<%BANNER%>

Eating Disorder Symptomatology in Gay Men: Testing an Extension of Objectification Theory


PAGE 1

1 EATING DISORDER SYMPTOMATOLOGY IN GAY MEN: TESTING AN EXTENSION OF OBJECTIFICATION THEORY By MARCIE C. WISEMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 by Marcie C. Wiseman

PAGE 3

3 To my mother-in-law Nancy who first mentioned to me the possibility of graduate school.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am thankful to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Bonnie Moradi for her invaluable guidance, support, and encouragement throughout th is process. I would al so like to thank my committee members Dr. Carlos Hernandez and Dr Mary Fukuyama for th eir assistance. In addition, I would like to thank my husband Ben. I could never have accomplished this without his love and support. Finally, I would like to thank my mother for the love and encouragement she has given me over the years.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................17 Disordered Eating and Body Imag e Disturbance in Gay Men...............................................17 Objectification Theory......................................................................................................... ...22 Gay Mens Experiences of Sociocultural Pressures...............................................................26 Sexual Objectification of Gay Men........................................................................................27 Experiences of Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity.........................32 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................... ......35 3 METHODS........................................................................................................................ .....39 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........39 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ..........40 Measures....................................................................................................................... ..........41 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......47 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................... .....47 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... ........47 Hypotheses 2, 3, 4: Mediations Based on th e Objectification Theory Framework................48 Hypothesis 5: Direct an d Indirect Links of In ternalized Homophobia and Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity..............................................52 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....57 Limitations and Directions for Future Research.....................................................................60 Implications for Practice...................................................................................................... ...63 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........64 APPENDIX A OBJECTIFICATION EXPERI ENCES QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................66 B THE SOCIOCULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD APPEARANCE INTERNALIZATION SUBSCALE (SATAQ)......................................................................67

PAGE 6

6 C THE MOTHER FATHER PEER SCALE........................................................................68 D BODY SURVEILLANCE SUBSCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (OBC)......................................................................................69 E BODY SHAME SUBSCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (OBC).................................................................................................................... ....70 F THE EATING ATTITUDES TEST 26 (EAT-26)..............................................................71 G INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SCALE (IHP)...............................................................72 E DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................73 F REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... ..77 G BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..................................................................................................82

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Summary statistics and pa rtial correlations among vari ables of interest with body mass index controlled........................................................................................................55

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1. Hypothesized path model...................................................................................................38 4 2. Full model depicting relations hips among variables of interest........................................56 5 3. Trimmed model depicting relati onships among variab les of interest................................65

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EATING DISORDER SYMPTOMA TOLOGY IN GAY MEN: TESTING AN EXTENSION OF OB JECTIFICATION THEORY By Marcie C. Wiseman May 2007 Chair: Bonnie Moradi Major: Psychology Men account for at least 10% of the cases of anorexia and bulimia. Gay men are overrepresented among these cases, accounting for as much as 30% of men with a diagnosable eating disorder. Objectification theory is a promis ing theoretical framework that has been used to understand eating disorder symptomatology in women. This perspective posits that sexual objectification experiences lead wo men to self-objectify and self-objectification in turn is an important precursor to eating diso rder-related attitudes and behavi ors. There is evidence that men, especially gay men, are becoming incr easingly sexually obj ectified. Based on an integration of research on object ification theory and research on eating disorder symptomatology among gay men, the present study examined links among sexual objectification experiences, internalization of cultural stan dards of attractiveness standard s, teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity, internalized homophobia, self-objectification, body shame and eating disorder symptomatology with a sample of 231 gay men. These links were examined through a path analysis of the theory-based model. The re sults indicated that the objectification theory framework was applicable for gay men, and that the additional roles of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity and internalized hom ophobia are important to consider for this

PAGE 10

10 population. Limitations of the study, potential implications of th e findings, and directions for future research are also discussed.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Eating disorders have been perceived as womens disorders (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, & Hayes, 2000). Nevertheless, me n account for at least 10% of the cases of anorexia and bulimia (Andersen, 1992). This percentage translates into nearly 1 million men diagnosed with eating disorders each year and co uld actually reflect an underestimate because eating disorders are often overlooked or misdia gnosed in men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, & Hayes, 2000). For example, even the DSM -IV-TR shows bias in diagnostic criteria for anorexia nervosa in that amenorrhea is listed as a criterion but no parall el symptom is listed for men, despite evidence that supports parallel physi ological changes in men. More specifically, a decrease in the amount of testosterone has been observed to occur w ith eating disorders among men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, & Haye s, 2000) and a decrease in sperm production has been observed among men weighing 25% less th an their healthy body weight (Frisch, 1988). Extant data suggest that eating disorders and related symptomatology may be more prevalent among gay men than among heterosexual men. For example, several studies have demonstrated that incidence of body dissatisfacti on, concern with weight, and disordered eating are much higher for gay men than for hetero sexual men (Bramon-Bosch, Troop, & Treasure, 2000; Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; Carl at, Camargo, & Herzog, 1997; Epel, Spanakos, Kasl-Godley, & Brownell, 1996; French, Stor y, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Williamson & Hartley, 1998). In fact, gay men are overrepre sented among men with eating disorders; gay men make up an estimated 3 to 5 % of the U.S. population (Andersen, 1999) but make up approximately 30% of eating disorder cases among men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, & Hayes, 2000). Furthermore, a study by Russell and Keel (2002) identified gay orientation as a specific risk factor for eati ng disorder symptomatology amon g men. More specifically, sexual

PAGE 12

12 orientation accounted for signi ficant variance in body dissatisfac tion and symptoms of bulimia and anorexia, above and beyond the variance acc ounted for by depression symptomatology and level of self-esteem. This finding suggests th at beyond the role of overall mental health, something unique about the experience of being gay might contribute to the higher rates of eating disorder symptomatology among men. There has been much speculation about th e reasons for the higher rates of eating pathology among gay men than among heterosexu al men (Heffernan, 1994; Klingenspor, 2002; Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams 1999; Siever, 1994). Some schol ars have suggested that the importance placed on gay mens attractiveness in gay culture may be one explanation for this difference (Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishki nd, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989). For example, a study by Siever (1994) found that co mpared to heterosexual men, gay men placed more importance on physical appear ance in evaluations of themse lves and potential partners. Gay men also were found to have a thinner ideal body type for themselves and their partners than the body types preferred by heterosexual men (Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1991). These ideals are reflected in th e following excerpt from The Gay & Lesbian Review a popular lesbian/gay periodical, To find the perfect man, I must become the perfect man. Being boyfriend material, in short, means having a nice body, which one needs as a kind of dowry to be considered marriageable. (DiC arlo, 2001, p. 14). In addition, gay mens scores on measures of body dissatisfaction and eating pathol ogy were more similar to that of heterosexual women than that of heterosexual men (Siever, 1994). Emphasi s on physical appearance and attractiveness as a source of body dissatisfaction and eating path ology for gay men parallels theoretical conceptualizations that point to sociocultural pressures as a source of body dissatisfaction and eating pathology for women. Thus, extant literatu re on sociocultural co rrelates of womens

PAGE 13

13 eating disorder symptomatology can serve as important groundwork for advancing understanding of eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. Objectification theory, developed by Fredri ckson and Roberts (1997), represents an important advancement in understanding eati ng disorder symptomatology among women. The objectification theory framework suggests th at through experiences of cultural sexual objectification, women in western so ciety come to view their bodies as objects. Fredrickson and Roberts defined sexual obj ectification as the expe rience of being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others (p.174). Sexual objectification experiences can in clude experiences such as viewing sexualized media images, being called a derogatory name based on ones gender, having inappropr iate comments made about ones body, and being the target of offens ive, sexualized gestures. These experiences reduce an individual to her or his body, body parts, or body f unctions, especially sexual functions. Fredrickson and Robe rts (1997) posited that as a result of sexual objectification experiences, the individual may adopt an obs ervers perspective upon her or his own body (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This taking on an observers perspective upon ones own body is referred to as self-objec tification and is manifested as habitual body monitoring. Selfobjectification or habitual body su rveillance has been linked cons istently to eating disorderrelated attitudes, behaviors, and symptomato logy (Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and Twenge, 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehle nkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Roberts & Gettman, 2004). Self-objectificati on can be devastating when indi viduals evaluate themselves against an internalized cultural ideal and feel th at they do not measure up to that ideal. This perceived discrepancy is often experienced as body shame. Body shame has been found to

PAGE 14

14 mediate the relation between se lf-objectificatio n and eating disorder symptomatology (Noll & Frederickson, 1988; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005; Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001). Although objectification theory focuses speci fically on womens experiences of sexual objectification as a precursor to eating disorder-related attitudes, behaviors, and symptoms, there is evidence that men are becoming increasingly se xually objectified in ou r society (Rohlinger, 2002). In fact, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997 ) acknowledged that men also may experience sexual objectification and that me ns unique experiences should be examined. Such attention is particularly important in light of evidence that instead of redu cing sexually objectifying portrayals of women in the media, there has been an increase in sexually objectifying portrayals of men in the media. More sp ecifically, Rohlinger (2002) anal yzed media images over a period of 10 years (1987-1997), and found evidence sugg esting that men increasingly are being portrayed in sexually objectified ways. The fo cus of the study by Rohlinger (2002) was on the erotic male which the researchers defined as b eing placed on display either by himself or with other models, being positioned in a sexual manner, most often posed or caught in a personal movement. In addition, he rarely smiles, th e body is emphasized th erefore the setting is typically plain, blurred, or othe rwise unclear, and his eyes are often focused on something other than the surr ounding models or audience (p. 67). All of this serv es to keep the focus on the body (Rohlinger, 2002). Furthermore, sexualized and objectifying medi a images of men are thought to be specifically targeting gay men, by capitalizing on the dual marketing approach (Clark, 1995; Rohlinger, 2002; Sender, 1999). The dual marketing approach is a technique employed by advertisers to target gay/lesbian consumers without offendi ng the straight audience (Clark, 1995; Sender, 1999). The guidelines set fo rth for this technique are to avoid explicit references to heterosexuality by depicting only one individual or same-sexed individuals within

