Journal of Counseling Psychology

Manuscript version of

Development and Validation of the Sexual Self-Objectification Scale

Michelle Haikalis, Anna E. Jaffe, Natalie Koziol, Sarah J. Gervais, David DiLillo

Funded by:
• National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

© 2025, American Psychological Association. This manuscript is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission.
The final version of record is available via its DOI: [Link]

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Running head: SELF-SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION SCALE

Development and Validation of the Sexual Self-Objectification Scale

Abstract

Self-objectification occurs when women view themselves from an outsider's perspective,

focusing on their appearance or reducing themselves to sexual objects. To examine internalized

objectification, specifically of a sexual nature, we developed and psychometrically evaluated a

measure, the Sexual Self-Objectification Scale. Initial validation occurred in Study 1, wherein

500 women who participated online via Amazon‘s Mechanical Turk were divided into two

samples to examine the theorized factor structure (Training Sample, n = 250) and obtain validity

evidence (Validation Sample, n = 250). In the Training Sample, item factor analysis supported a

17-item, two-factor measure, the first representing self-concept and presentation and the second

representing romantic/sexual partner-specific sexual self-objectification. In the Validation

Sample, analyses confirmed the scale structure and supported construct validity via expected

associations with related constructs (e.g., objectification, sexualization, sexism). Study 2

confirmed the scale structure with a sample of college women and evaluated test-retest reliability

(Confirmation Sample, n = 355). Findings suggest that the SSOS is a psychometrically sound

and distinct measure that can be used, among other things, to examine whether the tenets of

objectification theory hold for sexually focused self-objectification.

Keywords: objectification, sexualization, women, internalization, body surveillance

Public significance statement: This study introduces and validates the Sexual Self-Objectification

Scale (SSOS), focusing on how women may internalize others‘ sexualized views of them. This

work emphasizes the importance of understanding sexually focused self-objectification and its

impact on women's lives, thereby enhancing our ability to empirically evaluate objectification

theory and advance initiatives to promote equity and women's empowerment.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 1

Development and Validation of the Sexual Self-Objectification Scale

“„Sex object‟ was not an identity I chose for myself

as much as it was one pushed upon me from twelve years old on;

I admit my use of the term is more resignation than reclamation.”

Jessica Valenti, Sex Object

Jessica Valenti, a prominent feminist and writer, described being conditioned to view

herself as a ―sex object‖ in her 2016 bestseller of the same name. Researchers similarly find that

girls and women are often sexualized, valued solely for sexual appeal or behavior, equated with

physical attractiveness, and imposed upon with sexual objectification (Association, 2007; Lamb

& Koven, 2019). Sexual objectification is defined as a phenomenon in which ―sexual parts or

sexual functions are separated out from the rest of [a woman‘s] personality and reduced to the

status of mere instruments or else regarded as if they were capable of representing her‖ (Bartky,

1990; p. 20). Concomitant self-objectification is considered to be an internalization of this

perspective (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Examining sexual objectification and self-

objectification reveals a disconnect—sexual objectification has a sexual focus, while self-

objectification is theorized to focus broadly on appearance (Roberts et al., 2017). This focus on

appearance has shaped theory and empirical research and, while valuable, overlooks the specific

internalization of self as a sexual object.

The present work examines sexual self-objectification—an explicit heightened or

narrowed focus on one‘s sexual appearance, appeal, and functions. This augments existing

conceptualizations and measures of self-objectification (Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017;

McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) by targeting sexual aspects specifically.

There are two goals of the present work. First, we will define the construct of sexual self-
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 2

objectification within the broader context of objectification theory and distinguish it from similar

constructs. Second, to present the development and psychometric evaluation of the Sexual Self-

Objectification Scale (SSOS), a new self-report measure to assess this understudied construct.

Sexual self-objectification is rooted in feminist scholarship (Bartky, 1990) and

objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; for a review, see Ward et al., 2023). Sexual

objectification is a way of perceiving another that is manifested in a continuum of behaviors,

from subtle objectifying gazes to explicit acts like unwelcome touching or sexual violence

(Kozee et al., 2007). While men can be objectified, it is more pervasive among women

(Davidson et al., 2013; Kozee et al., 2007; Mehak et al., 2018; Seabrook et al., 2019).

Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) theorized that experiences of sexual objectification result in

mental health problems that disproportionately affect women. Repeated objectification and its

portrayal in media socialize women to internalize it, leading to self-objectification. This

internalization aligns with system justification theory (Jost, 2019), which posits that people are

motivated to justify the social order, even at personal cost. Therefore, self-objectification may

co-occur with beliefs that reinforce the gender status quo, such as downplaying gender

discrimination or asserting women‘s moral superiority over men (Calogero, 2013).

The well-documented impact of objectification experiences on self-objectification

(Kahalon et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2017) manifests in increased self-surveillance (McKinley &

Hyde, 1996), such as checking one‘s appearance in the mirror. Sexual objectification fosters

unattainable cultural ideals of feminine attractiveness (Harrison, 2003; Wiseman et al., 1992),

resulting in body shame and appearance anxiety (Calogero et al., 2011). These outcomes can

lead to mental health problems, including eating disorders, depression, sexual dysfunction, and

increased alcohol use (Baildon et al., 2021; Calogero et al., 2011; Moradi & Huang, 2008;
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 3

Tiggemann, 2011). The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007) emphasized the

cognitive and emotional consequences of early exposure to sexualization and objectification,

impacting mental and physical health. Our work also integrates self-dehumanization, as

discussed by Baldissarri et al. (2019). Self-objectified women may perceive themselves as

powerless and less than human, which can exacerbate feelings of body shame and reduce their

ability to make autonomous decisions (Yang et al., 2015). This negative cascade includes

increased acceptance of harassment and violence (Galdi & Guizzo, 2021). By situating our study

within this theoretical context, we aim to contribute to the growing body of research that

examines the nuanced ways in which sexual objectification affects women's mental health, a

critical concern within counseling psychology. This perspective is essential for clinicians who

aim to empower clients by addressing deep-seated issues related to sexism, self-worth, and

autonomy.

Sexual Self-Objectification

Given that a sexual focus is so central to sexual objectification (APA, 2007; Bartky,

1990), internalization would likely result not only in a heightened focus on general appearance

but also a heightened focus on one‘s sexual appearance, which we call ―sexual self-

objectification‖ (see Figure 1 for conceptual overlap between sexual self-objectification and

closely related constructs). Consistent with objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997;

Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017), we expect that repeated exposure to objectification of a sexual

nature may lead women to internalize observers‘ perspectives, treating their sexual appearance or

functions as representative of themselves, and overshadowing internal qualities, such as thoughts

or feelings. While self-objectification reflects an internalized view that ―my appearance defines

my worth,‖ sexual self-objectification reflects the notion that ―my sexiness or sexual functions
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 4

define my worth.‖ This self-perception manifests in behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, where

sexual appearance and functions are central. Women high in sexual self-objectification may be

particularly attuned to others‘ evaluations of them based on sexiness, more likely to value their

sexually relevant qualities as important, and more apt to showcase their sex appeal.

Despite the existence of sexual self-objectification as a theoretically distinct construct,

the lack of validated measures poses a challenge. Such a measure would help distinguish

between appearance-based and sexually-based self-objectification and assess respective relations

with predictors and outcomes per objectification theory. For example, a woman whose body fits

cultural ideals of thinness may experience less body shame following general self-objectification

and more body shame following sexual self-objectification if her same body deviates from

cultural ideals of sexiness. Individual characteristics or experiences may make some more

susceptible to self-objectification than sexual self-objectification, or vice versa. Those who have

experienced more interpersonal objectification of an explicitly sexual nature, such as unwanted

sexual advances, may be more likely to self-objectify in an explicitly sexual way. Further, a

heightened importance on one‘s sexiness or sexual functions, rather than appearance broadly,

may more strongly predict sexual outcomes, such as sexualized behaviors, dysfunction, or

assertiveness. If these notions are supported, sexual self-objectification may be a more precise

intervention target than general self-objectification to reduce risk for negative sex outcomes. To

examine these possibilities, however, a specific measure of sexual self-objectification is needed.

