Goal achieved? The role of sexual goals in influencing women’s perceptions and attitudes in sexually objectifying relationships

written by Bianca Tallone, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, Luca Andrighetto & Chiara Pecini

Editorial Assistants: Lukas Repnik and Maren Giersiepen.

Note: An earlier version of this article has been published in the Italian version of In-Mind.

In this article, we demonstrate that perceived sexual objectification in interpersonal relationships can depend on factors such as the presence of sexual goals and how these goals are aligned between interaction partners. We present studies examining how the activation and alignment of sexual goals shape individuals’ cost-benefit evaluations and their subsequent intentions to continue the interaction.

Figure 1: Interaction

It is Saturday night, you are leaning against the bar, talking for the first time with someone you find very attractive. You aimed to catch their attention, and you did. Their gaze is on your body, they like what they see, and they tell you so openly. How would you feel in this situation? How would you behave?

Now, let’s try to imagine a similar scenario. This time, however, a person you are not interested in and whose attention you did not want to attract approaches you. You were out with your group of friends and wanted to spend the evening with them. Instead, this person comes up to you, begins looking at your body, and compliments you on your appearance. How would you feel in this situation? Would you experience the same feelings and react as you did in the previous scenario? Probably not, and the reason may relate to the context – that is, what you wanted to get out of that evening: either to catch the attention of that person (scenario 1) or to enjoy an evening with your friends (scenario 2).

Figure 2. Bar

In social psychology, the gazes and compliments directed at the body mentioned in the two scenarios are considered subtle forms of sexual objectification, a phenomenon where a person is reduced to a mere sexual object [1], [2], [3]. When sexually objectified, the target is no longer perceived as a person but as a collection of body parts that exist solely to satisfy others’ sexual aims [4]. Sexual objectification is a widespread phenomenon, especially in Western societies, which are still heavily influenced by unequal gender relations. While this phenomenon can affect either gender [5], it is most closely associated with the experience of the female body [6]. Therefore, in this article, we focus on sexual objectification carried out by men and directed toward women. Notably, the majority of studies on sexual objectification focus on men’s objectification of women. Consequently, the evidence synthesized here reflects primarily heterosexual experiences, restricting its applicability to other relational contexts and highlighting the need for broader empirical investigation.

The sexual objectification of women has serious consequences [7]. For example, numerous studies have shown that sexual objectification is linked to lower perceptions of competence, morality, warmth, and intelligence in the target [8]. Additionally, women’s sexual objectification is connected to increased justification of gender-based violence [9], [2], [10] and higher acceptance of rape myths [11].

According to Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts [6], sexual objectification is a phenomenon that mainly occurs in two areas: a) media, through, for example, representations of women that focus primarily or solely on their sexual attributes or physical attractiveness, and b) social relationships. In this article, we will specifically focus on the latter area. Within social relationships, sexual objectification can appear through a wide range of behaviors and attitudes that we can place along a spectrum from the more subtle forms of sexual objectification to the most extreme forms, such as rape and sexual violence [9].

The more subtle forms of sexual objectification include behaviors such as, for example, objectifying gazes or explicit comments directed at a person’s body or at some of its parts. Research suggests that these subtle forms are the most common ones women face daily and across various social settings [6], [12], in addition, they can also have negative effects on women’s well-being, specifically by increasing internalization of objectification, which is defined as self-objectification [13], [14], [15]. This process leads to more surveillance and shame about one’s physical appearance and results in lower self-esteem [16].

Some studies within the field of sexual objectification in interpersonal interactions have shown that when women engage with a partner who sexually objectifies them (for example, through an objectifying gaze or comments directed at their body), the interaction is judged as less pleasant [17] and less authentic [18]. Alongside these studies, others report somewhat unexpected results. For instance, in a study conducted by Sarah Gervais and her team [19], it was found that, despite the negative effects generally linked to sexual objectification in social relationships (such as increased self-objectification, greater body shame, and lower performance), women who received objectifying gazes from their interaction partner reported a higher desire to continue engaging with that person. This naturally raises the question of why a woman would want to keep interacting with someone who has engaged in demeaning behaviors toward her.