PAGE 15

15 the representation frame. In addition, these mode ls bear the signifiers of sexual ambiguity, or androgynous style. But gayness remains in the eye of the beholder (Clark, 1995, p.144). Thus, the dual marketing approach is used to subtly ta rget gay audiences. In an article of The Gay and Lesbian Review, John DiCarlo (2001) expressed his concern regarding this issue. DiCarlo describes his reaction after viewing an Abercr ombie & Fitch catalogue; All the clothes seem like an afterthought, as do the women placed in th e margins. He also comments that the slim but muscular body style represente d in the catalogue is especial ly appealing to gay men and that he himself works hard to achieve this ideal (p. 14). In addition to the deleterious potential im pact of experiences of sexual objectification suggested by objectification theory, research on eating disorder symptomatology among gay men points to experiences of teas ing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity as another type of objectification that is correlated with eating disorder-related attitudes and behaviors for this population. For example, Beren (1997) found that early negative attention, defined as childhood teasing for gender nonconformity (e.g., being teased for liking girl toys or not being athletic or masculine enough, being called a sissy, faggot, or cr ybaby), was related positiv ely to internalized homophobia (i.e., the internalizati on of societys negative stereot ypes about lesbian/gay persons). Higher levels of internalized homoph obia, in turn, were related to higher levels of eating disorder symptomatology (Beren, 1997). This pattern points to the importance of considering the role of childhood teasing in eating pathol ogy for gay men. One possible e xplanation for the role of gender-nonconformity-based teasing and harassment in eating disorder symptoms of gay men is that such teasing and harassment might promote increased awareness, monitoring, and attempts to control ones body, appearance, and behaviors (i.e., self-objectif ication) in order to avoid further teasing, negative attention, harassment, a nd potential violence. Th erefore, for gay men,

PAGE 16

16 experiences of teasing/harassment for chil dhood gender nonconformity mi ght be linked with eating disorder attitudes and behaviors much in the same manner that womens sexual objectification experiences are pos ited to function in the objectification theory framework; through their role in promoting self-obj ectification and habitual body monitoring. Thus, objectification theory presents a promising groundwork for understanding eating disorder symptomatology among gay men by providi ng a theoretical framework for integrating the potential roles of experiences of (a) se xual objectification and (b) stigmatization and teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. Despite its promise and accumulating empirical support in research with women, (F rederickson et al., 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Noll & Frederickson, 1998, Roberts & Gettman, 2004; Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001), however, objectification th eory has not been tested with gay men. Thus, the present study examined the applicabil ity of objectification theory to understanding eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. In addition, based on research on gay mens eating disorder sypmptomatology (Beren, 1997) the present study ex amined the possible roles of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity and inte rnalized homophobia in its examination of the objectification theory framework with gay men.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter provides an integrative review of the literature that informs the present study. The chapter is divided into f our parts. First, a re view of the literature on disordered eating and body image disturbance in gay men is provide d. Second, extant literatu re on objectification theory is described. Third, gay mens experiences of sexual objectification and stigmatization of gender-nonconformity are discus sed. Finally, the proposed concep tual model and hypotheses of the present study are presented. Disordered Eating and Body Im age Disturbance in Gay Men Extant data suggest that ra tes of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology are higher among gay men than among heterosexual men. In addition, gay men seem to be more similar to heterosexual women than to hetero sexual men in terms of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder-symptomatology. For example, Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, and Rodin (1989) surveyed 71 gay men and 71 he terosexual men and found that, compared to heterosexual men, gay mens responses revealed (a) greater discrepancies between their perceived and ideal body images, (b) less satisfact ion with their bodies, (c ) greater frequency of exercising, and (d) greater likelihood of using exercise as a way to improve attractiveness rather than as a way to improve health. These findings suggest that gay men show a higher rate of body dissatisfaction than do heterosexual men. A similar study by Brand, Rothblum & Solomon (1991) examined the roles of both gender and sexual orientation in eating disordered and related attitudes and behaviors. More specifically, these authors compared 124 lesbia n women, 13 gay men, 39 heterosexual men, and 133 heterosexual women on restrained eating prac tices and body dissatisfaction. These authors found a significant gender by sexua l orientation interaction eff ect for weight preoccupation,

PAGE 18

18 suggesting that heterosexual women and gay men we re more preoccupied with their weight than were lesbian women and heterosexual men, F (1,303) = 3.27, p < .07. Brand et al.s (1991) results must be interpreted cautiously, however because the sample sizes for gay men and heterosexual men were quite small. In addition, there was a significant difference in age between groups F (1,305) = 5.41, p < .01, with the mean age for the gay and lesbian partic ipants at about 34 years, and the mean age for heterosexual wome n and men at about 19 years. Thus, the extent to which gender by sexual orienta tion effects could have reflecte d gender by age interactions is unclear. A later study by Siever (1994) addressed one of the limitations of Brand et al.s (1991) study by having larger samples of lesbian women and gay men. More specifically, Seiver (1994) examined levels of disordered eating and body dissa tisfaction in a sample of 250 participants that included lesbian women (n = 53), gay men (n = 59), heterosexual men (n = 63) and heterosexual women (n = 62). A MANOVA, with two different measures of disordered eating as dependent variables, revealed that gay men scored similarl y to both groups of wome n but differently from heterosexual men on one eating disorder depende nt variable, and similarly to heterosexual women and heterosexual men, but differently from lesbian women on the other eating disorder dependent variable. More specifically, gay men, heterosexual women and lesbian women scored significantly higher than hetero sexual men on eating disorder sy mptomatology, as measured by the Eating Attitudes Test-26, F (1,249) = 9.99, p < .0001. In addition, gay men, heterosexual women, and heterosexual men scored significantl y higher than lesbian women on restrained eating, as measured by the oral control subscale of the Eating Attitudes Test-26, F (1,249) = 5.70, p < .001. Furthermore, on the oral control s ubscale of the EAT-26, gay men scored the highest among the groups. Alt hough this difference did not re ach significance in all group

PAGE 19

19 comparisons, gay men did score significantly high er than heterosexual men and lesbian women. The pattern of findings in this study suggest s that gay mens level of eating disorder symptomatology is similar to levels of eating disorder sy mptomatology among heterosexual women but higher than that among heterosexual men. In addition to these findings regarding leve l of eating disorder symptomatology, Siever examined proportions of each group that scored at clinically significant levels of eating pathology and found that much higher percentage s of gay men and heterosexual women scored in the clinically significant range of eating disorder symptomatology (on the EAT) than did lesbian women and heterosexual men. More specif ically, 9 of the 59 gay men (16.7%), and 8 of the 62 (13.8%) heterosexual women in the sample scored in the clinically significant range, whereas only 2 of the 53 (4.2%) lesbian women, a nd 2 of the 63 (3.4%) heterosexual men scored in this range. Although Siever did not report wh ether these differences in percentages were statistically significant, he highl ighted them as striking. Finally, Siever (1994) found that gay men scored significantly higher on body dissatisfaction, as measured by current-ideal disc repancy scores for Body Size Drawings, than did all other groups. Gay men also scored sign ificantly lower on body es teem, as measured by the Body Esteem Scale, than did lesbian wome n and heterosexual men. Taken together, the pattern of findings from Sievers study suggest s that gay men demonstrated rates of overall eating disorder symptomatology and body dissatis faction that were as high as that among heterosexual women and in most cases higher than heterosexual men and lesbian women. Another study, conducted by Strong, Willia mson, Netemeyer, and Geer (2000), also found that rates of clinically significant eating disorder symp toms, level of eating disorder symptomatology, and body size concer ns for gay men were similar to those for heterosexual and

PAGE 20

20 lesbian women but different from rates for heterosexual men. These authors surveyed 95 heterosexual men, 103 gay men, 112 heterosexua l women, and 82 lesbian women. Clinically significant eating disorder sympto ms were determined by scores greater than 19 on the EAT-26. Using these guidelines, 1 heterosexual man (1 %), 10 gay men (9.7%), 14 heterosexual women (13.1%), and 7 lesbian women (9.1%) scored in th e clinical range; with heterosexual men having significantly lower rates of clinically significant symptoms than the other three groups ( p < .05). Heterosexual women scored higher than all other groups on body shape dissatisfaction, as measured by the Body Shape Questionnaire. Gay men and lesbian women scored higher on body shape dissatisfaction than did heterosexual men. Williamson and Hartley (1998) replicated fi ndings that gay men in the United States experience greater body dissatisfaction than hete rosexual men, with a sample of 91 British men aged 15-25. Their sample consisted of 47 hete rosexual men and 41 gay men. Gay men scored higher than heterosexual men on eat ing disturbance, as measured by an overall score of the Eating Attitudes Test-26, t (87) = 3.79, p < .001. Gay men also scored higher than heterosexual men on each of the three subscales of the Eating A ttitudes Test-26 (i.e., oral control, bulimia, and food preoccupation subscales). They also favored a slimmer ideal body size, as assessed by a set of nine body-line drawings, and we re more dissatisfied with their bodies, as measured by the Body Satisfaction Scale, t (87) = 2.80, p < .01. In addition these authors found a strong correlation between global self-esteem, body dissatisfaction, and eating disturbance. Even when actual body size is taken into cons ideration, gay and heterosexual men differ in valuation of their bodies. For example, Be ren, Hayden, Wilfley, and Grilo (1996) compared 58 gay men, 58 heterosexual men, 69 lesbian wo men, and 72 heterosexual women on indicators of body dissatisfaction. In this sample, there we re no significant differe nces between groups on

PAGE 21

21 their perceived level of discrepancy between th eir current and ideal body size, as measured by discrepancy scores on the Body Size Drawings. Nevertheless, co mpared to heterosexual men, gay men and both groups of women were more discontent with their current body size, as measured by the Body Shape Questionnaire, F (3,88) = 11.52, p < .0001, and the body dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorders Inventory F (3,88) = 9.28, p < .0001. Thus, although the groups did not differ on the amount of discrepancy th at they perceived between their current and ideal body size, gay men and both groups of women reported more dissatisfaction with their current body size. As di scussed previously, however results of Beren et al.s (1996) study should be interp reted with caution since there wa s a significant difference in age between groups; with a mean age of appr oximately 18 for heterosexual women and men, compared to mean ages of approximately 30 and 35 for gay men and lesbian women, respectively. Overall these studies highlight that rate s of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptoms are higher for gay men than for hetero sexual men. These studies also show that gay men are similar to heterosexua l women with regard to how they view their bodies, and on measures of eating pathology. There has been much speculation about the reasons for the higher rates of body dissatisfaction and eating pathology among ga y men (Heffernan, 1994; Strong, Singh, & Randall, 2000; Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams 1999; Siever, 1994). In her review of the literature on binge eating and bulimia among gay me n, Heffernan (1994) high lighted that earlier investigations often pointed to a disturbance in psychosexual deve lopment as an explanation for gay mens higher rates of eating disorders comp ared to heterosexual men. However the findings of these earlier studies tended to be interpreted as evidence of the pathology of homosexuality.

