusions about women’s experiences. This theory states that, because of sexual objectification, women learn to internalize an outsider’s view of their bodies as the primary view of themselves. Women, they explain, begin to view their bodies as objects separate from their person. This internalization has been termed self-objectification. This theory doesn’t seek to prove the existence of sexual objectification; the theory assumes its existence in culture. This self-objectification then, according to objectification theory, leads to increased habitual body monitoring. With this framework in mind, Fredrickson and Roberts suggest explanations for consequences they believe are the result of sexual objectification. The consequences suggested are: increased feelings of shame, increased feelings of anxiety, decreased peak motivational state, and decreased awareness of internal bodily states. 

Shame, or body shame, is the result of judging oneself against an internalized set of beauty ideals and deciding that one doesn’t measure up. (link to wiki shame) Fredrickson and Roberts suggest that society sends signals to women about the way they should look and about the value their appearance gives them, and that these signals in combination with habitual body monitoring causes body shame. According to this article, body shame is significant because it is continual and feels like a personal failure.

Anxiety is an impending sense of danger or failure. (link to wiki anxiety) Within objectification theory, it is proposed that women’s anxiety comes from two sources: appearance and safety. Concerning appearance, women who habitually monitor their bodies experience anxiety because they are unsure of when or how their appearance will be judged by others. In terms of safety, it’s proposed that women pay close attention to their safety and take steps to protect themselves because most women have or will experience some form of sexual victimization.

Peak motivational state is a mental state of extreme focus on a mentally or physically challenging task that brings a sense of happiness and satisfaction to individuals. Frederickson and Roberts suggest that women experience less of this euphoric state. They explain that this deficiency could be caused interventions rooted sexual objectification. To reach peak motivational state, one must be completely focused on their task. According to this article, when people bring attention to women’s body or when women experience self-consciousness, it disrupts their focus and prevents them from reaching peak motivational state.  

Awareness of internal bodily states can be described as the ability to detect internal functions and sensations, including hunger, heartbeat, and sexual arousal. Objectification theory states that women lack this ability in comparison to men. The first possible explanation Fredrickson and Roberts propose is that women practice suppressing hunger in adolescence, which makes it more difficult to tune into internal bodily cues later in life. The other possibility suggested is women’s self-conscious body monitoring; this focus could make it harder to feel and recognize other bodily cues. This suggestion has been opposed in a study by Tylka and Hill, which found that body monitoring did not predict variance in awareness of internal bodily states that deal with hunger, satiety, and emotions, although the two are correlated. They instead suggest that body monitoring affects awareness of internal bodily states only as far as women are ashamed of their bodies.

In 2011, Racheal Calogero and Afroditi Pina published an article in which they argued that body guilt is also a key component of women’s experiences with sexual objectification. They supported this claim with data that showed a positive correlation between body guilt and other components of objectification theory. According to Calogero and Pina, body guilt comes from women feeling as though they’re body should look a different way and that they should be taking steps to change their bodies. 

Annotated Bibliography:

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification Theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206. Retrieved September 26, 2017.

In this article, the authors suggest objectification theory to explain the consequences of sexual objectification for women in society. Their theory states that, because of this objectification, women internalize a 3^rd party viewpoint of their bodies, which leads to habitual body monitoring. This then causes increased shame and anxiety and decreased opportunity for peak motivational states and awareness of internal bodily states. Fredrickson and Roberts then evaluate women’s mental health risks through the lens of objectification theory and these consequences, focusing on unipolar depression, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders. Though specific correlated studies would improve credibility, this source uses sufficient, strong evidence to support its claims to make it credible. This is useful in my research because it gives a broad definition and explanation of objectification theory and possible consequences.