Sexual Self-Objectification in Romantic/Sexual Relationships

Sexual objectification is often examined broadly, as it occurs in media or interpersonal

relationships, including personal and professional. Unsolicited comments on physical appearance

are common manifestations of objectification, which also permeates sexual and romantic
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 5

relationships. Examining objectification within intimate relationships is crucial. Some research

has found a relationship between being objectified by a partner and self-objectification and body

shame (Pecini et al., 2022; Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018). Objectification in romantic relationships

relates to reduced relationship and sexual satisfaction (Ramsey et al., 2017; Sáez et al., 2019;

Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018; Zurbriggen et al., 2011). Objectification is also related to decreased

comfort in initiating and maintaining relationships via its impact on self-objectification,

appearance anxiety, and stress (Terán et al., 2021). Many skills that are needed to develop and

maintain healthy relationships—like sexual assertiveness, mutual consent, and balancing

needs—may be undermined by sexual objectification of self or a partner. Some research suggests

that a partner focusing on the body may only be harmful when non-physical qualities are also de-

emphasized (Meltzer & McNulty, 2014).

We propose that sexual self-objectification in the context of romantic and sexual

relationships will manifest in behaviors and attitudes emphasizing the utility of one‘s body or

sexual functions to a partner. Women who report greater objectification by partners also report

more sexual pressure and coercion (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2014) and less sexual satisfaction (Sáez et

al., 2019). Sexually coercive experiences reinforce objectifying messages. When internalized,

sexual self-objectification could lead to women viewing their utility as providing sexual pleasure

to partners, undervaluing their own sexual enjoyment. Though influenced by many factors, there

is a discrepancy between sexual behavior and enjoyment in heterosexual relationships that aligns

with sexual self-objectification; women are more likely to give and less likely to enjoy giving

oral sex than men (Wood et al., 2016). Sexual self-objectification in partner contexts may relate

more strongly to sexual outcomes, such as reduced assertiveness, satisfaction, and increased

dysfunction than general self-objectification.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 6

Existing Measures of Self-Objectification and Self-Sexualization

Existing measures of self-objectification focus on women valuing appearance over other

attributes (Calogero et al., 2011), but none capture sexual self-objectification adequately (see

Figure 1). The three main scales used to measure self-objectification are the Self-Objectification

Questionnaire (SOQ; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998), the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale

(OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996), and the Self-Objectification Beliefs and Behaviors Scale

(SOBBS; Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn, 2017). The SOQ asks participants to rank observable (e.g.,

measurements, sex appeal) and non-observable (e.g., health, strength) physical attributes‘ impact

on self-concept. Although the SOQ includes one ―sex appeal‖ item, the scoring collapses items

into broader physical attributes not specific to sexual self-objectification. The OBCS body

surveillance subscale assesses chronic body monitoring (Tiggemann & Slater, 2001) but does not

address sexual aspects. Zurbriggen et al. (2011) modified the OBCS to assess how individuals

objectify their romantic partners via monitoring and evaluating a partner‘s body and appearance.

Items were revised to refer to 'my partner' or 'my partner‘s body.‘ However, the OBCS and the

SOQ both lack items that specifically address the unique elements of self-objectification that

may occur in the context of intimate relationships. Finally, the SOBBS (Lindner & Tantleff-

Dunn, 2017) consists of two parts: the internalization of observers‘ perspectives on the body and

a reduced self-focus, such that the body is seen as representative of the whole person. However,

the SOBBS includes only one item that focuses on sexual appeal. Existing self-objectification

measures have served an essential role in testing and advancing objectification theory, and a

focus on the sexual component of self-objectification is also warranted to examine objectification

theory‘s tenets further and develop targeted interventions.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 7

Sexual objectification is a form of sexualization (APA, 2007; see also Figure 1). When a

sexually objectifying lens is directed toward the self, women may self-sexualize, seeing and

treating themselves as objects. Existing self-sexualization measures (Nowatzki & Morry, 2009;

Smolak et al., 2014) only assess behaviors but not self-perceptions. To illustrate, the Self-

Sexualization Behavior Questionnaire for Women (SSBQ-W; Smolak et al., 2014) assesses how

often women engage in behaviors (e.g., style hair; wear tight clothes) to look sexy, and the

Sexualizing Behavior Scale (SSB; Nowatzki & Morry, 2009) measures how likely women are to

engage in self-sexualizing behaviors (e.g., wet t-shirt contest) and their acceptance of such

behaviors. Seeing the self as a sexual object likely leads to more sexualizing behavior, which, in

turn, exacerbates this view (e.g., Van Oosten et al., 2018). Yet, without measures of sexual self-

objectification, this cannot be tested. Understanding the connections between self-objectification

and self-sexualizing behaviors requires valid measures of sexual self-objectification.

Enjoyment of sexualization captures positive evaluations of being sexualized by others

(Liss et al., 2011). While related, it is distinct from sexual self-objectification, which is a

perspective of self without an evaluative component. For example, two women who equally

enjoy sexualization may differ in how central their sexual attractiveness or utility to others is to

their self-concept. In sum, existing measures of self-sexualization assess behavioral and affective

components but not self-perceptions. Given these connections, sexual self-objectification is

expected to be distinct from but strongly related to self-sexualizing behaviors and enjoyment of

sexualization, possibly even more so than to broadly appearance-focused self-objectification.

The Present Studies

We propose that focusing on sexual self-objectification as a specific form of internalized

sexual objectification is important because women who are particularly susceptible to sexual
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 8

self-objectification may be at heightened risk for a host of negative sequelae that are specific to

sexual situations and outcomes (e.g., sexual victimization; sexual dysfunction) compared to

outcomes of self-objectification as a broader construct (Baldissarri et al., 2019). Despite the

existence of sexual self-objectification and its potential importance, there is no validated measure

of this specific construct. Without such a measure, the role and importance of sexual self-

objectification cannot be definitively distinguished from self-objectification more generally.

Therefore, the purpose of the current studies is to develop and psychometrically evaluate a

measure to capture the internalized perspective of self as a sexual object, which we label as

sexual self-objectification. The proposed measure includes two components, the first capturing

sexual self-objectification specific to self-image, which includes beliefs about oneself as a sexual

object and corresponding behaviors to present the self with this focus. This subscale captures the

focus on one‘s sexual attractiveness, body parts, of functions as representative of the self

(Bartky, 1990) and the belief that one‘s value is derived from these qualities above internal

factors (e.g., thoughts, feelings). The second subscale is specific to sexual self-objectification in

the context of romantic or sexual relationships. This subscale represents putting a partner‘s

sexual needs and wants before one‘s own needs and wants.

To evaluate the measure, we collected data from two samples of adult women: one

community sample (Study 1) and another college sample (Study 2). In Study 1, we examined the

factor structure of the scale using a split-half cross-validation approach (Arlot & Celisse, 2010).

To evaluate construct validity, we examined correlates of sexual self-objectification. We

expected the self-image subscale of sexual self-objectification to have moderate-to-strong

relations with measures of self-sexualization, experienced sexual objectification, self-

objectification, and objectification-related consequences (e.g., body shame). We also expected

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 9

associations with sexual victimization (Koss et al., 2007; Koss & Gidycz, 1985), traumatic

sexualization (Finkelhor & Browne, 1985; Matorin & Lynn, 1998), and ambivalent sexism

(Calogero & Jost, 2010; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Swami et al., 2010). We examined the incremental

validity of our newly developed measure by examining whether the SSOS self-image subscale

was associated with body shame, sexual objectification experiences, sexual victimization, and

sexual trauma, controlling for other measures of self-objectification and self-sexualization. We

expected neither subscale would be associated with a socially desirable response style.

We hypothesized that the self-image subscale would have stronger associations with

objectification-related constructs and ambivalent sexism than the partner subscale due to its

broader scope, encompassing experiences from diverse contexts. The partner subscale, while

important, focuses on dynamics specific to the more limited context of intimate partners, which

might not fully represent the overall experiences of sexual self-objectification.

In Study 2, we examined test-retest reliability across two administrations, approximately

two months apart. We also examined construct validity with a more recent measure of self-

objectification. By developing and evaluating a measure of sexual self-objectification, we aimed

to pave the way for a new line of research clarifying the importance of objectification that is both

sexual and internalized.

Method

Participants

Study 1 (Training and Validation Samples). The sample consisted of 500 adult female

participants living in the United States, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk).

The average age was 37.31 (SD = 11.64, Range = 19-78). Participants identified as White

(76.6%), followed by African American (8.4%), Asian (6.6%), Hispanic/Latino (4.8%), and
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 10

Native American (1.2%). Most participants identified as heterosexual (86.8%), followed by

bisexual (10.2%), gay/lesbian (1.8%), or another sexual orientation (1.2%). Marital statuses were

single (44.9%), married (43.1%), divorced (11.0%), and widowed (1.0%).