Figure 3. Compatibility

In this context, a recent theoretical model proposed by Gervais and her colleagues [16], called the Social Interaction Model of Objectification (SIMO), emphasizes that numerous factor – individual, interpersonal, social – contribute to shaping women’s perceptions and behavioral intentions when they are involved in sexually objectifying exchanges with men. For example, as mentioned earlier, since female objectification is not only normalized in Western societies but also encouraged, women may come to accept sexual objectification as a normal aspect of social interactions, engage in self-objectification, and base their self-esteem on how men perceive them. This can lead them to seek approval through sexually objectifying relationships. Additionally, some women may find themselves in relationships where imbalanced power dynamics prevent them from stopping objectifying interactions (e.g., workplace relationships or situations where asserting themselves could lead to negative consequences). The SIMO also suggests that the sexual goals of the people involved in the objectifying relationship and their (in)compatibility play a crucial role in shaping how the relationship is perceived and the behavioral intentions of the individuals. Specifically, in Western society, when men’s sexual goals are activated, they may engage in sexually objectifying behaviors. In contrast, for women, the activation of sexual goals mainly results in self-objectifying behaviors and monitoring their own physical appearance. According to the SIMO, if both participants in the exchange have active sexual goals (a condition of compatible sexual goals), then the relationship will likely be viewed positively: especially, the benefits of staying in the exchange will outweigh the costs. On the other hand, in a scenario where sexual goals are incompatible – such as the one described in the second scenario in the introduction, where the man’s sexual goals do not align with her goal of spending time with friends – the costs will outweigh the benefits, and the interaction will be seen as negative. The SIMO, therefore, emphasizes how the alignment (or misalignment) of sexual goals affects the costs versus benefits of staying in a sexually objectifying exchange. Cost-benefit analysis is an important mental process that follows and influences a sexually objectifying interaction. If the perceived benefits outweigh the costs, a person is more likely to choose to stay in the interaction and seek greater closeness with the other person. On the other hand, if the perceived costs outweigh the benefits, they are more likely to end the interaction and create distance from the other individual. However, the connection between (in)compatibility of sexual goals, cost-benefit analysis, and behavioral intentions (such as staying or leaving the interaction) has so far only been proposed theoretically. In a recent study [20], we examined the assumptions of the SIMO by asking participants to imagine a social exchange with a man whose sexual goals were active and who displayed a series of sexually objectifying behaviors toward them (e.g., sexualizing gazes, comments about the body). The results confirmed that the interaction between the activation and (in)compatibility of one’s own sexual goals with those of the interaction partner affects the perception of the relationship itself and related behavioral intentions. Indeed, the results showed that when sexual goals are activated in both women and men (meaning compatibility), participants viewed it as “advantageous” (benefits > costs) to stay in the social exchange, and as a result, they reported greater intentions to continue the relationship. Based on these findings, we can provide an initial answer to the research question that motivated these studies: given all the negative outcomes linked to sexual objectification in social relationships, why do women sometimes want to continue interacting with a man who exhibits sexually objectifying behaviors? From this data, it appears that the role of sexual goals influences how a sexually objectifying interaction is perceived and, consequently, affects the behavioral intentions of the women involved. Research on sexual objectification has traditionally viewed women as passive subjects without goals during social interactions with men. However, our studies demonstrate that by adjusting the activation of women’s sexual goals, we can influence how a sexually objectifying exchange is perceived and affect their intentions to stay or leave the interaction. This is precisely the case illustrated in the opening scenario: a woman approached at the bar was in a situation of compatibility between her sexual goals and those of the man who was approaching her. Within this context, the man’s gaze directed at her body and the clear perception of his physical interest were not interpreted as devaluing, but rather as consistent with the woman’s active goals, and were therefore associated with a subjectively positive experience and a consequent intention to continue the interaction. This, of course, does not imply that a sexually objectifying relationship can be considered positive. Indeed, women may accept these kinds of demeaning interactions as “normal” because they are influenced by social norms that endorse power imbalances within gender relations, such as sexism or a patriarchal view of society. However, our results highlight the complexity involved in how people perceive what is or is not “sexual objectification,” which is understood as the reduction of a person to a sexual object for others’ satisfaction. Recognizing that one’s own sexual goals can influence how dehumanizing treatment is perceived raises new questions about the nature of intimate bonds and how sexual dynamics impact self-view and perceptions of others. In this complex context, there is a need for further detailed research in psychology to fully understand the nuances of both consensual and non-consensual sexual interactions. Reflecting on how sexual goals shape the perception of dehumanizing treatment provides a crucial starting point for fostering more empathetic, respectful, and aware relationships.