Tylka, T. L., & Hill, M. S. (2004). Objectification Theory as It Relates to Disordered Eating Among College Women. Sex Roles, 51(11-12), 719-730. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-0721-2

This article evaluates how a comprehensive model of the constructs in objectification theory (specifically pressure to be thin, body surveillance, body shame, and poor interoceptive awareness) predict disordered eating. Tylka and Hill test four propositions: (1) pressure to be thin predicts body surveillance, (2) body surveillance and pressure to be thin predict body shame, (3) body surveillance predicts body shame and variance in poor interoceptive awareness, and (4) body shame and poor interoceptive awareness specific to eating and affect predict disordered eating. To do this, the authors surveyed 460 women from the ages of 17 to 55 using five separate measurements, like Eating Attitudes Test-26 and the Body Shame subscale, and latent variable SEM was then used to analyze the data collected. Proposition one, two, and four proved to be correct; however, proposition three unexpectedly was not. While body surveillance predicted body shame, body surveillance didn’t predict poor interoceptive awareness. This discovery showed a contrast to Frederickson and Roberts’s theory. Objectification theory asserted that body surveillance occupies women’s mind and leaves little space for internal bodily cues, but Tylka and Hill’s research shows that this isn’t necessarily the case. Tylka and Hill also proposed that pressure to be thin can cause women to feel body shame without first experiencing body surveillance. I found this study to be credible because it recognizes its limitations and provides strong, clear empirical evidence to support the claims it makes. This is useful in my research because it provides strong, empirical evidence for a part of objectification theory and provides more current research that is essential in this field of study. 

Szymanski, D. M., & Henning, S. L. (2007). The Role of Self-Objectification in Women's Depression: A Test of Objectification Theory. Sex Roles, 56(1-2), 45-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9147-3

The purpose of this study is test the objectification theory model as it applies to depression because limited previous research existed to support the assertion that objectification increases women’s likelihood of having depression. In order to test this, Szymanski and Henning surveyed 217 women from the ages of 18 to 63 years old. A multitude of measurements were used, including the Self-Objectification Questionnaire, Self-rating Depression Scale, Body Shame subscale, and four others. After analysis, these measurements found that self-objectification decreases with age and leads to body monitoring, or body surveillance.  This in turn leads to reduced flow, or peak motivational state, increased body shame, and increased apperance anxiety. Together, the consequences of self-objectification and body monitoring lead to depression. In consistency with objectification theory, this study gives empirical evidence as support for the claim that mental health is negatively affected by sexual objectification. However, this study also found that there is no significant relationship between self-objectification and internal awareness of bodily states or between depression and internal awareness, which is supported in Fredrickson and Roberts’s theory published in 1997. Some limitations apply to this study, like lack of diversity in participates and unclear causal relationships between factors. Despite this, I believe this is a credible source because it utilizes reliable measurements and procedures. This is beneficial to my research because it digs deeper into claims made by Frederickson and Roberts in 1997 and provides more current research along the same thread as the original theory proposed. 

Mercurio, A., & Landry, L. (2008). Self-objectification and Well-being: The Impact of Self-objectification on Women's Overall Sense of Self-worth and Life Satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58(7-8), 458-466. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9357-3

This article seeks to examine the relationship between self-objectification, body shame, and well-being among women, which previously had been explored very little. Well-being is described as “optimal psychological functioning and experience”, and this study uses self-esteem and life satisfaction as indicators of well-being. To examine this relationship, 227 women from the ages of 18- 31 years old completed online surveys that utilize a multitude of reliable measurements, like Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Through this study, it was found that self-objectification is positively related to body shame, body shame if negatively related to self-esteem, and self-esteem and life satisfaction are positively related. The suggested sequence of these variables is self-objectification affects body shame, which affects self-esteem, which then affects life satisfaction. This study also observed mediation of the relationship between these factors. Mercurio and Landry found that body shame mediates the relationship between self-objectification and self-esteem. This study possesses some common limitations, like lack of diversity in those surveyed and correlation without evidence for causation; however, I still believe this a credible source because of the method of survey and analysis. This article will be beneficial to my research because it expands the framework of objectification theory to look at its impact on the general well-being of women, which formerly had little research. 