Study 2 (Confirmation Sample). The sample consisted of 355 female college students:

34.3% first-year, 16.6% sophomores, 21.4% juniors, 23.9% seniors, 0.8% graduate students, and

2.8% previously completed graduate or professional school. Mean age was 19.58 (SD = 1.69;

Range = 17 - 28). Most participants identified as White (74.9%), followed by African American

(4.8%), Asian/Pacific Islander (9.0%), Hispanic/Latino (7.9%) or other (3.4%). Participants also

reported sexual identity: straight/heterosexual (84.5%); bisexual (10.1%), gay/lesbian (2.8%),

and as another identity (2.5%). About half of participants reported being in a ―(self-defined)

committed, dating relationship‖ (45%); less than 2% reported having ever been married.

Measures

Sexual Self-Objectification Scale (SSOS) content and development. Items were

developed to measure sexual self-objectification, defined as ―an internalized perspective of

oneself as a sexual object, or heightened focus on one‘s sexual body parts or functions, for use

by others‖. After developing this definition, a team of PhD level and doctoral student researchers

with expertise in objectification created a list of 20 sample items. The definition, without sample

items, was then presented to a group of undergraduate research assistants, who each generated 10

items that would fit the construct. Research assistants were asked to generate items for both the

self-image and partner contexts of interest. The first author collected and grouped items

according to content (e.g., items related to clothing) to eliminate redundancy. Items that were

inconsistent with the definition and confusing items were also removed, resulting in a pool of 52

items that were included in the present analysis. Instructions stated, ―Please indicate how true
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 11

each of the following items are for you.‖ Scale options were 1 (not at all), 2 (a little), 3

(somewhat), 4 (mostly), and 5 (very much). Mean scores are recommended when scoring. No

items are reverse coded. Analyses led this measure to be reduced to 17 items (see Table for final

items), 13 belonging to the self-image subscale and 4 belonging to the partner subscale. Across

samples, alphas for the self-image and the partner subscales were acceptable (Validation Sample,

.94 and .84, respectively; Confirmation .84 and .79, respectively).

Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; Mckinley & Hyde, 1996). Participants

completed eight items assessing body surveillance (e.g., ―I am more concerned with what my

body can do than how it looks‖) and eight items assessing body shame (e.g., ―When I‘m not the

size I think I should be, I feel ashamed‖). Participants report the degree to which they agree with

each statement using a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with an

option for not applicable. Internal consistency for body surveillance in a past study of college

women was .76 (McKinley, 1998; Mckinley & Hyde, 1996). Within the Validation Sample,

alphas for the OBCS body surveillance and the body shame subscales were .89 and .86,

respectively. Within the Confirmation Sample alphas for the OBCS body surveillance and the

body shame subscales were .86 and .88, respectively.

Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). This measure

includes 10 items with five observable attributes of physical appearance (e.g., physical

attractiveness, sex appeal) and five non-observable physical attributes (e.g., energy, health).

Participants rank the attributes in order of importance (1 = least important to 10 = most

important) to their physical self-concept. Rankings on non-observable attributes are subtracted

from observable attributes with higher scores representing more self-objectification.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 12

Self-Objectification Beliefs and Behaviors Scale (SOBBS; Lindner & Tantleff-Dunn,

2017). Participants completed the 7-item observer‘s perspective (e.g., I often think about how my

body must look to others) and 7-item body as self (e.g., How I look is more important to me than

how I think or feel) subscales on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither

agree nor disagree, and 5 = strongly agree). Previous research indicates excellent internal

consistency, as well as convergent and discriminant validity (α = .91; Lindner & Tantleff- Dunn,

2017). Within the Confirmation Sample, alpha for the SOBBS was .90 for the observer‘s

perspective scale and .88 for the body as self scale.

Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale (ISOS; Kozee et al., 2007). This 15-item

measure of sexual objectification consists of two subscales: body evaluation and unwanted

explicit sexual advances. The body evaluation subscale contains 11 behaviorally defined items

that capture experiences of objectifying gazes (e.g., noticed someone leering) and overt

behaviors related to body evaluation (e.g., whistled at). The unwanted explicit sexual advances

subscale consists of four items (e.g., degrading sexual gesture, grabbed or pinched). Participants

indicate how often they experienced each event in the past year using a scale ranging from 1

(never) to 5 (almost always). Previous research indicates excellent internal consistency (α = .92;

Kozee et al., 2007). Within the Validation Sample, alpha for the ISOS total score was .93.

Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale (ESS; Liss et al., 2011). This 8-item scale measures

one‘s tendency to feel positive about having appearance noticed by the gender(s) that are the

subject of the participant‘s sexual attraction and was originally developed for use with

heterosexual women. The present study used the scale assessing enjoyment of sexualization by

men. These items (e.g., ―I feel proud when men compliment the way I look‖) are rated from 1

(disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). Mean scores were calculated. Internal consistency was
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 13

good in prior literature .85 (Liss et al., 2011). In the Validation Sample, alpha for the ESS was

.92.

Self-Sexualization Behavior Questionnaire for Women (SSBQ–W; Smolak et al.,

2014). This 10-item scale measures engagement in behaviors to appear sexually appealing (i.e.,

―how often you do each of the following things specifically in order to look sexy‖).

Participants answer using a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) about self-sexualizing behaviors

(e.g., wear cologne/perfume/scents, remove or trim genital hair). Acceptable internal

consistency has been demonstrated (α = .82; Smolak et al., 2014). In the Validation Sample,

alpha for the SSBQ-W was .90.

Sexualizing Behavior Scale (SBS; Nowatzki & Morry, 2009). This 20-item scale is

used to measure participation in self-sexualizing behaviors. Participants use a scale ranging from

1 (not very likely) to 5 (very likely) to rate their likelihood of engaging in 20 activities, 10 of

which involve self-sexualizing behaviors and 10 of which are filler items. Though this scale does

not require that participants report engaging in behaviors for the purposes of appearing sexually

attractive, the self-sexualizing behaviors used are explicit and sexual by nature (e.g., ―flashing

your breasts for the Girls Gone Wild videos‖). Only the 10 items specific to self-sexualizing

behaviors are used to compute a mean score. Internal consistency in prior literature was

acceptable (α =.78; Nowatzki & Morry, 2009). Alpha for the Validation Sample was .88.

Sexual Experiences Survey (SES, Koss & Gidycz, 1985). This 13-item scale uses

response options from 1 (never) to 5 (often) to rate the frequency with which they have

experienced sexual assault (e.g., sexual coercion; rape) using behaviorally specific items. Items 1

to 3 were excluded because they do not capture victimization (e.g., frequency of sexual activity).
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 14

Responses to victimization items were averaged. Acceptable internal consistency has been

reported (α = .74; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Alpha for the Validation Sample was .88.

Traumatic Sexualization Survey (TSS, Matorin & Lynn, 1998). Internalization of

sexual trauma was assessed with the ―role of sex in relationships‖ (7 items) and the

―attraction/interest and sexuality (3 items) subscales. Participants used a scale ranging from 1

(never) to 5 (almost always) to rate the frequency that sex is one of the most important features

of their relationships with men (e.g., ―My relationships with men are based on sex‖) and the

frequency that they perceive that sexuality is their most important feature in relationships with

men (e.g., ―Men want to be with me because I am seductive‖). Responses were averaged.

Internal consistency of these scales was good in prior literature (α = .80, .85). Alphas for the role

of sex in relationships and attraction/interest and sexuality subscales were .89 and .93,

respectively, in the Validation Sample.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996). This 22-item measure

contains two subscales. Hostile sexism is characterized by antagonistic sexist beliefs about

women (e.g., ―Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist‖). In contrast,

benevolent sexism is characterized by subjectively positive but restrictive attitudes toward

women (e.g., ―Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility‖).

Participants rate their agreement to each item using a 6-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The ASI has been shown to have acceptable internal

consistency, as well as convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity (α = .73 - .92; Glick &

Fiske, 1996). In the Validation Sample, alpha for the ambivalent sexism scale was .92.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Reynolds, 1982). This 13-item

scale consists of true-false items related to personal attitudes and traits that relate to social
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 15

desirability (e.g., ―I never resent being asked to return a favor‖). This measure has demonstrated

acceptable reliability (Reynolds, 1982). In the Validation Sample, alpha was .81.