PAGE 22

22 Also, many of these studies were based on clinic al samples of men diagnosed with an eating disorder. In light of the percep tion of eating disorders as wome ns disorders, however, men may be hesitant to seek treatment. Therefore men wh o have been diagnosed with an eating disorder may represent the most severe cases. In addi tion, comorbidity of mental disorders can be a confounding issue when recruiting participants from hospital sett ings. These issues may have contributed to the pathological vi ew of homosexuality that emer ged from early studies of gay men with eating disorders. On the other hand, He ffernan pointed out that the studies based on nonclinical samples highlighted sociocultural factors, such as an emphasis on physical appearance, as potential explanations for the greater prevalence of eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. Th us, theoretical frameworks that outline sociocultural correlates of eating disorders among men might serv e as a useful starting point for understanding sociocultural correlates of eating di sorder symptomatology in gay men. Objectification Theory Objectification theory, developed by Fredrick son and Roberts (1997), has been used to integrate sociocultural and ps ychological understanding of eat ing disorder symptomatology among women. Objectification theory suggests that through experiences of cultural sexual objectification, women in western so ciety come to view their bodies as objects. Fredrickson and Roberts defined sexual obj ectification as the expe rience of being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others (p.174). Sexual objectification experiences can in clude experiences such as viewing sexualized media images, being called a derogatory name based on ones gender, having inappropr iate comments made about ones body, and being the target of offens ive, sexualized gestures. These experiences reduce an individual to her or his body, body parts, or body f unctions, especially sexual functions. Fredrickson and Robe rts (1997) posited that as a result of sexual objectification

PAGE 23

23 experiences, the individual may adopt an obs ervers perspective upon her or his own body (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This taking on an observers perspective upon ones own body is referred to as self-objec tification and is manifested as habitual body monitoring. Selfobjectification or habitual body su rveillance has been linked cons istently to eating disorderrelated attitudes, behaviors, and symptomato logy (Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and Twenge, 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehle nkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002 & Roberts & Gettman, 2004). Self-objectificati on can be devastating when indi viduals evaluate themselves against an internalized cultural ideal and feel th at they do not measure up to that ideal. This perceived discrepancy is often experienced as body shame. Body shame has been found to mediate the relation between se lf-objectificatio n and eating disorder symptomatology (Noll & Frederickson, 1988; Moradi, Dirks, & Ma tteson, 2005; & Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001). A growing body of empirical research has suppor ted the major premises of objectification theory as applied to eating diso rder-related attitudes and beha viors among women. Much of this research has focused on and supported the critic al proposed relations am ong self-objectification, body shame, and eating disorder symptomatology. For example, Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and Twenge (1998) experimentally manipulat ed level of self-objec tification by randomly assigning participants to wear eith er a swimsuit (high self-objectific ation) or a sweater (low selfobjectification) in front of a full length mirror. Fredrickson et al. compared level of body shame and eating behaviors between the two groups. A multiple regression analysis revealed that women in the swimsuit condition reported more body shame than those in the sweater condition. In order to measure the behavioral consequences of self-objectificati on, the women were also asked to participate in a taste test of cooki es and a chocolate drink. Women who reported more body shame were more likely to show restrained eating (i.e., ate less than one cookie) than

PAGE 24

24 women who reported less body shame. In a second experiment the authors used a separate sample of 40 men and 42 women, to determine if men were affected in the same way as women by self-objectification. Both men and women experienced self-consci ous emotions while wearing the swimsuit; however women were more li kely to feel disgust or anger while men were more likely to feel shy or silly. Therefore, the swimsuit condition produced body shame for women only. However, it remains unclear if a state of self-obj ectification cannot be achieved with men, or if it is merely not achie ved in the same way as it is for women, and therefore not induced in this experiment. Furt hermore, only heterosexual men were included in this study. Thus, the generalizeability of these fi ndings with heterosexual women and men to gay men is not clear. A later study by Roberts and Gettman (2004) de monstrated that simply being exposed to sexually objectifying words is enoug h to induce self-objectificati on and its correlates for women. A sample of 70 men and 90 women, with a mean age of 19 years, were primed with either sexually objectifying words (e.g., sl ender, desirable) or words related to body competence (e.g., vitality, coordinated), and then completed a survey designed to assess body shame and appearance-related anxiety. Women who were in the sexual object ification condition experienced more body shame than women in the body competence condition, however mens scores did not differ si gnificantly by condition, F (2,154) = 4.73, p < .01. Similarly, womens level of appearance anxiety was significantly higher in the app earance condition than in the body competence condition, while mens anxiety scores did not differ with condition, F (2,154) = 3.89, p < .05. An overall main effect for gender wa s also observed, with women experiencing more appearance anxiety than men, F (1,154) = 14.09, p < .0005. These results indicate that even a subtle reminder of sexual objectification can induce a state of selfobjectification for women.

PAGE 25

25 This study did not assess sexual orientation of participants. Therefore the generalizability of findings to gay men is not clear. While the previously described studies li nk self-objectification with body shame, Noll and Fredrickson (1998) examined the objectific ation theory proposition that body shame would mediate the relation between se lf-objectificatio n and disordered eati ng. They tested this hypothesis with two independent samples of 93 and 111 undergraduate women. Using guidelines set forth by Barron and Kenny (1986), Noll and Fredrickson (1998) demonstrated that body shame mediated the rela tion between self-objectification and eating disorder symptomatology. In the first sample their model accounted for 35% of the variance in bulimic symptoms ( p < .01), and 27% of the variance in anorexic symptoms ( p < .01). The second sample replicated findings from the first sample, with body shame again medi ating the relation between self-objectification and disordered eating symptomatology, and the model accounting for 51% of the variance in bulimic symptoms ( p < .01), and 30% of the variance in anorexic symptoms ( p < .01). The findings of this study highlight the importance of considering the mediating role of body shame in understanding how sociocultural factors may be linked to disordered eating symptomatology. In order to further explore the role of soci ocultural factors in the development of eating disorder symptomatology, Moradi, Dirks, and Matteson (2005) tested an expanded objectification theory framework with 222 undergraduate women with a mean age of approximately 20 years, the majority of whom id entified as heterosexual (91%). These authors examined the role of sexual objectification expe riences in the objectification theory framework and tested the mediating roles of self-object ification, body shame, and internalization of sociocultural beauty standards. Using path an alysis, the authors found, after controlling for body mass index, that reported sexual objectifica tion experiences were related positively to

PAGE 26

26 internalization of cultural beauty standards, r (222) = .25, p < .05. Internalization of beauty standards, in turn, were relate d positively to body surveillance (i ndicator of self-objectification), (222) = .50, p < .05, body shame, (222) = .24, p < .05, and eating disorder symptomatology, (222) = .34, p < .05. In addition, internalization pa rtially mediated the link of sexual objectification to body surveillance, and fully medi ated the link of body shame to eating disorder symptomatology, and body shame mediated th e links of both internalization and body surveillance to eating disorder symptomatology. Overall, the model accounted for 50% of the variance in eating disorder symptomatology. These findings are consistent with the notion that sexual objectification experiences may be translated into eating pathology by promoting selfobjectification, body shame, and internali zation of cultural beauty standards. This body of research supports th e tenets of objectification th eory. At this point, however, we can not be sure if and how objectification theo ry applies to gay men because it has not been studied in this population. Neverthe less, evidence that gay men might be exposed to experiences that parallel womens sexual obj ectification experiences points to the possibility that the framework of objectification theory can be used to understand th e roles of sexual objectification experiences, self-objectification and body shame in eating disorder symptomatology of gay men. Gay Mens Experiences of Sociocultural Pressures Gay mens experiences of sociocultural pres sures for attractivene ss and thinness may be shaped by several factors. Some authors have pos ited that both heterosexu al and gay men prefer partners that are a ttractive (Brand, Rothblum, & Solom on, 1992; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Siever, 1994; Silberstei n, Mishkind, Striegel-M oore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989; Williamson, 1999). This preference may translate into an emphasis on appearance for gay men as they may experience pressure to be thin and attractive in order to attract a man, while heterosexual men may not feel as mu ch pressure in this regard as their goal is to attract women.