Heath, B., Kannis-Dymand, L., Lovell, G. P., & Tod, D. A. (2016). The Relationship Between Objectification Theory and Muscle Dysmorphia Characteristics in Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(3), 297-308. doi:10.1037/men0000022

This article takes a more inclusive look at objectification theory. It tests to see if a revised objectification theory would represent processes associated with male muscle dysmorphia in the same way it represents women’s struggles with apperance. In this revised model, the authors change body shame to muscular dissatisfaction. 257 men completed online questionnaires containing a variety of measurements, such as the Muscle Appearance Satisfaction subscale and the Internalization subscale. Three discoveries were made from this that support the utility of objectification theory in understanding the emergence of muscle dysmorphia characteristics. First, through self-objectification, internalization of the mesomorphic ideal mediated body surveillance. Second, muscular dissatisfaction also mediated body surveillance with characteristics of muscle dysmorphia. Lastly, internalization of the mesomorphic ideal and muscle dysmorphia characteristics are mediated by muscular dissatisfaction. One significant limitation in this study is the reliability of the measurements used because of the limited research into muscle dysmorphia; however, I believe this is a reliable source because of the careful surveying and analysis. This is beneficial to my research because it provides a more diverse look at the scope and applicability of the objectification theory. 

Monteath, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). The Influence of Societal Factors on Female Body Image. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 708-727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595493

This article seeks to explore the effect of society and other individual factors, like field dependence, locus of focus, and self-esteem, on women’s perceptual and attitudinal body image. To do this, 101 female college students are asked to evaluate their body size and society’s body ideal, in addition to their desired body size, using a video camera apparatus. Several other scales are used to assess the women’s perceptual and attitudinal body image in relation to society ideals and stated factors. The results of this study show that women on average underestimate their total body size and desire to be thinner than they are. It also found that deviation from body ideals and self-esteem were important indicators of body satisfaction. I found this article to be credible and unbiased; it is based on solid research and acknowledges possible limitations in its research. This source is useful to my research because it shows how societal body ideals affect women’s satisfaction with their own bodies.

Stormer, S. M., & Thompson, K. J. (1996). Explanations of body image disturbances: A test of maturational status, negative verbal commentary, social comparison, and sociocultural hypotheses. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19(2), 193-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199603)19:2%3C193::AID-EAT10%3E3.0.CO;2-W

In this article, the authors seek to measure the extent to which maturational status, negative verbal commentary, behavioral social comparison, and awareness or internalization of sociocultural pressures leads to body image disturbances. To determine this, 162 female college students completed multiple measurements and predictors to determine each factors contribution or lack of contribution. This revealed that social comparison and internalization of sociocultural pressures are strong predictors of body dissatisfaction. Negative verbal commentary played some role and maturational status showed no significant role. Stormer and Thompson recognize how these determinations could prove to be correlation instead of causation, but their method and support for claims lead this to be a credible source. This is significant to my research because it reinforces the role of society in body dissatisfaction and coincides with objectification theory. 

Calogero, R. M., & Pina, A. (2011). Body Guilt: Preliminary Evidence for a Further Subjective Experience of Self-Objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 428-440. doi:10.1177/0361684311408564

In this article, the authors seek to study body guilt within the framework of objectification theory. They propose the idea that body guilt, like body shame, is a key part of women’s subjective experience. To test this, two studies are completed, both using multiple self-report measures answered by of college age women. Together, these studies showed that body guilt is related to objectification theory and is distinct from body shame. It is also suggested that body guilt, unlike body shame, could be a powerful motivator to women to “correct” their bodies. This article is especially thorough in addressing any possible concerns and in careful designing studies to be accurate of the actual populations, which is why I find it a credible source. This is beneficial to my research because it furthers my knowledge of objectification theory and developments since it was proposed in 1997.