Procedure

Study 1. Participants were recruited to complete an online survey through Amazon‘s

MTurk system about women‘s life experiences, attitudes, and beliefs and were financially

compensated for their participation. MTurk samples have comparable internal consistency and

test-retest reliability to traditional methods and are slightly more demographically diverse

(Buhrmester et al., 2011; Shapiro et al., 2013). Only MTurk users with an approval rating of 95%

or higher were recruited. Of the 512 eligible participants, 12 were excluded for failing validity

check items. The sample of 500 was split for a split-half cross-validation approach (Arlot &

Celisse, 2010): 250 participants (the ―Training Sample‖) were used to reduce SSOS items and

test the factor structure; the other 250 (the ―Validation Sample‖) validated the scale.

Study 2. College students in psychology classes at a large midwestern University

completed a screening survey to determine research eligibility. In August-September 2020, 373

women completed the survey, with 18 excluded for failing at least 5 of 6 validity checks,

resulting in 355 participants. Participants completed measures including the 17-item SSOS,

OBCS and SOBBS. The SOBBS was introduced to the literature between Studies 1 and 2.

Participants who consented to additional research were invited to a follow-up study two

months later, in November 2020, focusing on COVID-19 impacts on mental health, substance

use, and sexual experiences. This included a one-time online survey including the SSOS. A total

of 107 women completed the follow-up and consented to link their data to the initial survey.

Participants received course credit.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 16

We report sample size determination, data exclusions, manipulations, and measures for

both studies. Data, analysis code, and study materials are available upon request. All procedures

described herein were approved by the University Institutional Review Board.

Results

Study 1. Training Sample

Analytic rationale. Analyses were designed to (a) reduce the number of SSOS items and

(b) test our theory of two conceptually grounded subscales: self-image and presentation, and

sexual self-objectification specifically in reference to a romantic or sexual partner. Because

response options were ordinal, item factor analysis (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis with

polytomous outcomes) was used to examine the item performance (Bovaird & Koziol, 2012).

Specifically, a normal ogive graded response model, formulated in terms of factor loadings and

thresholds, was tested using the WLSMV (weighted least squares means and variance adjusted)

estimator and theta parameterization in Mplus v.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015). Model

identification was achieved by holding latent factor means at 0 and factor variances at 1. Item

factor analysis extends conventional confirmatory factor analysis to ordered categorical data by

employing link functions (e.g., probit or logit) to model the probability of endorsing each

response category, thereby accommodating the ordinal nature of the items. Like conventional

CFA, it evaluates overall model fit using indices such as CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR, but it

uniquely generates item characteristic curves (ICCs) that graphically depict how the probability

of endorsing specific response categories varies with the latent trait. These curves provide

detailed insights into item discrimination and threshold parameters, offering a nuanced

assessment of individual item performance within the measurement model and ensuring that the

criteria and cutoff values used reflect the characteristics of ordered categorical responses.
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 17

Beginning with the full set of 52 items, we directly compared the performance of

conceptually similar items and retained the best item of each grouping. Item performance was

evaluated. Standardized factor loadings were initially evaluated with < .30 reflecting minimal

contribution to the factor (Brown, 2015). Items with cross-loadings exceeding .60 on both the

self-image and partner factors were initially eliminated to ensure clear factor structure. Potential

local misfit was identified by inspecting large residual covariances (i.e., standardized residual

covariances > |1.96|, corresponding to p < .05). We examined ICCs which display the association

between the overall latent trait score and the probability of selecting a given response. Preference

was given to items with minimally overlapping curves (i.e., similar probability curves across

items were eligible for reduction), such that each response option provided unique information

about the overall trait. Skewness and kurtosis of items were also considered, with preference for

items closer to normally distributed. After eliminating items based on residual covariances and

ICCs, we sought to eliminate any remaining items with primary factor loadings below .6 and any

items with cross-loadings exceeding .25, but none remained. Finally, we examined information

curves to inspect the reliability of each subscale at various levels of the latent trait. Preference

was given to items that were most informative across the broadest range of the trait.

Upon reducing the total number of items, a variety of fit indices were used to examine

global model fit. Non-significant p values on the chi-square test and values greater than .95 on

the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker &

Lewis, 1973) suggest good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) values less than .05 suggest close fit, .05 to .08 fair fit, and .08 to .10 mediocre fit

(Browne & Cudek, 1992; MacCallum et al., 1996). To test the hypothesis that the model fits

poorly (≥ .10), the 90% RMSEA confidence interval was examined (Kline, 2016). Indices of
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 18

global model fit were used as a guide; strict adherence to thresholds is not advised (Kline, 2016).

Emphasis was placed on evaluating local fit through inspection of residuals and modification

indices. We evaluated whether the model explained the majority of the variance of each indicator

(R2 > .50; Kline, 2016). Once a final model was chosen, a tau-equivalent model in which item

loadings are constrained to be equal was compared to the model in which each loading is

estimated. This model assumes that all items on a scale measure the construct with equal

precision, a key condition for calculating certain reliability coefficients like Cronbach's alpha. If

a tau-equivalent model is disconfirmed, it would suggest that some items may be more

informative than others (Lord & Novick, 1968). Nested models were compared using the Mplus

DIFFTEST option for the WLSMV estimator. If these models were not significantly different,

the more parsimonious tau-equivalent model would be preferred.

Item factor analysis results. This process resulted in a model with 13 items on the self-

image factor and 4 items on the partner factor (see Table 1 for model results). Based on

modification indices and recognition of the item similarities, residual covariances were allowed

on the partner factor between items 14 and 15, and 16 and 17. Although reverse-coded items

were considered in the initial item pool, no reverse-coded items were retained.

Global model fit was adequate (CFI = .981, TLI = .977, RMSEA = .071 [90% CI = .060,

.083]). The hypothesis of poor fit was rejected given the upper bound of the RMSEA confidence

interval was less than .10. The chi-square test of model fit was significant, χ2 (116) = 262.949, p

< .001, thereby suggesting the model may not fit well. However, the chi-square test is sensitive

to sample size (Kline, 2016), and other fit indices indicate that model fit was adequate. Further,

local fit was adequate given the absence of large residuals. Standardized loadings were high

(Kline, 2016), ranging from .73 to .91 on the self-image factor, and .69 to .86 on the partner
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 19

factor. The model explained the majority of the variance for nearly all indicators ; R2 ranged from

.53 to .82 for the self-image factor and .48 to .74 for the partner factor. The correlation between

the self-image and partner factors was .47, suggesting the factors were related but not redundant.

The test information curve (see Supplemental Figure 1) was examined to evaluate the

reliability of the SSOS for various levels of theta (reflecting a person‘s latent trait score). This

represents the precision of a test across levels of the underlying trait being measured. It is

calculated by summing the information functions of individual items. Information equaling 4

corresponds to reliability of .80. Information was 4 or above for thetas of -1.47 to over 3 for the

self-image factor and -1.24 to 2.40 for the partner factor.

The tau-equivalent model fit significantly worse than the model estimating each loading,

χ2 (15) = 40.235, p < .001. However, the fit was still acceptable (CFI = .982, TLI = .981, RMSEA

= .065 [90% CI = .054, .076]). Further, correlations between the models‘ factor scores calculated

using maximum a posteriori estimation were very high (r self-image = .998; rpartner = .990, ps < .001).

Study 1. Validation Sample

Analytic rationale. Aims of analyses were to (a) examine the fit of the measurement

model determined in the Training Sample, and (b) examine validity evidence of the SSOS based

on hypothesized relations to other variables.

Item factor analysis results. Validation sample results can be seen in Supplemental

Materials. Model fit was adequate based on inspection of local fit and global fit indices (CFI =

.974, TLI = .969, RMSEA = .087 [90% CI: .077, .098]). The hypothesis of poor fit was rejected

given the upper bound of the RMSEA confidence interval was less than .10. Although .087 does

not meet some recommended cutoffs, Kline (2016) indicates it may be within an acceptable

range given sampling variability. We interpreted this in the context of other indices of good
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 20

model fit and decided to retain the current model. The chi-square test of model fit was again

significant, χ2 (116) =337.650, p < .001. Standardized loadings ranged from .71 to .91 on the self-

image factor and .60 to .96 on the partner factor. The correlation between the factors was .54.