Bibliography

[1] M. G. Pacilli, Quando le persone diventano cose: corpo e genere come uniche dimensioni di umanità. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino, 2014.
[2] C. Pecini, F. Guizzo, H. Bonache, N. Borges-Castells, M. D. Morera, and J. Vaes, “Sexual objectification: advancements and avenues for future research,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 50, Art. no. 101261, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101261.
[3] L. M. Ward, E. A. Daniels, E. L. Zurbriggen, and D. Rosenscruggs, “The sources and consequences of sexual objectification,” Nature Reviews Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 496–513, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s44159-023-00192-x
[4] S. L. Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 1990.
[5] C. M. Davids, L. B. Watson, and M. P. Gere, “Objectification, masculinity, and muscularity: A test of objectification theory with heterosexual men,” Sex Roles, vol. 80, no. 7–8, pp. 443–457, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0940-6.
[6] B. L. Fredrickson and T.-A. Roberts, “Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 173–206, 1997, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
[7] T.-A. Roberts, R. M. Calogero, and S. J. Gervais, “Objectification theory: Continuing contributions to feminist psychology,” in APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: History, Theory, and Battlegrounds, vol. 1, C. B. Travis, J. W. White, A. Rutherford, W. S. Williams, S. L. Cook, and K. F. Wyche, Eds. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association, 2018, pp. 249–271, doi: 10.1037/0000059-013.
[8] S. Loughnan and M. G. Pacilli, “Seeing (and treating) others as sexual objects: Toward a more complete mapping of sexual objectification,” TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 309–325, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.4473/TPM21.3.6.
[9] S. J. Gervais and S. Eagan, “Sexual objectification: The common thread connecting myriad forms of sexual violence against women,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 226–232, 2017, doi: 10.1037/ort0000257.
[10] E. L. Zurbriggen, “Objectification, self-objectification, and societal change,” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 188–215, 2013. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.94
[11] S. Loughnan, A. Pina, E. A. Vasquez, and E. Puvia, “Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 455–461, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0361684313485718.
[12] E. Holland, P. Koval, M. Stratemeyer, F. Thomson, and N. Haslam, “Sexual objectification in women’s daily lives: A smartphone ecological momentary assessment study,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 314–333, 2017, doi: 10.1111/bjso.12152.
[13] R. M. Calogero, S. Tantleff-Dunn, and J. K. Thompson, Eds., Self-Objectification in Women: Causes, Consequences, and Counteractions. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association, 2011.
[14] N. M. McKinley and J. S. Hyde, “The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 181–215, 1996, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x
[15] A. R. Riemer, G. Sáez, R. Brock, and S. J. Gervais, “Self-fulfilling objectification in relationships: The effects of men’s objectifying expectations on women’s self-objectification during conflict in romantic relationships,” Self and Identity, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 854–860, 2021, doi: 10.1080/15298868.2020.1778518.
[16] S. J. Gervais, G. Sáez, A. R. Riemer, and O. Klein, “The Social Interaction Model of Objectification: A process model of goal-based objectifying exchanges between men and women,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 248–283, 2020, doi: 10.1111/bjso.12339.
[17] G. Sáez, A. R. Riemer, I. Valor-Segura, and F. Expósito, “‘I’ll stop talking now’: Decreased interaction length in mixed- sex interpersonal interactions as response to objectification,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 180–188, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0265407520958474.
[18] R. L. Garcia, V. A. Earnshaw, and D. M. Quinn, “Objectification in action: Self- and other-objectification in mixed- sex interpersonal interactions,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 40, pp. 213–228, 2016, doi: 10.1177/0361684315614966.
[19] S. J. Gervais, T. K. Vescio, and J. Allen, “When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0361684310386121
[20] C. Pecini, A. R. Riemer, G. Sáez, L. Andrighetto, and S. J. Gervais, “I have a goal. Il ruolo dei goal sessuali e della compatibilità degli obiettivi delle donne nelle relazioni oggettivanti,” presented at the Italian Association of Psychology thematic day “La psicologia sociale e i processi di interdipendenza online e offline”, Naples, Italy, Sep. 14–15, 2023. https://aipass.org/eventi/la-psicologia-sociale-e-i-processi-di-interdip...