DO IMAGES OF AESTHETIC AND NON-AESTHETIC FEMALE ATHLETES HAVE THE SAME IMPACT ON OBJECTIFICATION? A Thesis by Micalee Segers Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies at Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF ARTS December 2021 Department of Psychology DO IMAGES OF AESTHETIC AND NON-AESTHETIC FEMALE ATHLETES HAVE THE SAME IMPACT ON OBJECTIFICATION? A Thesis by MICALEE SEGERS December 2021 APPROVED BY: Doris Bazzini Chairperson, Thesis Committee Lisa Curtin Member, Thesis Committee Chris Dickinson Member, Thesis Committee Rose Mary Webb Chairperson, Department of Psychology Marie Hoepfl, Ed. Interim Dean, Cratis D. Williams School of Graduate Studies Copyright by Micalee Segers 2021 All Rights Reserved Abstract DO IMAGES OF AESTHETIC AND NON-AESTHETIC FEMALE ATHLETES HAVE THE SAME IMPACT ON OBJECTIFICATION Micalee Segers B., Carson Newman University M., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Dr. Rose Mary Webb Female athletes are often depicted in a sexualizing and objectifying manner.
Building off objectification theory, previous research has illustrated that when women view sexualized images of female athletes, they report increased self-objectification compared to viewing performance images. Viewing performance images is thought to be beneficial and empowering. However, past research has not yet parsed apart these images by sport type (aesthetic vs. Prior research has also demonstrated that the visual process used when viewing sexualized women is different than when viewing sexualized men.
Visual processes may provide insight into why viewing sexualized images of female athletes prompts differing self- objectification. The present study combined what is known concerning images of female athletes and visual attention to expand on what images prompt more self-objectification, and whether the focal point of those images offers explanations as to why. Participants were randomized to view sexualized vs. performance images of the same female athletes from either aesthetic or non aesthetic sports, and then completed a measure of self-objectification and body surveillance.
A heat map measure was used to examine visual attention to images. No differences emerged in iv ratings of self-objectification or body surveillance after exposure to either sport types or image types. However, the type of image viewed did impact visual fixations in terms of self-selected interest points. Findings suggest that type of sport may not be as influential on self- objectification in the viewer as participants in those particular sports.
Results also highlight important distinctions between measures of state and traits self-objectification in media-based intervention studies. Additionally, the possibility that the dichotomization of “sexy” vs. “powerful” when women view sexualized female athletes is changing is discussed. v Acknowledgments Thank you to everyone who has helped me through this lengthy journey.
Bazzini, I could not have done this without you. I have learned so much under your guidance. I also want to thank my committee members, Dr. Dickinson and Dr.
Curtin, who have been crucial in my thesis’s development and production. Finally, thank you to all my friends and family who have offered their unyielding support over the last three years. I could not have done it without you all. vi Table of Contents Abstract.
vi List of Tables. viii List of Figures .14 Planned Statistical Analyses .43 vii List of Tables Table 1. Means and SDs of Four Manipulation Check Assessments. Means and SDs for Participants’ Scores, .42 viii List of Figures Figure 1.
Sport Type by Image Type Interaction .42 ix 1 Do Images of Aesthetic and Non-Aesthetic Female Athletes Have the Same Impact on Self- Objectification? Images of female athletes have traditionally emphasized their sexuality more so than their abilities (Frisby, 2017; Salwen & Wood, 1994), perhaps undermining the potential empowerment benefit they could afford to female viewers. The popularity of women’s sports, however, has begun to challenge these traditional depictions. Despite evidence that exposure to images of female athletes performing their sport can reduce the self-objectification that so commonly occurs when women see sexualized images of other women, whether this varies as a function of sport type is unclear (Daniels 2009; Linder & Daniels, 2017). Building on previous research and theories concerning self-objectification, the present study sought to investigate whether all images of female athletes are empowering and beneficial to women, or if a sport emphasizing the physical appearance of the athlete (aesthetic sports) versus one that does not (non-aesthetic) moderates the influence of these images on women’s own body perception.
Images of Women and Female Athletes Women have not always had the opportunity to participate in sports. Traditionally, women were not allowed to compete in sports that were deemed too rough for their “delicate sensibilities.” It was believed that participating in rough sports could diminish a woman's reproductive ability (History. Although this thinking declined, it still had lasting effects throughout history. For a period of time, women were allowed to participate in some sports such as country club sports like tennis and swimming (History.
Once women were allowed to participate in sports without fear of reproductive consequences, opportunities were still unequal. While men were able to compete in competitive collegiate athletics, women were only able to partake in recreational intramural sports. For example, professional baseball 2 began in 1876 for men, however, women were not granted access until 1943, when the All- American Girls Baseball Team was formed (Bell, 2007; History. This only occurred because Major League Baseball (MLB) was canceled due to World War II (Bell, 2007).
The All- American Girls Baseball Team only lasted about 12 years and did not translate to women’s modern-day presence in MLB. Instead, a coexisting sport was created for women, softball. The passing of Title IX in 1972 by the U. Congress saw slow but steady change toward greater equality between men and women in terms of scholarships, access to supplies, scheduling, and other sporting opportunities (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2017).