The test information curve (see Supplemental Figure 2) revealed reliability of .80 or above for

thetas of -1.41 to over 3 for the self-image factor and -0.98 to 2.20 for the partner factor.

Although the partner factor test information curve revealed sharp peaks and valleys, this is likely

due to the large loading for item 17 in combination with the small number of items.

Construct validation results. Bivariate correlations using observed scores (see Table 2)

confirmed hypothesized associations and indicated that the SSOS self-image subscale is strongly

associated with self-sexualization behaviors, enjoyment of sexualization, and existing measures

of self-objectification (SOQ and OBCS body surveillance; rs > 0.5). The highest correlation with

the SSOS subscales was .72, between the enjoyment of sexualization scale (ESS) and the SSOS

self-image subscale. This correlation squared is .52, indicating 52% shared variance (Campbell

& Fiske, 1959). This means that half of the variance in SSOS-S is not accounted for by any

single other scale included in the present study. Therefore, constructs included and expected to

relate to SSOS are distinct from self-sexual objectification. The self-image subscale also had

moderate relations with interpersonal objectification and body shame (rs = 0.4 – 0.5), a range of

relations with sexual victimization and traumatic sexualization (rs = 0.2 – 0.6), and a weak

relation with ambivalent sexism (rs < 0.3). The SSOS partner (SSOS-P) subscale was correlated

with the included measures, but less strongly than the SSOS self-image subscale for all measures

but ambivalent sexism. The SSOS was unrelated to social desirability.

Finally, we estimated partial correlations between the observed scores on the SSOS self-

image subscale and several theoretically relevant constructs while controlling for other measures
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 21

of self-objectification and self-sexualization in separate analyses. We focus on the self-image

subscale because that represents the most general form of sexual self-objectification and has the

greatest potential for redundancy with self-objectification defined by general appearance focus.

The SSOS self-image scale was significantly correlated with body shame (r = .14, p = .03),

interpersonal sexual objectification (r = .41, p < .001), sexual victimization (r = .21, p = .001),

sex in relationships trauma (r = .47, p < .001), and attraction and sexuality trauma (r = .58, p =

.001), while controlling for the body surveillance OBCS subscale and the SOQ. Next, we

examined partial correlations controlling for measures of self-sexualization (i.e., SSBQ-W, SBS,

& ESS). The SSOS self-image score was correlated with body shame (r = .15, p = .02),

interpersonal sexual objectification (r = .19, p = .004), sex in relationships trauma (r = .26, p <

.001), and attraction and sexuality trauma (r = .38, p < .001), but was not related to sexual

victimization (r = .12, p = .06). In summary, SSOS self-image correlated with expected

constructs above and beyond existing measures of self-objectification and self-sexualization.

Study 2. Confirmation Sample

Data screening. Data were screened for normality. Skewness for all items was less than

3 and kurtosis for all variables was less than 10 (Kline, 2016).

Analytic rationale. Based on modification indices and recognition of item similarities,

residual covariances were allowed between items 14 and 15, and 16 and 17.

Item factor analysis results. Global model fit was acceptable (CFI = .967, TLI = .962,

RMSEA = .079 [90% CI = .070, .088]). The hypothesis of poor fit was rejected given the upper

bound of the RMSEA confidence interval was less than .10. The chi-square test of model fit was

significant, χ2 (116) = 369.78, p < .001, suggesting the model may not fit well. However, the chi-

square test is sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2016), often leading to significant results in large
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 22

samples even when the model fit is acceptable (Kline, 2016). Other fit indices (CFI, TLI and

RMSEA) are less influenced by sample size and indicate that model fit was adequate. Local fit

was adequate given the absence of large residuals. Standardized loadings were high (Kline,

2016), ranging from .62 to .85 on the self-image factor, and .66 to .89 on the partner factor. The

model explained a significant portion of the variance for nearly all indicators, as R2 ranged from

.38 to .73 for the self-image factor and .40 to .79 for the partner factor. The correlation between

the self-image and partner factors was .47, suggesting the factors were related but not redundant.

The test information curve (see Supplemental Figure 3) revealed reliability of .80 or

above for thetas within three standard deviations of the mean for the self-image factor and -0.20

to 3.0 for the partner factor.

Construct validation results. Bivariate correlations of observed scores tested

associations between SSOS, OBCS and SOBBS (see Table 3). Results confirmed the

hypothesized relations and indicated that the SSOS self-image subscale is strongly associated

with included measures of self-objectification (rs > 0.4). The highest correlation was .57,

between factor 1 of the SOBBS, which focuses on adopting an internalizer‘s perspective of the

body, and the newly developed SSOS self-image subscale. The SSOS partner subscale correlated

with the included measures less strongly than the SSOS self-image subscale. Both subscales of

the SOBBS were more strongly correlated with the OBCS subscales than either SSOS subscale.

Test-retest reliability results. According to the criteria published by Cicchetti (1994),

the intraclass correlation coefficient indicated adequate temporal stability of the SSOS self-

image subscale (.80) and partner subscale (.73) across two months.

Discussion
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 23

The main goal of the current research was to define sexual self-objectification and

develop a corresponding measure of this construct. This study sought to examine sexual self-

objectification as it applies to women‘s self-image and presentation, generally, as well as specific

to contexts involving intimate partners. The final measure consists of 13 items on the self-image

subscale and four items on the partner subscale, building on prior work related to self-

objectification and self-sexualization.

The SSOS was developed using a Training Sample, a Validation Sample, and a

Confirmation Sample. The Training Sample involved an item factor analysis to reduce 52 items

into a measure representing sexual self-objectification in self-image and partner contexts,

resulting in 17 items across two subscales with adequate fit. The Validation Sample confirmed

the measurement model's fit and construct validity through associations using observed scores of

sexual objectification, self-objectification, self-sexualization, and enjoyment of sexualization, all

positively related to the SSOS. The SSOS showed increme ntal validity through associations with

objectification experiences and body shame, even when controlling for other self-objectification

and self-sexualization measures. Further, SSOS scores were not significantly associated with

social desirability, suggesting unbiased responses. Future research should use latent variable

models to estimate relationships more precisely and account for measurement error. The

Confirmation Sample stability over two months. The SSOS was found to be psychometrically

sound for college and community participants, suggesting broader usability.

Theoretical Implications

The present measure provides a useful theoretical and empirical contribution by defining

and measuring a specific form of self-objectification focused on sexual aspects of the self. The

SSOS may help researchers to develop a more refined understanding of the tenets of
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 24

objectification theory and testing pathways connected to specific sub-types of self-

objectification. Objectifying experiences vary by focus (e.g., thinness, sex appeal), severity (e.g.,

ogling, unwanted sexual advances), and source (e.g., media, strangers, friends, intimate partners),

and may differentially predict the way that objectification is internalized. For example, sexual

self-objectification might be more linked to sexual dysfunction than general self-objectification.

Understanding sexual self-objectification may further clarify the conditions under which

sexualization is empowering or oppressing, as discussed by Liss and colleagues‘ (2007).

Grower and Ward (2021) recently explored how body surveillance and self-sexualization

predicted aspects of women‘s sexual agency (e.g., assertiveness, satisfaction, entitlement to

pleasure, condom self-efficacy). Complex associations highlighted the importance of examining

self-objectification and self-sexualization intersections, which the SSOS can explore (see Figure

1). Even if enjoyment of sexualization or engagement in sexualizing behaviors are high, women

low in sexual self-objectification might feel empowered to consider their thoughts and feelings in

sexual behavior choices (see also research on sex positivity, Burnes et al., 2017), while those

high in sexual self-objectification might feel limited in power and agency. SSOS could moderate

the relationship between sexualization and empowerment/oppression.

Sexual self-objectification is situated within objectification theory (Fredrickson &

Roberts, 1997); we focused primarily on the predictors (e.g., interpersonal sexual objectification)

and outcomes (e.g., body shame) posited by this model. We found that the tenets of this model

held for SSOS, even when controlling for measures of self-objectification and self-sexualization.

Morris et al. (2018) identified unique outcomes dependent on type of objectification perpetrated,

such that appearance-focused objectification of women related to mechanistic dehumanization

while sexually-based objectification led to more animalistic dehumanization. It is possible that

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 25

this pattern is also true for self-objectification and corresponding self-dehumanization. Future

work should examine if women who sexually self-objectify primarily within intimate

relationships have unique outcomes compared to those who do so across contexts. The partner

subscale may deepen our understanding of objectification‘s role in relationship satisfaction,

sexual health and addiction, and risk for intimate partner sexual assault and revictimization.