PAGE 27

27 Second, recent media images of men seem to be much more sexually objectifying than in the past. This trend reinforces cultur al expectations of attractiveness, and serves to focus attention on the body. Finally, gay men may experience teasing, harassment, and societal stigmatization for gender nonconforming behaviors. These experien ces may contribute to gay mens body image disturbance. Research related to each of these factors is described next. Sexual Objectification of Gay Men Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Tim ko, and Rodin (1989) tested the hypothesis that gay men are at increased risk for diso rdered eating due to an emphasis on physical appearance in gay culture. This emphasis may be highlighted in gay culture as a result of the emphasis that men (both heterosexual and gay) place on attractiveness of their partners (Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; French, Story, Re mafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Tim ko, & Rodin, 1989; Williamson, 1999). For example, Silberstein et al., asked 71 gay men and 71 hetero sexual men to rate 13 different roles (including general appearance, physical activit y, and physical health) on how im portant they felt each role was to them. Other roles that were included but not analyzed were myself as a leader and myself as a social person. They found that gay men rated physical appearance as more important than did heterosexual men to their sense of self, while heterosexu al men rated the role of physical activity as more important to th eir sense of self. The finding of the greater importance of appearance to gay men than to hete rosexual men suggests that dissatisfaction with physical appearance may be particularly damaging to gay mens sense of self. A similar study by Brand, Rothblum & Solomon (1991) examined the influence of both gender and sexual orientation on body dissatisf action. These authors compared 124 lesbian women, 13 gay men, 39 heterosexual men and 1 33 heterosexual women on body dissatisfaction. Compared to women (of both sexua l orientations), men (of both sexual orientations) reported

PAGE 28

28 that they would be less attracted to a potential partner who they considered to be overweight, F (1,302) = 5.41, p < .05. This finding again highlights the importance men (both heterosexual and gay) place on thinness when considering potentia l partners. As mentione d previously, Brand et al.s (1991) results must be in terpreted cautiously, because the sample sizes for gay men and heterosexual men were quite small. In addition, there was a significant difference in age between groups F (1,305) = 5.41, p < .01, with the mean age for the gay and lesbian partic ipants at about 34 years, and the mean age for heterosexual wome n and men at about 19 years. Thus, the extent to which gender by sexual orienta tion effects could have reflecte d gender by age interactions is unclear. Gay men have also been found to have sim ilar concerns to that of heterosexual women about physical attractiveness and media infl uences on body image. For example, Strong, Williamson, Netemeyer, and Geer (2000) surveyed 95 heterosexual men, 103 gay men, 112 heterosexual women, and 82 lesbia n women. These authors found that gay men and heterosexual women scored higher than heterosexual me n and lesbian women on concern for physical appearance, and the perceived in fluence of the media in prom oting thinness as the ideal body size, as measured by the Psychosocial Risk Factors Questionnaire. The importance of attractiveness for gay me n was further examined by Epel, Spanakos, Kasl Godley, and Brownell (1995) using a random sample of 500 personal advertisements from publications with a wide variety of target audi ences. At least 50 advertisements placed by men and 50 advertisements placed by women were colle cted for each target group represented (in terms of race, sexual orientation, SES, and age) To determine the importance that each group placed on body shape, any mention of actual weight or height, or any adjectives describing body shape or size was counted as a body shape descri ptor (BSD), and computed as a percentage of

PAGE 29

29 overall words in the advertis ement. Epel et al. found that 42 % of gay men and 36% of heterosexual men requested at least one BSD in their ads compared to 27% of heterosexual women and 18% of lesbian women. Gay mens ads reflected a signifi cantly higher percentage of BSDs in self-descriptions (86% of gay mens advertisements mentioned at least one BSD in describing the solicitor) compared to lesb ian womens ads (46% of lesbian womens advertisements mentioned at least on e BSD in describing the solicitor), X = 14.1, p < .001. There was no significant difference in the percenta ge of BSDs used in self-descriptions between the advertisements placed by heterosexual men (65%) and heterosexual women (56%), X = 3.4, p < .06. In addition, 70 % of the advertisements pl aced by gay men, compared to only 29% of the advertisements placed by heterosexual men, 13.5 % of the advertisements placed by heterosexual women, and 10% of the advertisements placed by lesbian women, reported the solicitors weight. These findings provide additional evidence sugge sting the importance that gay men may place on attractiveness and thinness and also the pressure that they might experience in this regard. An important strength of this study is that it did not re lying on self report m easures and therefore avoided the potential bias of participants responding in a socially desirable manner. There is also broader evidence that men are becoming increasingly se xually objectified in our society (Rohlinger, 2002). In fact, in outlini ng objectification theor y, Fredrikson and Roberts (1997) acknowledged that men also may experien ce sexual objectification and that mens unique experiences should be examined. Such attention is particularly importa nt in light of evidence that instead of reducing sexually obj ectifying portrayals of women in the media, there has been an increase in sexually objectifyi ng portrayals of men in the medi a. Indeed, Rohlinger (2002) analyzed media images over a period of 10 years (1987-1997), and found evidence suggesting that men are being portrayed in increasingly ob jectified ways. More sp ecifically, Rohlinger

PAGE 30

30 reviewed depictions of men in four popular mens magazines (i.e., Sports Illustrated, Mens Health, Popular Mechanics, GQ, and Business Week ) and identified the following nine categories: the hero, the outdoorsman, the urba n man, the family man, the breadwinner, the working man, the consumer, the quiescent man, and the erotic male. Overwhelmingly, the most common male depiction was the erotic male, accoun ting for 36.9% of all images in the sample. Rohlinger defined the erotic male as being pl aced on display either by himself or with other models, being positioned in a sexual manner, most often posed or caught in a personal movement. In addition, he rarely smiles, th e body is emphasized th erefore the setting is typically plain, blurred, or othe rwise unclear, and his eyes are often focused on something other than the surroundin g models or audience (p. 67). Depi cting the model in this manner is effective in keeping the focu s on his body (Rohlinger, 2002). Given the erotic males prominence in depi ctions of men, Rohlinger further explored depictions of the erotic male and examined touch and gaze behavior of the models. She found that the erotic male was depicted simila rly to the ways in which women have been traditionally depicted in terms of touch and g aze. More specifically, Goffman (1979) described feminine touch as a passive self-touch that se rves to keep the focu s on the models body, and masculine touch as an active t ouch (e.g., manipulating an object) that serves to maintain the focus on the object or product, rather than the on the models body. Women and men can both be depicted as engaging in ei ther feminine touch or mascu line touch, but women are most typically depicted to engage in feminine touch and men are most t ypically depicted to engage in masculine touch. Like depictions of touch, depict ions of gaze (i.e., where the model is looking) tend to differ by gender as well. A mental drift is a gaze in which the model does not make direct eye contact with the audience but instead focuses on something off in the distance or the

PAGE 31

31 head and/or face may be obscured or missing a ltogether. Again, this keeps the focus on the body. Women are typically depicted in a mental drift. By contrast, men in advertisements are typically depicted looking directly at the audience, or at another model in the advertisement. In the study by Rohlinger (2002) the erotic ma le model was depicted as women typically are depicted in advertisements, most often shown engaging in fem inine touch, engaging in a mental drift, or with the head and/or face obscured or missing. In addition, the perceived sexua l orientation of the models in the study by Rohlinger (2002) were coded as heterosexual, homose xual, ambiguous, or unknown. Approximately 76% of the erotic male models were of ambiguous or unknown sexual orientation. The ambiguity of the sexual orientation of the erotic male may not be accidental. Many of these sexualized media images might be targeting gay men specifically by capitalizing on the dual marketing approach. The dual marketing approach is a technique that allows advertisers to speak to gay/lesbian consumers without offending the straight audi ence (Clark, 1995; Sende r, 1999). The guidelines set forth for this technique are to avoid explicit references to heterosexuality by depicting only one individual or same-sexed individuals with in the representation frame. In addition, these models bear the signifiers of sexual ambiguity, or androgynous st yle. But gayness remains in the eye of the beholder (Cla rk, 1995, p.144). Thus, the dual marketing approach is used to subtly target gay audiences. In an article of The Gay and Lesbian Review, John DiCarlo (2001) expressed his concern regarding this issue. DiCarlo described his reaction after viewing an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue; All the clothe s seem like an aftert hought, as do the women placed in the margins. He also comments that the slim but muscular body style represented in the catalogue is especially appea ling to gay men and that he hims elf works hard to achieve this ideal.

PAGE 32

32 The study by Rohlinger provides evidence that the sexual obj ectification of men is an important area to pursue in understanding body im age issues and disordered eating among gay men. In addition, the many articles that focu s on body image in popular gay periodicals also point to the significance of th is issue (DiCarlo, 2001; Kahn, 2004; Schneider, 2001; Shernoff, 2001). Collin Kahn, in an issue of the popular gay periodical, The Advocate, summarizes this point by saying, Young gay men are expected to always be tanned, smell good, wear the latest and greatest clothing, and of course, be in wonde rful shape.each seasons clothes have become more muscle fit. I always hear gay men say, Wow look at how those jeans fit that guy. I bet he works out all the time (p. 25). Such pre ssures for gay men might parallel the sexual objectification experiences that Fr edrickson and Roberts (1997) highl ight as a precursor to eating disorder-related attitudes, beha viors, and symptoms for women. Experiences of Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity In addition to experiences of sexual obj ectification, gay men ma y also experience teasing/harassment related to ge nder nonconformity that could lead to increased rates of eating disturbance. For example, Strong, Singh, and Randall (2000) surveyed 181 men (129 gay men and 52 heterosexual men) ranging in ages from 18 to 58. These authors were interested in the relation between respondents recollection of their own ch ildhood gender nonconformity and current body dissatisfaction. A MANOVA reveal ed that gay men reported more childhood gender nonconforming behaviors than heterosexual men, F (1,177) = 13.16, p < .05. Gay men also reported more body dissati sfaction than heterosexual men, F (1,177) = 9.85, p < .05. A regression analysis indicated that recalled childhood gender nonc onformity was a significant predictor of body dissatisfaction fo r gay men and heterosexual men ( p < .001). This study only assessed respondents recollec tion of their own childhood gender nonconformity, and did not address teasing and harassment by others rela ted to that gender nonconformity. Teasing and