The legislation “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity” (The United States Department of Justice). For example, in 1972, women’s participation in collegiate athletics was 15%. This increased to 43% by 2001 (Bell, 2007). Every year since the passing of Title IX, the opportunities for participation in sports has increased for men and women (NCAA, 2017).
With more opportunities, interest in women’s sports by viewers has shown commercial success in revenue generation, with some sports having more success than those of their male counterparts (e., the women’s national soccer team has generated more revenue than the men’s team in recent years and obtained more viewership when competing (Hess, 2019). Layered on top of such inequities in women’s sports, female athletes are still depicted in more traditional ways, with a focus on their beauty and youthfulness, and as secondary to men (Frisby, 2017; Salwen & Wood, 1994). This emphasis on physical appearance can be observed via media outlets, even those alleged to be targeted toward athleticism. For example, Salwen and Wood (1994) investigated the ways in which female athletes appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated from 1957 to 1989 (and how often women were depicted relative to men).
They found 3 that male athletes (95.6%) appeared more often on the cover than female athletes (4. Furthermore, when women were on the cover, they were depicted in an objectifying manner, in which their body was emphasized rather than their athletic capability. Males, by contrast, were typically shown in active poses, engaged in their sports, and wearing their uniform (unlike women who were more likely to be depicted in passive, non-active poses). This objectifying depiction may not be unique to female athletes and sports magazines.
Bazzini et al. (2015) used a content analysis of men’s and women’s health magazines to illustrate greater objectification of female cover images. A more recent study, examining covers from January 2012 to December 2016, revealed that this has not changed since 1989. Frisby (2017) conducted a similar study assessing the occurrence of female athletes on the covers of Sports Illustrated as well as ESPN.
Across the 109 covers of Sports Illustrated and ESPN magazine examined, only 12% of the covers featured female athletes, with 88% focusing on male athletes. Through a content analysis, it was also found that female athletes are oftentimes portrayed in sexualized poses, dressed minimally and provocatively, and not pictured in their uniform or engaged in team sport. Frisby argued that female athletes are still depicted in a sexualized and objectified manner, with an emphasis on beauty-related body features rather than their athletic capability. In summary, despite the increases in women’s participation in professional sports over the decades (NCAA 2017), women are less represented than their male athletic counterparts and when they are seen they tend to be sexualized and portrayed through an objectifying lens (Frisby, 2017; Salwen & Wood, 1994).
Female athletes are still more likely to be seen in a passive, highly sexualized manner rather than performing their sport. The influence of observing such images has been the topic of recent investigation surrounding female body image. 4 Sexual vs Performance Athletic Images Objectification Theory, coined by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), postulates that women are treated, viewed, and evaluated as objects rather than human beings. When viewing a woman, the viewer attends to a woman’s features more as an object to be admired rather than a human being.
This has implications for how women are treated, as well as how they view themselves. A component of Objectification Theory includes the idea that women can internalize being objectified to the point that they view themselves as objects. This is defined as self- objectification. Increased self-objectification has been linked to negative outcomes such as restrictive and disordered eating as well as depressive symptoms (Muehlenkamp & Saris- Baglama, 2002).
Media has been implicated by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) as a common source of messaging that reinforces female objectification. This effect has been identified in a multitude of ways across different studies. For example, Karsay et al.'s (2017) meta-analysis of published research from 1997 to 2016 found experimental evidence of a moderate-to-small effect size for increased self-objectification after being exposed to sexualizing media content across 50 studies. When looking at studies using college student samples, however, the effect size was robust.
In such studies, exposure was generally induced via thin-ideal models and celebrities (as compared to non-sexualized images or no images) followed by measures of women’s state self- objectification. Daniels (2009) was among the first to identify the potentially divergent implications of exposure to depictions of professional female athletes in either physically active depictions or sexual poses for female audiences. It was predicted that in line with objectification theory, viewing an image focused on an athlete’s ability rather than their physical features would reduce 5 objectification. Images promoting the physical beauty of the athlete instead were alleged to instigate an objectifying gaze.
The objectifying gaze refers to evaluating a person as an object to be looked upon, rather than a human being. This is particularly likely to evoke attention to sexual body parts, rather than the face (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). As mentioned previously, within Objectification Theory, self-objectification can occur due to internalizing the objectifying gaze. Thus, images that increase the likelihood of prompting the objectifying gaze should subsequently increase the likelihood of self-objectification in the viewer.
In turn, images that decrease the objectifying gaze may consecutively decrease self-objectification in the viewer. To increase the ecological validity of the study, Daniels evaluated the images for similarity across attractiveness, age, and affect. Following exposure to the images, the participants completed the revised State Self-Objectification Scale (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), in which women respond to the statement, “I am _________.” Responses were then sorted into categories that included self-objectifying and physicality self-descriptors. Self- objectifying statements were any statement in which the female focused on one of their bodily or physical features (e., “I am blonde”, “I am fat”).
Physicality self-descriptors were categorized as statements about the participants' character traits (e., “I am good at water polo”, “I am weak”). Daniels (2009) found that in the sexual condition, women made more self-objectifying statements rather than physicality self-descriptors.