Practice Implications

Recognizing beliefs consistent with sexual self-objectification and understanding the

potential for women with a variety of histories to develop sexual self-objectification may help

clinicians identify and challenge maladaptive self-concepts. Understanding how objectification

experiences are internalized and result in related problems is essential for gender competence in

clinicians. Sexual self-objectification may be particularly important to understand in clients with

histories of sexual abuse and assault, which are extreme forms of sexual objectification.

Finkelhor and Browne (1985) traumagenic dynamics theory describes the potential to develop a

distorted understanding of sexuality and internalize sexually traumatic experiences in a way that

is consistent with sexual self-objectification. The SSOS was associated with sexual victimization

history. Everyday exposure to body evaluation, unwanted sexual advances, and objectifying

media may also contribute to sexual self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

One important context represented with the SSOS measure is intimate relationships. Self-

objectification can significantly impact intimate relationships, reducing sexual satisfaction,

increasing sexual dysfunction and contributing to self-silencing (Ramsey et al., 2017; Sáez et al.,

2019). Clinicians should incorporate this knowledge into their practice, helping clients recognize

and address the relational aspects of self-objectification. Conceptualization of the intersection of

attachment theory and objectification theory could also be explored with this measure (Calkins et
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 26

al., 2023; Jiao et al., 2022). In addition, media portrayals of gender and sexuality contribute to

the normalization of self-objectification (Karsay et al., 2018; Santoniccolo et al., 2023). Media

literacy interventions can be effective in reducing the internalization of objectifying messages

(McGladrey et al., 2019; McLean et al., 2016) and could be a useful tool for clinicians working

with individuals suffering from the negative consequences of internalized sexual objectification.

Clinicians should also consider broader sociocultural factors influencing sexual self-

objectification. Workplace support and discrimination influence the extent to which individuals

experience and internalize objectification (Gervais et al., 2016). Certain workplaces may be

particularly high risk for sexual self-objectification; for example, many restaurants and bars

overtly or subtly promote the sexual objectification of women employees (Szymanski &

Mikorski, 2017). Additionally, experiencing interpersonal objectification may also trigger social

identity threat (Logel et al., 2009), undermining performance and highlighting the importance of

addressing identity-related issues in therapy.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although we provide theoretical suggestions for potential predictors and outcomes of

sexual self-objectification, we were limited to examining associations in the cross-sectional

Validation Sample of the SSOS. Longitudinal research would help to clarify temporal

relationships between initial experiences of sexual objectification, the SSOS, and subsequent

problems. It would be useful to examine how pathways differ between sexual self-objectification

and general self-objectification and whether sexual self-objectification generalizes over time.

Participants were U.S. adults identifying as female, predominantly White and

heterosexual. Findings cannot be generalized to other populations. This study only collected

information about participants‘ sex; this is a limitation and future work should also assess gender
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 27

to consider the impact of sexual objectification on women. The average age of our Study 1

sample was 37 years with a standard deviation of over 11 years. Objectification theory

recognizes that as women age, they may be perceived as less sexually desirable in society,

described as a transition from visibility to invisibility (Chrisler, 2007, Robbins & Reissing,

2018). Freedom from observers‘ objectification may allow for a broadening of priorities and less

self-objectification (Johnston et al., 2004 & Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). Alternatively, coping

with age-related deviations from the societal ideal could be hard for some and prompt increased

self-objectification. Though outside of the scope of the present study, future research should

examine how sexual self-objectification evolves across the lifespan. Researchers should examine

the psychometric properties of the SSOS in adolescents, given their frequent sexualization (APA,

2007) and developing perceptions of sexual self-concept (O'Sullivan et al., 2006).

Self-objectification may operate differently based on racial or ethnic group (Schaefer et

al., 2018), as evidenced by research across racial identities of U.S. participants (Frederick et al.,

2022) and four European countries (Gattino et al., 2023). Additional research has examined

negative consequences of objectification among Black women and adolescents (Ladd et al.,

2022; Stanton et al., 2022). While we recognize the importance of addressing the exclusion of

historically minoritized communities, the present sample was not sufficiently large and diverse to

test SSOS fit based on race or ethnicity. However, it is strongly recommended for future work to

examine how sexual self-objectification may manifest among or impact women from racial and

ethnic minorities. Future research should target these populations to provide more accurate and

meaningful insights. The SSOS should also be validated in other populations that objectification

theory has been extended to, including men, sexual minorities, and non-U.S. samples (Davidson

et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2021; Lang & Ye, 2021; Moradi & Tebbe, 2022; Moradi et al., 2019).
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 28

The partner subscale focuses on intimate relationships, an understudied subtype of self-

objectification. Research on objectification within intimate relationships is mixed (Meltzer &

McNulty, 2014; Zurbriggen et al., 2011). The partner subscale presented in the current work

provides an additional methodological tool for capturing sexually focused internalized

objectification in intimate relationships. However, it consists of only four items, warrants further

validation, and should be used with careful interpretation. More work should be done to

investigate unique pathways toward the development of this type of self-objectification and

subsequent outcomes.

In sum, the Sexual Self-Objectification Scale (SSOS) represents a theoretically grounded

and psychometrically sound measure that fills a critical gap in the objectification literature. By

distinguishing sexual self-objectification from general self-objectification and self-sexualization,

the SSOS enables more precise assessment of how sexualized cultural messaging and

interpersonal experiences are internalized and expressed in women‘s self-concept and

relationships. The SSOS offers new opportunities to refine objectification theory and lays the

foundation for research that will clarify risk pathways and inform interventions to reduce harm

from internalized sexual objectification.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 29

References

Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010). A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection.

Statistics Surveys, 4, 40-79. [Link]

Association, A. P. (2007). Task Force on the sexualization of girls (Report of the APA Task

Force on the Sexualization of Girls., Issue.

[Link] [Link]%0ACopyright

Baildon, A. E., Eagan, S., Christ, Lorenz, T. K., Stoltenberg, S. F., & Gervais, S. J. (2021). The

sexual objectification and alcohol use link: The mediating roles of self-objectification,

enjoyment of sexualization, body shame, and drinking motives. Sex Roles.

[Link]

Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., Gabbiadini, A., Valtorta, R. R., Sacino, A., & Volpato, C.

(2019). Do self-objectified women believe themselves to be free? Sexual objectification

and belief in personal free will. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1867.

Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression.

Psychology Press.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,

238-246. [Link]

Bovaird, J. A., & Koziol, N. A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered-categorical indicators.

Handbook of structural equation modeling, 495-511.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological

Methods and Research, 21, 230-258. [Link]

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 30

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source

of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.

[Link]

Burnes, T. R., Singh, A. A., & Witherspoon, R. G. (2017). Sex positivity and counseling

psychology: An introduction to the major contribution. The Counseling Psychologist,

45(4), 470-486.

Calkins, F. C., Gervais, S., Sáez, G., Martin, M. J., Davidson, M., & Brock, R. (2023). An

integrated conceptual framework linking attachment insecurity to increased risk for both

enacting and experiencing objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

[Link]

Calogero, R., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Thompson, J. (2011). Self-Objectification in Women: Causes,

consequences, and counteractions. American Psychological Association.

[Link]

Calogero, R. M. (2013). On objects and actions: Situating self-objectification in a system

justification context. Objectification and (de) humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium

on motivation,

Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2010). 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, 211-228.

[Link]

Chrisler, J. C. (2007). Body image issues of women over 50. In Women Over Fifty:

Psychological Perspectives (pp. 6-25). Springer US. [Link]

46341-4_2
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 31

Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and

standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284.

Davidson, M. M., Gervais, S. J., Canivez, G. L., & Cole, B. P. (2013). A psychometric

examination of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale among college men. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 239-250. [Link]

Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: a

conceptualization. The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541.

[Link]

Frederick, D. A., Schaefer, L. M., Hazzard, V. M., Rodgers, R. F., Tylka, T. L., Ong, L. Q.,

Pennesi, J.-L., Convertino, L., Parent, M., Brown, T. A., Compte, E. J., Cook-Cottone,

C., Crerand, C. E., Malcarne, V. L., Nagata, J. M., Perez, M., Pila, E., Thompson, J. D.,

Murray, S. B., . . . Murray, S. B. (2022). Racial identity differences in pathways from

sociocultural and objectification constructs to body satisfaction: The U.S. Body Project I.