PAGE 33

33 harassment may be an important aspect to consid er because of the stigmatizing nature of such experiences. Other researchers have explored the role of teasing and harassment related to weight and appearance (Beren, Hayden, Wilfey, and Grilo, 1996). In their study with 58 gay men, 58 heterosexual men, 69 lesbian women, and 72 he terosexual women, Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, and Grilo (1996) found that gay men scored higher on measures of psychosocial distress, reported more childhood teasing about general appearance and reported more weight-specific teasing than did all other groups, F (6,238) = 3.40, p < .01. As mentioned previously, the results of Beren et al.s (1996) study should be interpre ted with caution since there was a significant difference in age between groups; with a mean ag e of approximately 18 for heterosexual women and men, compared to mean ages of approxima tely 30 and 35 for gay men and lesbian women, respectively. A later study by Beren (1997) examined stig matization experiences such as shame, internalized homophobia, and childhood teasing/harrassment for gender nonconformity as correlates of eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. Beren (1997) defined shame as the painful negative affect that results from internalizing others scorn. Internalized homophobia is the internalizati on of societys negative stereo types about lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, and childhood teasing for gende r nonconformity was defined by Beren (1997) as negative reactions from family and peers. Using Structural Equatio n Modeling, Beren tested two different models with gay men (a gene ral model and a model specific to gay mens experiences) and one model (the general model only) with heterosexual men. The general model included early negative attention as measured by childhood teasing related to appearance and gender nonconformity, shame, self-worth, and eati ng disorder symptomato logy, but did not take

PAGE 34

34 into consideration those experiences that are posited to be unique to gay men, such as internalized homophobia and feeli ngs of acceptance/rejection regarding coming out. This general model explained 58% of the variance in eating diso rder symptoms for this sample of 94 gay men. Shame and early negative attention, as assess ed by childhood teasing about appearance, and criticism and teasing specific to gender nonconf orming behaviors, were unique correlates of eating pathology in this model. Furthermore, th e relation between early negative attention and eating pathology was mediated by shame. This general model was also tested with 94 heterosexual men. The model explained only 35% of the variation in eating pathology for heterosexual men. As in the model with gay me n, in the model with heterosexual men early negative attention was related di rectly to eating pathology and sh ame; however for heterosexual men shame did not mediate this relationship. In f act, while the total effect of shame on eating pathology was only .04 for heterosexual men, the to tal effect of shame on eating pathology was .49 for gay men. The second model, which was tested only with gay men, added acceptance from parents, siblings, and friends during the coming out process and internalized homophobia as predictors. This model accounted for 59% of the variation in eating pathology for gay men. While this model added only 1% to the overa ll explained variance in eating disorder symptomatology, the addition of internalized homophobia increased the variance explained in shame from 16% to 54%. Furthermore, internal ized homophobia mediated the relation between early negative attention and shame. Thus, in Berens (1997) study, for both he terosexual and gay men, early negative attention for gender nonconformity was related to eating pathology. Shame mediated this link for gay men, but not for hetero sexual men. Also, for gay men in ternalized homophobia increased the variance explained in shame and mediated th e link of early negative attention to shame.

PAGE 35

35 These findings highlight the importance of attend ing to experiences of teasing and harassment for gender-nonconformity shame, and internaliz ed homophobia in understanding eating disorderrelated attitudes, behaviors, and symptoms among gay men. One possible explanation for the role of gender-nonconformity-based teasing and harassment in eating disorder symptoms of gay men is that such teasing and harassment might promote increased awareness, monitoring, and at tempts to control ones body, appearance, and behaviors (i.e., self-objectifica tion) in order to avoid furt her teasing, nega tive attention, harassment, and potential violence. Therefore, for gay men, experiences of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity might be linked with eating diso rder attitudes and behaviors much in the same manner that womens sexual ob jectification experiences are posited to function in the objectification theory fr amework; through their role in promoting self-objectification and habitual body monitoring. Taken together, these studies indicate th at gay men recall more gender nonconforming behaviors. Experiences of teasing and hara ssment for gender nonconformity, along with the internalization of societys ne gative stereotypes about gay men, each may contribute to gay mens body image disturbance and disordered eat ing and therefore should be included in examining the objectification th eory framework with gay men. Purpose of Study Objectification theory has been examined in samples of mostly heterosexual college women and men (Frederickson et al., 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehlenkamp & SarisBaglama, 2002; Noll & Frederickson, 1998, Roberts & Gettman, 2004; Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001). This extant literature has supported the tenets of objecti fication theory with women, but objectification theory has not been tested with gay men

PAGE 36

36 Thus, the present study aims to examine the applicability of objec tification theory to understanding eating disorder symptomatology am ong gay men. In addition, based on research on gay mens eating disorder symptomatology (B eren, 1997), the present study will examine the possible roles of stigmatization for gender nonc onformity and internalized homophobia in its examination of the objectification theory fram ework with gay men. The model tested in the current study is presented in Figure 2 1 and will examine the following hypotheses: 1. Consistent with objectification theory, it is hypothesized that reported sexual objectification experiences will be rela ted positively to internalization of cultural standards of attr activeness, self-objectif ication, body shame, and disordered eating. Support for this hypot hesis is a prerequisite to hypotheses 2 and 3. 2. Consistent with objectification th eory, body shame will mediate the link between self-objectification and disordered eating. 3. Consistent with prior research (Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005), internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness will mediate the links of sexual objectificati on experiences to self-objec tification, body shame, and disordered eating. 4. Consistent with prior research (Mor adi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005), selfobjectification will mediate the link be tween objectification experiences and body shame. 5. The direct and indirect links of internalized homophobia and teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonc onformity to other variables in the model will be explored based on Berens findings that (a) teasing/harassment for childhood gende r nonconformity was related to internalized homophobia, (b) that intern alized homophobia medi ated the link of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to shame, and (c) internalized homophobia was related indir ectly to disordered eating symptoms through shame. In order to provide a more stringent test of the hypothe ses, Body Mass Index (BMI) will be entered as a covariate in the model. This is in keeping with previ ous research that has considered BMI to be a possible confounding vari able when examining ea ting disorders (Beren,

PAGE 37

37 1997; Beren, Hayden, Wilfey, & Grilo, 1996; Frederikson et al 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Noll & Frederickson, 1998).

PAGE 38

Sexual objectification experiences Body shame Eating disorder symptoms Internalization of cultural standards Internalized Homophobia Selfobjectification Harassment for gender nonconformity Figure 2 1. Hypothesized path model. 38

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Participants A total of 264 individuals chose to particip ate in the current online study. Of these, 13 duplicate submissions were identified and discar ded. In addition, 27 participants were excluded from the analyses because of incorrect responses to 2 or more of the 10 validity check items (n=11), or due to considerable amounts of missi ng data (n=18). Finally, two participants were excluded because they self-identif ied as women and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria. Four men who self-identified as mostly (but no t exclusively) heterosexual and two men who did not report their sexual orientation were include d in the analyses because their responses to questions assessing physical and em otional attraction to men and se xual behavior indicated that they were attracted to men and had engaged in sex with men. Thus, the final sample included 231 individuals between the ages of 17 and 70 ( M = 32.73; Mdn = 27.0; SD = 13.82) who selfidentified as either men (97.4%; n = 226) or tr ansgender (2.2%; n = 5), and exclusively gay (65.9%; n = 153), mostly gay (19.8%; n = 46), bisexua l (11.6%; n = 27), or mostly heterosexual (1.7%; n = 4). Regarding the racial/ethnic background of the sample, 77% identified as White/Caucasian, 5% as Hispanic/L atino, 4% as Asian American/Pac ific Islander, 1% as African American, and 11% as multi-racial or other. Par ticipants were from a wide range of geographic locations with 78% reporting that they were currently living in the United States (n = 183) and 19% (n = 43) reporting that they were currently living in other c ountries. Four participants did not report their current location. Of the 183 par ticipants who reported currently living in the United States, 31% were located in the South (n = 56), 29% in the West (n = 53), 23% in the Midwest (n = 42), and 17% in the Northeast (n =32). These regional categories represent

PAGE 40

40 divisions used by the U.S. Census Bureau. With re gard to the 43 participants who reported living in countries other than the Unite d States, 40% reported residing in Canada (n = 17), 26% in the United Kingdom (n = 11), 14% in India (n = 6), and 17% living in a variety of other countries (e.g., Australia, Iraq, Indonesia) with 2 participants or less residing in any one of these countries (n = 8). These international participants corr ectly responded to the validity check items, indicating that they we re able to read and understand the instructions and survey questions. Procedure Participants were recruited through personal contacts and advertising in LGBT internet listserves and groups. Advertisements were sent to listserves used for general information exchange because such listserves target broad audiences of LGBT persons (rather than subgroups with specific political, dating, or religious in terests). The study was also advertised through Yahoo, Google, AOL, Livejournal, and My Space groups Flyers advertising the study were also posted in local community establishments. In addition, listerserves internet groups, and organizations targeting racial/et hnic minority gay and bisexual men were targeted in an attempt to obtain a racially and ethnically diverse samp le. Data was collected using an online survey. This was to help assure anonym ity, since participants were not required to come into the laboratory and meet with the researchers. This method of data collection is likely to result in better representation of individuals who are less out about thei r sexual orientation than data collection strategies that require lesbian and gay persons to com e out to researchers in person (Epstein & Klinkenberg, 2002). The study advertisements directed particip ants to an online survey through the advertisement methods mentioned previously. Upon connecting to the survey website, the informed consent was displayed which described the purpose of the study and confidentiality of responses, and provided contact info rmation of the researcher to pa rticipants. Participants then

PAGE 41

41 clicked a link stating Start the survey which serv ed as an indication that they were voluntarily agreeing to participate. The survey instruments were counterbalanced in order to reduce order effects. Embedded into each of the measures in the survey wa s a validity item. These items directed participants to res pond in a particular manner. For example, an item may ask participants to select the opti on for strongly agree. The purpose of these items was to identify random responding, and to ensure that partic ipants were reading and understanding the questions. Following the completion of the surve y, all participants received a thank you and debriefing message that included website links to national eating diso rder support networks. Participants were again given the researchers contact information so that any additional questions or concerns could be addressed. Measures Cultural sexual objectification. Reports of sexual objectif ication experiences were assessed using a measure comprised of 8 ite ms from the Objectification Experiences Questionnaire (OEQ; Burnett, 1995), 5 items fr om the sexual objectification subscale (SOS; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998), and 3 items from the Cultural Sexual Ob jectification Scale (CSOS; Hill, 2002). Because these measures were originally designed for women, the language was modified so that it was applicable to gay men. The modified items were reviewed by five consultants who identified as gay men. Based on their feedback the wording of the items was further modified to increase applicability and consistency across measures, and one additional item was created. The OEQ is an 18-item measure that asse sses the frequency of sexually objectifying experiences and was selected pa rticularly because its items and language were applicable to respondents of both genders and of all sexual orientations. OE Q scores have demonstrated convergent validity, as evidenced by high correlations with measures of mild sexual harassment,

