↓ Skip to main content

Experimental Studies on State Self-Objectification: A Review and an Integrative Process Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
59 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experimental Studies on State Self-Objectification: A Review and an Integrative Process Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rotem Kahalon, Nurit Shnabel, Julia C. Becker

Abstract

This paper provides an organizing framework for the experimental research on the effects of state self-objectification on women. We explain why this body of work, which had grown rapidly in the last 20 years, departs from the original formulation of objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). We compare the different operationalizations of state self-objectification and examine how they map onto its theoretical definition, concluding that the operationalizations have focused mostly on one component of this construct (concerns about one's physical appearance) while neglecting others (adopting a third-person perspective and treating oneself as a dehumanized object). We review the main findings of studies that experimentally induced state self-objectification and examined its affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and physiological outcomes. We note that three core outcomes of this state as specified by objectification theory (safety anxiety, reduced flow experiences, and awareness of internal body states) have hardly been examined so far. Most importantly, we introduce an integrative process model, suggesting that the reported effects are triggered by four different mechanisms: appearance monitoring, experience of discrepancy from appearance standards, stereotype threat, and activation of the "sex object" schema. We propose strategies for distinguishing between these mechanisms and explain the theoretical and practical importance of doing so.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 42 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 44 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 497. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2024.
All research outputs
#56,177
of 26,576,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#97
of 35,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,092
of 345,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#5
of 729 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,576,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 729 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.