[Link]

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.

Galdi, S., & Guizzo, F. (2021). Media-induced sexual harassment: The routes from sexually

objectifying media to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 84(11), 645-669.

Gattino, S., Czepczor-Bernat, K., Fedi, A., Brytek-Matera, A., Boza, M., Lemoine, J., Sahlan, R.

N., Wilson, E., De Piccoli, N., & Rollero, C. (2023). Self-objectification and its

biological, psychological and social predictors: A cross-cultural study in four European

countries and Iran. Europe's Journal of Psychology. [Link]

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 32

Gervais, S. J., Wiener, R. L., Allen, J., Farnum, K. S., & Kimble, K. (2016). Do you see what I

see? The consequences of objectification in work settings for experiencers and third party

predictors. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 16(1), 143-174.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and

benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

[Link]

Grower, P., & Ward, L. M. (2021). Differentiating contributions of self-objectification and self-

sexualization to young women's sexual agency. Body Image.

[Link]

Guo, Q., Wang, Y., & Wu, M. (2021). The relationship between different types of

objectification, sexual pressure, and relationship satisfaction in Chinese heterosexual

dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

[Link]

Harrison, K. (2003). Television viewers‘ ideal body proportions: The case of the curvaceously

thin woman. Sex Roles, 48, 255-264. [Link]

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. [Link]

Jiao, J., Terán, L., & Aubrey, J. S. (2022). Buffering an objectifying culture: Interpersonal sexual

objectification, self-objectification, and attachment anxiety. Psychology of Women

Quarterly. [Link]
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 33

Johnston, O., Reilly, J., & Kremer, J. (2004). Women‘s experiences of appearance concern and

body control across the lifespan: Challenging accepted wisdom. Journal of Health

Psychology, 9(3), 397-410. [Link]

Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers,

criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263-

314.

Kahalon, R., Shnabel, N., & Becker, J. C. (2018). Experimental studies on state self-

objectification: A review and an integrative process model. In Frontiers in Psychology

(Vol. 9): Frontiers Media S.A.

Karsay, K., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A

meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 9-28.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Editio ed.).

Guilford Press.

Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., &

White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of

sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357-370.

[Link]

Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. a. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: reliability and validity. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 422-423. [Link]

006X.53.3.422

Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvath, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and

psychometric evaluation of the interpersonal sexual objectification scale. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 31, 176-189. [Link]

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 34

Ladd, B. A., Maheux, A. J., Roberts, S. R., & Choukas-Bradley, S. (2022). Black adolescents‘

appearance concerns, depressive symptoms, and self-objectification: Exploring the roles

of gender and ethnic-racial identity commitment.

[Link]

Lamb, S., & Koven, J. (2019). Sexualization of girls: Addressing criticism of the apa report,

presenting new evidence. SAGE Open, 9(4), 2158244019881024.

[Link]

Lang, M., & Ye, Y. (2021). Validation of the Chinese version of the self-objectification beliefs

and behaviors scale. Frontiers in Psychology.

[Link]

Lindner, D., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2017). The development and psychometric evaluation of the

self-objectification beliefs and behaviors scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2),

254-272. [Link]

Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and

exploration of the enjoyment of sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 37(1), 55-68. [Link]

Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009).

Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1089.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and

determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,

1, 130-149. [Link]
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 35

Matorin, A. I., & Lynn, S. J. (1998). The development of a measure of correlates of child sexual

abuse: The traumatic sexualization survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11(2), 261-280.

[Link]

McGladrey, M., Oliff, M., & Draper, E. (2019). Re-envisioning media literacy education as

feminist arts-activism. Cultural Trends, 28(5), 354-365.

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale development

and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(2), 181-215.

[Link]

McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., & Wertheim, E. H. (2016). The role of media literacy in body

dissatisfaction and disordered eating: A systematic review. Body Image, 19, 9-23.

Mehak, A., Friedman, A., & Cassin, S. E. (2018). Self-objectification, weight bias

internalization, and binge eating in young women: Testing a mediational model. Body

Image, 24, 111-115. [Link]

Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2014). "Tell me I'm sexy . . . and otherwise valuable": Body

valuation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 21, 68-87.

[Link]

Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of

advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377-398.

[Link]

Moradi, B., & Tebbe, E. A. (2022). A test of objectification theory with sexual minority women.

Psychology of Women Quarterly. [Link]

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 36

Moradi, B., Tebbe, E. A., Connelly, K. E., Lenzen, A. L., & Flores, M. J. (2019). Objectification

of sexual minority women: Responses, consequences, and resistance. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 66(5), 519-533. [Link]

Morris, K. L., Goldenberg, J., & Boyd, P. (2018). Women as animals, women as objects:

Evidence for two forms of objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

44(9), 1302-1314. [Link]

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). MPlus (Version 7.0)[Computer Software]. Los

Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.

Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body

shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623-636.

[Link]

Nowatzki, J., & Morry, M. M. (2009). Women's intentions regarding, and acceptance of, self-

sexualizing behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 95-107.

[Link]

O'Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & McKeague, I. W. (2006). The development of the

sexual self-concept inventory for early adolescent girls (Psychology of Women

Quarterly, Issue.

[Link]

c46ff73/1463545180338/Sexual+Self+[Link]

Pecini, C., Di Bernardo, G. A., Crapolicchio, E., Stathi, S., Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., Pecini,

C., Di Bernardo, G. A., Crapolicchio, E., Stathi, S., Vezzali, L., & Andrighetto, L.

(2022). Stop looking at me! associations between men's partner-objectification and

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 37

women's self-objectification, body shame and life satisfaction in romantic relationships.

[Link]

Ramsey, L. R., & Hoyt, T. (2014). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual

pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

39(2), 151-170. [Link]

Ramsey, L. R., Marotta, J. A., & Hoyt, T. (2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied:

Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived

partner-objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 258-278.

[Link]

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the marlowe-crowne

social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.

[Link]

Robbins, A. R., & Reissing, E. D. (2018). Out of ―objectification limelight‖? The contribution of

body appreciation to sexual adjustment in midlife women. Journal of Sex Research,

55(6), 758-771. [Link]

Roberts, T.-A., Calogero, R. M., & Gervais, S. J. (2017). Objectification theory: Continuing

contributions to feminist psychology. In APA handbook of the psychology of women:

History, theory, and battlegrounds (Vol. 1). (pp. 249-271). American Psychological

Association. [Link]

Sáez, G., Riemer, A. R., Brock, R. L., & Gervais, S. J. (2019). Objectification in heterosexual

romantic relationships: Examining relationship satisfaction of female objectification

recipients and male objectifying perpetrators. Sex Roles, 81(5-6), 370-384.

[Link]
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 38

Santoniccolo, F., Trombetta, T., Paradiso, M. N., & Rollè, L. (2023). Gender and media

representations: A review of the literature on gender stereotypes, objectification and

sexualization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

20(10), 5770.

Schaefer, L. M., Burke, N. L., Calogero, R. M., Menzel, J. E., Krawczyk, R., & Thompson, J. K.

(2018). Self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating: Testing a core

mediational model of objectification theory among White, Black, and Hispanic women.

Body Image, 24, 5-12. [Link]

Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2019). Less than human? Media use,

objectification of women, and men‘s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology of

Violence, 9(5), 536-545. [Link]

Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using mechanical turk to study clinical

populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213-220.

[Link]

Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Myers, T. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self: What college women

and men think about and do to be ‗‗sexy‘‘. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 379-

397. [Link]

Stanton, A. G., Avery, L. R., Matsuzaka, S., Espinel, S., Stanton, A. G., Avery, L. R.,

Matsuzaka, S., & Espinel, S. (2022). Black women's experiences of gendered racial

sexual objectification, body image, and depressive symptoms.

[Link]
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 39

Strelan, P., & Pagoudis, S. (2018). Birds of a feather flock together: The interpersonal process of

objectification within intimate heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 79(1-2), 72-82.

[Link]

Swami, V., Coles, R., Wyrozumska, K., Wilson, E., Salem, N., & Furnham, A. (2010).