PAGE 42

42 and discriminant validity, as evidenced by low co rrelations with measures of more severe forms of sexual harassment. The reported alpha fo r OEQ scores in a sample of 253 female undergraduate women was .70 (Burnett, 1995). The 8 OEQ items were supplemented with 5 items gathered from the sexual objectification subscale (SOS). Th ere is a great deal of item overlap between the OEQ and the SOS, therefore only those items which reflected distinct experiences of sexual objectification from those assessed by OEQ were chosen. The SO S is a 7-item measure that assesses reported sexual objectification experiences SOS scores have demonstrated construct validity in that women reported more objectification experiences than men (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). With regard to the reliability of the SOS, Moradi, Dirks, and Matteson (2005) reported an alpha of .87 with a sample of women. In order to obtain a more thorough assessmen t of sexual obje ctification ex periences, 3 additional items were added from the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (CSOS). The CSOS is a 40-item measure developed by Hill (2002) which combined 28 items borrowed from several existing measures along with 12 items created spec ifically for her study. The items used in the current study were from the 12 items created by Hill, one of these was chosen because it assessed whether/how often participants felt they were being evaluated by others, a seemingly important aspect of sexual objectification. The other two items were sele cted because they assessed whether/how often participants witnessed ot her men being objectif ied. These aspects of objectification were not tapped by an y of the other measures review ed. Hill reported an alpha of .96 for scores on the CSOS (2002). Participants rated the combined set of items according to how often they had experienced each event in the past year (1=Never to 6=Almost all of the time, more than 70% of the time).

PAGE 43

43 This format was used by Hill (2002). The alpha obtained with the current sample for the combined set of items was .91. Sample items incl ude Have you ever felt that a date was more interested in your body or gaini ng access to it, than you as a pe rson? and Has your romantic partner ever checked out anot her man in your presence? Internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness. The 8-item Internalization subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ; Heinberg, Thompson, & Strormer, 1995) was used to measur e the degree to which cultural standards are accepted and internalized (e.g., I believe that clothes look better on muscular/fit models and Men who appear in TV shows and movies proj ect the type of appearance that I see as my goal). Each statement is rated on a 5 point Like rt-type scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). This scale was developed wi th women, but has been used successfully with men by replacing the word thin with muscular/ fit for all relevant items (Morry & Staska, 2001). Cashel, Cunningham, Landeros, Cokley, a nd Muhammad (2003) obtai ned an alpha of .79 for internalization scores in a sample of 138 men. The alpha obtained with the current sample was .89. Convergent validity of SATAQ intern alization scores is supported by positive correlations with scores on the internalization subscale of the Eating Di sorders Inventory, r = .28-.35 (Garner, 1991), and a positive correlati on with body image preoccupation (Morry & Staska, 2001). Teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. A 30-item measure modeled after The Mother-Fathe r-Peer Scale (MFP; Epstein, 1991) and developed by Beren (1997) to assess the degree to which an individual perceived being criticize d, rejected, and teased as a child for gender nonconforming attitude s and behaviors, was used to measure teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. Sample items include When I was a

PAGE 44

44 child, my mother criticized or teased me for being too sensitive and When I was a child, other children would sometimes call me a faggot. Items are rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Beren (1997) reported an alpha of .75 for scores on this scale with a sample of 195 undergraduate men. W ith the present sample, one item was omitted in the final analysis because it s eemed to measure reinforcement of gender nonconformity rather than teasing/harassment for childhood gender non conformity, thus this item did not fit conceptually with the others. This was reflected by low item-total correlation for this item in the reliability analysis. Omission of this item incr eased the alpha from .92 to .94 in the current sample. Scores obtained on this measure have de monstrated adequate co nstruct validity, with scores correlated positively with shame and in ternalized homophobia, and correlated negatively with acceptance from others during th e coming out process (Beren, 1997). Internalized homophobia. The 9-item Internalized Homo phobia Scale (IHP; Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998) measures the degr ee to which individuals have internalized societys negative views about homosexuality. Samp le items include I have tried to stop being attracted to men in general and I feel that being gay is a personal shortcoming for me. Each item is rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly). Cronbachs alpha for IHP items was .83 with a community sample of gay men (Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998). The alpha obtained with th e current sample was .88. In terms of validity, IHP scores were correlated positively with depressive symptomatology, and negatively correlated with self-esteem (Her ek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998). Self-objectification. The Body Surveillance subscale of McKinley and Hydes (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale is an 8-item measure of how much an individual thinks of his or her body in terms of how it looks, versus how it feels. Participants are asked to rate the

PAGE 45

45 degree to which they agree with statements such as I rarely think about how I look, (reverse coded) and I think it is more important that my clothes are co mfortable than whether they look good on me (reverse coded). Each statement is rate d on a 7 point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with a NA (not applicable) op tion for items that do not apply. Higher scores indicate greater self-objectifica tion as manifested by body surveillance. Body surveillance scores have shown ad equate validity, as scores we re positively co rrelated with body shame, and negatively correlated with body es teem (McKinley, 1998). Reported alpha was .79 when used with a sample of undergraduate me n (McKinley and Hyde, 1998), and .88 when used with a mixed gender sample (Tiggemann & Kuri ng, 2004). For the current sample of gay men, the alpha obtained was .89. Body shame. The Body Shame subscale of McKinley and Hydes (1996) Objectified Body Consciousness Scale is an 8-item measure of the degree to which an i ndividual feels like a failure for not achieving the cultural ideal body sta ndard. Participants are as ked to rate the degree to which they agree with statements such as I feel like I must be a bad person when I dont look as good as I could, and When Im not the size I think I should be, I feel ashamed. Each statement is rated on a 7 point Like rt-type scale (1 = strongly disagr ee to 7 = strongly agree) with a NA (not applicable) option for items that do not apply. Higher scores reflect greater body shame. Body shame scores have shown adequate validity, as scores were positively correlated with body surveillance, and negatively correlat ed with body esteem (M cKinley, 1998). Reported alphas were .73 when used with a sample of undergraduate men (McKinley and Hyde, 1998), and .81 when used with a mixed gender sample (Tiggemann & Kuring, 2 004). For the current sample of gay men, the alpha obtained was .89.

PAGE 46

46 Eating disorder symptomatology. The Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26; Garner, Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982) is a 26-item in strument measuring diso rdered eating attitudes on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = always to 6 = never). The EAT-26 is recommended for use with nonclinical samples (Siever, 1994). Sample items for this measure are Cut my food into small pieces and Have the impulse to vomit after meals. Following Sievers (1994) suggestion scores are based on averaging cont inuous responses as this method is more appropriate for use with nonclini cal samples, and reduces the po ssibility of skewed scores (Siever, 1994). EAT-26 scores have been found to be correlated with scores on other measures of disordered eating (Kashubeck-West & Mintz, 20 01). Reported alphas for scores on the EAT-26 range from .79 to .94 (Moradi, Dirks, & Matt eson, (2005); Morry & Staska,2001; Russel & Keel, 2002; Siever, 1994; Williamson & Hartley, 1998). The alpha for the current sample was .90. EAT scores have demonstrated construct validity by differentiating betwee n individuals with a diagnosable eating disorder and nonclini cal controls (Garne r & Garfinkel, 1979). Demographics Sexual orientation was measured on a Kinsey-type scale ranging from 1 (exclusively gay) to 5 (exclusively heterosexua l). Participants were also asked to report demographic information such as their age, race/ ethnicity, educational level, and socio-economic status. In addition, participants were asked for their height and weight and Body Mass Index scores were computed using the formula reco mmended by the Centers fo r Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/ bmi / bmi -adult-formula.htm ).

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics The mean Body Mass Index for the present sample was 27.01 ( SD = 7.46). This mean BMI is comparable with population data collect ed in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control, and reported by the U.S. Food & Drug Admini stration (FDA). The FDA reported that the average American adult has a BMI of 28 http://www.fda.gov/fdac/ departs/2005/105_note.html ). The Levels of sexual objectific ation experiences, internalizat ion of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-objectification, body shame, internalized homophobia, teasing for gender nonconformity, and disordered eatin g symptoms for the current sample were generally close to the mid range of possible scores for each measure (see Table 4 1). To test for order effects across the two orders of the survey, a MANOVA was conducted with survey order as the independent variable and the variables of interest (i.e., BMI, sexual objectification experiences internalization of cultural st andards of attractiveness, selfobjectification, body shame, teasing/harassm ent for childhood gender nonconformity, internalized homophobia, and eati ng disorder symptoms) as the de pendent variables. No overall effect was found for survey order, F [1, 230] = 1.10, p = .36. Hypothesis 1 Partial correlations, controlling for BMI, were computed to te st the relations among variables of interest and eval uate whether pre-conditions for mediation were met (see Table 4 1). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, after controlling for BMI, re ported experiences of sexual objectification were correlated positively with internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness ( r = .25, p < .001), self-objectification ( r = .33, p < .001), body shame ( r = .29, p < .001), and eating disorder symptoms ( r = .25 p < .001).