Oppressive beliefs at play: Associations among beauty ideals and practices and individual

differences in sexism, objectification of others, and media exposure. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 34, 365-379. [Link]

Szymanski, D. M., & Mikorski, R. (2017). Sexually objectifying environments: Power,

rumination, and waitresses‘ anxiety and disordered eating. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 41(3), 314-324.

Terán, L., Jiao, J., & Aubrey, J. S. (2021). The relational burden of objectification: Exploring

how past experiences of interpersonal sexual objectification are related to relationship

competencies. Sex Roles. [Link]

Tiggemann, M. (2011). Mental health risks of self-objectification: A review of the empirical

evidence for disordered eating, depressed mood, and sexual dysfunction. In Self-

objectification in women: Causes, consequences, and counteractions. (pp. 139-159).

American Psychological Association. [Link]

Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The

role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243-253.

[Link]

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor

analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. [Link]

Valenti, J. (2016). Sex object: A memoir. Dey Street.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 40

Van Oosten, J. M. F., De Vries, D. A., & Peter, J. (2018). The importance of adolescents'

sexually outgoing self-concept: Differential roles of self-and other-generated sexy self-

presentations in social media. [Link]

Ward, L. M., Daniels, E. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Rosenscruggs, D. (2023). The sources and

consequences of sexual objectification. Nature Reviews Psychology.

[Link]

Wiseman, C. V., Gray, J. J., Mosimann, J. E., & Ahrens, A. H. (1992). Cultural expectations of

thinness in women: An update. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 85-89.

[Link]

Wood, J. R., McKay, A., Komarnicky, T., & Milhausen, R. R. (2016). Was it good for you too?:

An analysis of gender differences in oral sex practices and pleasure ratings among

heterosexual Canadian university students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,

25, 21-29. [Link]

Yang, W., Jin, S., He, S., Fan, Q., & Zhu, Y. (2015). The impact of power on humanity: Self-

dehumanization in powerlessness. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0125721.

Zurbriggen, E. L., Ramsey, L. R., & Jaworski, B. K. (2011). Self- and Partner-objectification in

Romantic Relationships: Associations with Media Consumption and Relationship

Satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7-8), 449-462. [Link]

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 41

Table 1. Item Factor Analysis Results for the Training Sample (n = 250).

Item R2 Standardized Estimate (SE)

̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂

Sexual Self-Objectification: Self-Image Subscale

1. For me, being sexually attractive is more important than my .53 .73 (.04) .41 (.08) 1.01 (.10) 1.56 (.13) 2.05 (.18)
other qualities.
2. I choose clothes by considering how they enhance the .68 .83 (.02) -.30 (.08) .43 (.08) 1.20 (.10) 1.75 (.14)
sexiness of my figure.
3. When getting ready to go out, I think about whether other .56 .75 (.03) -.33 (.08) .49 (.08) 1.22 (.11) 1.80 (.15)
people will ―check me out‖.
4. I would consider having cosmetic surgery to increase my sex .56 .75 (.04) .21 (.08) .79 (.09) 1.14 (.10) 1.49 (.12)
appeal.
5. When I think about why I would want to lose weight, one .58 .76 (.03) -.89 (.09) -.11 (.08) .63 (.09) 1.18 (.10)
reason is to appear sexier.
6. My body is meant to be shown off. .63 .79 (.03) -.02 (.08) .86 (.09) 1.41 (.12) 2.15 (.20)

7. When going out to socialize, I wear clothes, style my hair, .66 .81 (.03) -.11 (.08) .69 (.09) 1.24 (.11) 1.98 (.17)
and wear make-up that advertises my sexuality over my other
features.
8. I adjust my personality, as needed, in order to highlight my .68 .82 (.03) .61 (.09) 1.24 (.11) 1.63 (.13) 2.05 (.18)
sexiness to others.
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 42

9. I value accentuating my sex appeal when interacting with .82 .91 (.02) .12 (.08) .93 (.09) 1.49 (.12) 2.26 (.22)
others.
10. I value how sexually desirable I am to others. .69 .83 (.02) -.50 (.08) .45 (.08) 1.16 (.10) 1.85 (.16)

11. People are interested in me because of my sex appeal. .66 .81 (.03) .38 (.08) 1.03 (.10) 1.59 (.13) 2.26 (.22)

12. I place value on how much others want to have sex with .69 .83 (.03) .55 (.08) 1.12 (.10) 1.67 (.14) 2.26 (.22)
me.
13. Others value me for what I can do for them sexually. .71 .84 (.03) .56 (.08) 1.03 (.10) 1.63 (.13) 2.14 (.20)

Sexual Self-Objectification: Partner Subscale

14. My sexual wants and needs are less important than the .48 .69 (.06) -.02 (.08) .39 (.08) .96 (.09) 1.66 (.14)
wants and needs of a sexual partner of mine.
15. It is more important to me that my sexual partner has an .51 .71 (.05) -.49 (.08) .05 (.08) .56 (.08) 1.28 (.11)
orgasm than that I have one.
16. Even if I‘m not in the mood for sex, I should sexually .70 .84 (.06) -.54 (.08) .13 (.08) .75 (.09) 1.33 (.11)
please my partner.
17. A responsibility of mine as someone‘s dating partner or .74 .86 (.06) -.40 (.08) .30 (.08) .83 (.09) 1.38 (.11)
spouse would be to have sex when my partner wants to.
Note. SE = standard error; ̂ = estimated loading of the ith item; ̂ – ̂ = Estimated thresholds 1 – 4 for the ith item. Covariances were as follows: Items 14 and 15: 0.34 (0.10);

Items 16 and 17: 0.65 (0.11); Self-image and Partner factors: 0.47 (0.06). See Supplemental M aterials Table 2 for unstandardized estimates and estimates for the validation sample.
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 43

Table 2. Correlations between SSOS and Related Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. SSOS general --
2. SSOS partner .46** --
3. OBCS body surveillance .56** .18** --
4. OBCS body shame .43** .26** .59** --
5. SOQ .56** .35** .59** .41** --

6. ISOS .46* .19** .21** .22** .21* --

7. ESS .72** .36** .53** .41** .50** .29* --
8. SSBQ .69** .34** .48** .33** .43** .43** .62** --
9. SBS .65** .29** .27** .34** .33** .42** .54** .56** --
10. SES .24** .14* .10 .26** .15* .39** .12 .14 .25** --
11. TSS role of sex .51** .31** .24** .34** .25** .37** .39** .33** .44** .45** --
12. TSS attraction .67** .34** .36** .34** .40** .41** .49** .49** .56** .32** .71** --
13. ASI .37** .39** .16* .20** .25** .07 .36** .33** .26** .05 .22** .33** --
14. MC .11 -.05 .31** .31** .17** .05 .20** .05 .07 .15* .26** .15* -.08
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. Correlations represent association between observed scale scores. SSOS self-image = sexual self-objectification self-image subscale. SSOS partner =

sexual self-objectification partner subscale. OBCS = objectified body consciousness scale. SOQ = self-objectification questionnaire. ISOS = interpersonal sexual objectification

scale. ESS = enjoyment of sexualization scale. SSBQ = self-sexualizing behavior questionnaire. SBS = sexualizing behavior scale. SES = sexual experience survey. TSS role of

sex = role of sex in relationships subscale on TSS. TSS attraction= attraction/interest and sexuality subscale on the TSI. ASI = ambivalence sexism scale. M C = M arlowe-Crowne

social desirability scale.

SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 44

Table 3. Correlations between SSOS, OBCS, and SOBBS in Study 2

1 2 3 4 5

1. SSOS general --

2. SSOS partner .34** --

3. OBCS body surveillance .50** .17** --

4. OBCS body shame .44** .23** .60** --

5. SOBBS factor 1 .57** .22** .76** .66** --

6. SOBBS factor 2 .54** .31** .52** .63** .53**

Note. *p < .01; **p < .001. Correlations represent association between observed scale scores. SSOS = sexual self-objectification

scale. OBCS = objectified body consciousness scale. SOBBS factor 1 is assesses internalizing an observer‘s perspective of the

body, and factor 2 contained items about equating the body to who one is as a person and valuing physical appearance above

other attributes.
SEXUAL SELF-OBJECTIFICATION SCALE 45

Figure 1. Conceptual overlap between sexual self-objectification and related constructs.

Note. Sexualization (APA, 2007), sexual objectification (APA, 2007; Bartky, 1990; Fredrickson
& Roberts, 1997), self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), sexual self-objectification,
and self-sexualization (Nowatzki, & Morry, 2009).