PAGE 48

48 Hypotheses 2, 3, 4: Mediations Based on the Objectification Theory Framework To test the mediations proposed in H ypotheses 2, 3, and 4, Baron and Kennys (1986) procedures were followed. According to these au thors, for a variable to be considered as mediator, significant relations must exist betwee n (a) the predictor and the mediator, (b) the mediator and the criterion, and (c ) the predictor and cr iterion. These preconditions were satisfied for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 (see Table 4 1 for partial-correlations). That is for Hypothesis 2, self-objectification (predict or) was correlated significan tly with body shame (potential moderator), which in turn was corre lated significantly with eating di sorder symptoms (criterion). In addition, self-objectification (predictor) was correlated signif icantly with eating disorder symptoms (criterion). With regard to hypothesis 3, reported experiences of sexual objectification (predictor) were correlated significantly with in ternalization (potential mediator), which in turn was correlated significantly with self-objectific ation, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms (criterion variables). In addition, reported sexual objectification experi ences (predictor) were correlated significantly with se lf-objectification, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms (criterion variables). For hypothesi s 4, reported experiences of se xual objectification (predictor) were correlated significantly with self-objectification (potential mediator), which in turn was correlated significantly with body shame (criterion) In addition, self-objec tification (predictor) was correlated significantly with body shame (criterion). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), if these conditions are satisfied, a variable acts as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for th e relationship between the predictor and criterion variable(s). In order to test the significance of mediations, Amos 6.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) was used to conduct a path analysis of the specified m odel in which direct and indirect paths were estimated (see model presented in Figure 2 1). BMI was entered as a covariate in the model by

PAGE 49

49 estimating links between it and all variables with which it was significantl y correlated. As such, links from BMI to intern alization of cultural stan dards of attractiveness, self-objectification, and body shame were estimated. Given that the model was near fully saturated, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Compar ative Fit Index (CFI), and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) were all 1.0. The overall model accounted for 47% of the variance in internalized homophobia, 11% of the variance in internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, 44% of the variance in self-objectif ication, 53% of the variance in body shame, and 39% of the variance in disordered eating symp toms. As indicated in Figure 4 2, most of the standardized path coefficients were significant, indicating sign ificant unique direct li nks. Significant unique direct links did not emerge however, from teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to internalized homophobia and disordered eating symptoms; from sexual objectification experiences to body shame and disordered eating symptoms; from internalized homophobia to self-objectificati on and disordered eating sympto ms; from internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms. To test the significance of mediations through internaliza tion of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-objectification, and body sh ame (the proposed mediators in hypotheses 2, 3, and 4), appropriate standardized path coefficients were multiplied to compute indirect effects, a procedure recommended by Cohen and Cohen ( 1983). Next, Sobels formula (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Baron, 2004) wa s used to determine whether or not the indirect effects were significantly different from zero. Hypothe sis 2 proposed that body shame would mediate the link of self-objectification wi th disordered eating symptoms. C onsistent with this hypothesis, through body shame, self-objectification had a significant indirect link of .12 (.32 x .39; z = 3.79, p < .001) with disordered eating symptoms. Thus body shame mediated the link between self-

PAGE 50

50 objectification and disordered eating symptoms. In addition there was a significant direct link from self-objectification to disordered eating. Hypothesis 3 proposed that internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness would mediate the links of sexual obj ectification experiences to self -objectification, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms. Consistent with this hypothesis, through internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, re ported experiences of sexual obj ectification had a significant indirect link of .11 (.21 x .53; z = 3.09, p < .01) to self-objectifi cation and there was an additional significant direct link from sexual objectification experi ences to self-objectification. Also consistent with this hypothesis, thr ough internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, reported e xperiences of sexual objectification ha d a significant indirect link of .07 (.21 x .34; z = 2.83, p < .01) to body shame; the additional di rect link of sexual objectification experiences to body shame was not significant. Inc onsistent with Hypothesi s 3, the indirect link of sexual objectification experiences to disordered eating sy mptoms through internalization was not significant, 01 (.21 x .04; z = 0.58, p = .56). Thus, internaliz ation of cultura l standards of attractiveness mediated the link of sexual objectif ication experiences to self-objectification and body shame, but not to disordered eating symptoms. Hypothesis 4 proposed that self-objectific ation would mediate the links of sexual objectification experiences with body shame. Consistent with this hypothesis, through selfobjectification, sexual objectifica tion experiences had a significant indirect link of .05 (.16 x .32; z = 2.64, p < .01) to body shame. Thus, self-objectific ation mediated the link between sexual objectification experiences to body shame. The additional direct link of sexual objectification experiences to body shame was not significant.

PAGE 51

51 In addition to testing the previous hypotheses, the significant direct link of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame and di sordered eating symptoms, allowed self-objectification and body shame to be expl ored as possible mediators of the links of internalization of cultural st andards of attractiveness to body shame and disordered eating symptoms. Significant indirect links of .13 from internalizat ion of cultural standards of attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms, through self -objectification (.53 x .25; z = 2.34, p < .05), and .13 through body shame (.34 x .39; z = 3.94, p < .001) were found. Thus, both selfobjectification and body shame mediated the link betw een internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to eating. The addi tional direct link of interna lization to diso rdered eating symptoms was not significant. Additionally, the significant direct link of in ternalization of cultural standards to selfobjectification, the direct link of self-objectification to body shame and eating disorder symptoms, and the direct link of sexual objec tification experiences to self-objectification, allowed self-objectification to be explored as a mediator of the li nks of internaliz ation of cultural standards to shame, and sexual objectification to disordered eating symptoms. Through selfobjectification, internalization of cultural standards of attractive ness had a significant indirect link of .17 (.53 x .32; z = 2.78, p < .01) to body shame, and sexual objectification experiences to eating disorder symptoms .04 (.16 x .25; z = 2.25, p < .05). Thus self-obj ectification also mediated the links of internaliz ation of cultural sta ndards of attractiveness to body shame, and sexual objectification to disordered eating symptoms. The additional direct link of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame was signi ficant, while the direct link of sexual objectification to disordered eating symptoms was not significant.

PAGE 52

52 Hypothesis 5: Direct and Indirect Li nks of Internalized Homophobia and Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity Hypothesis 5 proposed to explor e direct and indirect links of internalized homophobia and teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonc onformity. After controlling for BMI, partial correlations indicated that teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity was correlated positively with sexual objectification e xperiences, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-objectific ation, body shame, and disordered eating symptoms. Inconsistent with Berens (1996) findings however, teasing/ha rassment was not significantly correlated with internalized homophobia ( r = .13, p = .06). Internalized homophobia was correlated positively with sexual objectification experiences, internalization of cult ural standards of attractiveness, self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating symptoms. The path model allowed examination of uni que direct and indi rect relations of internalized homophobia and teas ing/harassment for childhood gende r nonconformity with other variables in the model. The path model in dicated that there wa s a direct link of teasing/harassment for childhood gende r nonconformity to internalizat ion of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-objectification and body sham e. In addition, there was a direct link of internalized homophobia to body shame. Consistent with Berens ( 1996) findings there was a si gnificant indirect link of internalized homophobia to disordered ea ting symptoms, through body shame .07 (.18 x .39; z = 3.62, p < .001). The additional direct link of in ternalized homophobia to eating disorder symptoms was not significant. Furthermore, through internaliz ation of cultural standards of attractiveness there were indirect links of .08 (.15 x .53; z = 2.23, p < .05) and .05 (.15 x .34; z = 2.13, p < .05) from teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to self -objectification and to body

PAGE 53

53 shame respectively. Additional direct links of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to self-objectifica tion and body shame were significan t. Thus, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness mediated these links. Similarly, through self-o bjectification there we re significant indirect links of .05 (.16 x 32; z = 2.67, p < .01) and .04 (.16 x 25; z = 2.28, p < .05) from teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to body shame and disordered eating symptoms resp ectively. In addition to these indirect links, the di rect link of teasing/harassment for gender-nonconformity to body shame was significant, and the direct link of teasing/harassment for gender-nonconformity to disordered eating symptoms was not significant. Additionally, a significan t indirect link of .05 from teasing/harassment for childhood gender no nconformity to disordered eating symptoms (.13 x .39; z = 2.45, p < .01), through body shame was found; th erefore along with the mediating role of self-objectification, body sh ame also mediated this link. Finally, the indirect link of .03 from sexual objectificati on experiences to body shame, through internalized ho mophobia was found to be significant (.18 x .18; z = 2.15, p < .05). In addition the direct link of se xual objectification to body shame was not significant. Thus, internalized homophobia me diated this link. Next, the fit of the specified model was compar ed to that of an alternative trimmed model that eliminated the non-significant direct pa ths from (a) teasing/harassment to gender nonconformity to internalized homophobia and disordered eating symptoms, (b) sexual objectification experiences to self-objectif ication, body shame and di sordered eating (c) internalized homophobia to self -objectification and disorder ed eating symptoms, and (d) internalization of cultural standards of attrac tiveness to disordered eating symptoms. The Chi Square statistic was not statistically significant an d the fit index values for this model were all

PAGE 54

54 above acceptable cut offs (GFI = 1.0; IFI = 1.0; CF I = 1.0; NFI = .99) and similar to those for the original model. The amount of variance accounted for in each of the criterion variables and the magnitude of the significant paths in the trimme d model were similar to those in the original model (see Figure 5 3). Specifically, the variance accoun ted for in internalized homophobia dropped from 47% to 39%, the variance accounted for in internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness dropped from 11% to 10%, the vari ance accounted for in self-objectification dropped from 44% to 43%, the variance accounted for in body shame was identical (53%), and the variance accounted for in disordered eating symptoms dropped from 39% to 38%. Thus, the trimmed model appears to be equa lly appropriate in e xplaining the relations among the variables of interest.

PAGE 55

Table 4 1. Summary statistics and pa rtial correlations among va riables of interest with body mass index controlled Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Possible Range Sample Range M SD 1. Cultural objectification experiences 1-6 1.12-4.65 2.28 .74 .91 2. Teasing/harassment .25** 1-5 1.19-4.81 2.62 .75 .94 3 Internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness .25** .20* 1-5 1-5 3.31 .99 .89 4. Internalized homophobia .21** .13 .35** 1-5 1-5 1.69 .81 .88 5. Self-objectification .33** .31** .60** .25** 1-7 1-7 4.37 1.46 .89 6. Body shame .29** .33** .62** .40** .62** 1-7 1-7 3.48 1.56 .89 7. Eating disorder symptoms .25** .26** .44** .21* .52** .62** 1-6 1.08-4.62 2.35 .70 .90 Note: p < .01. ** p <.001. Higher scores indicate higher levels of the construct assessed 55

PAGE 56

Sexual objectification experiences Body shame Eating disorder symptoms Internalization of cultural standards Internalized Homophobia 1 3 ** .18** .39*** .16** .15* .23*** .21* .16** .53*** .25*** .34*** .18*** .32*** Selfobjectification Harassment for gender nonconformity Body Mass Index -.15* .20*** Figure 4 2. Full model depicting re lationships among variables of interest 56

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The present study addressed important gaps in the literatures on obj ectification theory and eating disorders among gay men, by examining obj ectification theory a nd its tenets with a sample of gay men and integrati ng the posited roles of harassme nt for gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia within this framework. As such, the findings of this study have important implications for futu re research and practice. First, results of the present study suggest th at the tenets of objec tification theory, which have been supported with both heterosexual wome n and lesbian women (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; Kozee & Tylka, 2006; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005; Morry & Staska, 2001; Noll & Fredrick son, 1988; Roberts & Gettman, 2004; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004; Tiggemann & L ynch, 2001), are also supported with gay men. Specifically, the present results indicated that the links of sexual obj ectification experiences to self-objectification and body sh ame were mediated by internaliz ation of cultural standards of attractiveness. In addition, the li nks of internalization of cultura l standards of attractiveness to body shame and disordered eating symptoms, a nd sexual objectificati on experiences to body shame and disordered eating symptoms, were me diated by self-objectific ation. Together these findings are consistent with prior research (Graham, 2006; Moradi, Di rks, & Matteson, 2005; Morry & Staska, 2001) and suggest that experiences of sexual objec tification might translate into self-objectification and body shame, through internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, and that self-objectification might be an important way in which experiences of sexual objectification and internalization of cultura l standards of attractiven ess are translated into body shame and disordered eating symptoms. Intere stingly, internalization of cultural standards did not mediate the link of sexua l objectification experiences to disordered eating symptoms in

PAGE 58

58 the present sample. This finding is inconsistent with prior research examining objectification theory with women (Graham, 2006; Moradi et al ., 2005). One possible explanation might be that sexual objectification ex periences were not perceived or in terpreted as objectifying. This perception and interpretati on of events may affect how one expe riences the related correlates of objectification theory. Additional important patterns of relations we re found for the links of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to self-objec tification, body shame, and disordered eating symptoms. Specifically, internaliz ation of cultural standards was found to mediate the links of teasing/harassment for chil dhood gender nonconformity with self-objectification and body shame. Additionally, self-objectif ication mediated the links of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to body shame and disordered eating symptoms. Intere stingly the relations involving teasing/harassment fo r childhood gender nonconformity paralleled relations involving sexual objectification ex periences. Thus, teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity may be conceptualized as another type of object ification that promotes increased awareness, monitoring, and attempts to control ones body, appearance, and behaviors (i.e., selfobjectification) in order to a void further teasing, ne gative attention, harass ment, and potential violence. This conceptualization is supported by the current findings that teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity seems to function in the objectification theory framework in a similar manner to how sexual objectification experiences function, th rough their role in promoting self-objectification. Previous studies have also identified body shame as a me diator in the link of selfobjectification to disordered eating symptoms (Graham, 2006 ; Moradi et al., 2005; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). The current study replicat ed this finding, and in addition found that body

PAGE 59

59 shame acted as mediator in the link of internaliz ation of cultural standards of attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms, as well as in the links of internalized homophobia and teasing/harassment for chil dhood gender nonconformity to disordered eating symptoms. Consistent with prior research and conceptualizati ons, these findings sugg est that body shame might be promoted through habitual body monito ring, and feeling as if one does not measure up to the cultural standards of attractiveness. Sp ecifically relevant for gay men, however, these findings also suggest that body shame may be promoted through experiencing teasing/harassment for gender nonconformity and f eelings of internalized homophobia. The links of harassment for gender nonconformity and in ternalized homophobia with body shame have been posited to be related to not feeling masculine enough. As Beren (1997) points out, masculine traits are often associated with the bod y. For example, masculinity is in part evaluated based on muscularity and how the body performs (e .g., sports abilities). Gay men, who are more likely than heterosexual men to experience teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity as children, may ex perience higher levels of body shame due to feeling less masculine. (Beren,1996). In a parallel manne r, internalized homophobia may promote body shame as well. There is evidence that gay men (Laner & Laner, 1979) and young boys (Martin, 1990) who are judged to be less masculine are more disliked than those who more closely fit the masculine stereotype. A more recent study by Wilkinson (2004) also suggests that gay men who are less masculine may experience more stigma du e to greater gender nonconformity. As a result of this stigma, greater levels of internalized homophobia may be experienced and manifested as body shame due to feelings of not measuring up to the masculine ideal, which is related to body shame. In addition, internalized homophobia was found to act as a mediator in the link of sexual

PAGE 60

60 objectification experiences to body shame. Thus, sexual objectif ication experiences may be related to greater internalized homophobia which in turn is linked with greater body shame. Limitations and Directions for Future Research Limitations of the current study include the self -report nature of the measures being used. Responses may be influenced by perception, or inaccurate memory recall. Self-reports of objectification experiences might be particularly vulnerable to the influence of perception. For example, in assessing objectif ication experiences in the curre nt study, an open response option was provided for respondents to lis t other objectification experiences that were not directly asked about. Several participants expre ssed the opinion that they did not perceive these experiences as objectifying and in fact dressed or behaved in a way that would invite this type of response from other men. In addition, some expressed that they had not experienced instances of sexual objectification, but would like to have experien ced them. This percep tion of objectification experiences serving as an affirmation of desirability may affect how one experiences the related correlates of objectification theory. Given the find ing that internalization of cultural standards did not mediate the link of sexua l objectification experiences to disordered eating symptoms, future research that explores th e effects of either pe rceiving or not perceiving an experience as sexually objectifying, is needed to understand this inconsistenc y with previous research on objectification theory (Graham, 2006; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005). In addition, future research is needed to develop instruments that accurately assess gay mens unique experiences of sexual objectificati on, and how these experiences ar e perceived and interpreted. Given that we know very little about gay mens experiences rega rding eating disorder symptomatology, self-reported percep tions and cross-sectional resear ch is a necessary first step to begin to provide the basis for other met hods of data collection and experimental and longitudinal research. The findings of the curr ent cross-sectional study advance our knowledge

PAGE 61

61 and understanding of disordered eating as experi enced by gay men, by extending the literature on objectification theory, and illustrating that this framework is useful in understanding the experiences of gay men. The curre nt findings also inform future research on eating disorders among gay men. Specifically, the find ings of the current study demonstrate that in addition to body shame, experiences of sexual objectifica tion, habitual body monitoring (i.e., selfobjectification) and internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, are important to understanding the development of disordered eating in this popul ation. In addition, the findings of the current study highlight th at experiences of stigmatizat ion for gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia are impor tant variables to consider in future research on eating disorders in this population. However, additiona l experimental and long itudinal research is needed to directly test the cau sal and directional relations sugg ested by the current and previous findings of studies evaluating the objectification theory framework. Another limitation of the study is the mode of data collecti on. By using the internet to collect data, persons who did not have access to a computer and internet were excluded. In addition online surveys may be especially vulne rable to random responding. The current study utilized validity check items in order to ensu re that participants we re not randomly responding, and that they were in fact reading and unders tanding the questions. While these factors are a concern, using an online survey offers some important advantages at this point in the development of research on eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. One important benefit of online survey methodol ogy with gay men is that it he lps to promote anonymity, since participants were not required to come into th e laboratory and come out to the researchers. As such, this method of data collect ion is likely to result in a bett er representation of individuals who are less out about their sexual orientat ion (Epstein & Klinke nberg, 2002), In addition,

PAGE 62

62 online data collection may increase the generalizea bility of the findings since participants were from a broader range of backgrounds than would be found in a traditiona l undergraduate sample. One last concern with regard to online data collecti on is that there is no way to know if all participants met the inclusion cr iteria specified in the invitation to participate. However, this concern is not unique to online data collection. In fact, inclusion cr iteria are not always visually evident (e.g., gay identification), a nd researchers must trust that pa rticipants are being forthright with regard to their elig ibility for participation. An additional potential limitation is that while participants were diverse in terms of age and geographic location, the sample was largely White/Caucasian, and most reported at least a college degree. This limits the generalizeability of the findings to those of a similar racial/ethnic background and socioeconomic status. Future studies are needed to assess the applicability of objectification theory and its tenets w ith more diverse populations of gay men. A critical direction for future research is to explore variables that may act as protective factors for gay men. Prior research has suggested that gay men are at an increased risk for developing eating disorders (Bramon-Bosch, Troop, & Treasure, 2000; Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; Carlat, Camargo, & Herzog, 1997; Epel, Spanakos, Kasl-Godley, & Brownell, 1996; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Williamson & Hartley, 1998). Furthermore, Russell and Keel ( 2002) identified gay orientation as a specific risk factor for eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. Th e findings of the current study have further elucidated some of the variables that may play a ro le in this increased risk, but future research is needed to investigate potential protective factors, such as intr apersonal variables that prevent negative cultural messages from becoming internalized.

PAGE 63

63 Implications for Practice The findings of the current st udy not only inform future dir ections for research, but are also able to inform clinical interventions aime d at reducing attitudes a nd behaviors related to disordered eating symptomatology among gay men. The finding that objectification theory and its tenets are applicable to this population can info rm intervention strategies that directly address the relations of these variables to disordered eating symptoms. More specifically, the current study suggests that sexual objectification experien ces are important to understanding disordered eating among gay men. Interventions aiming to decrease media and interpersonal sexual objectification of men in general and gay me n in particular, are important avenues for prevention. Furthermore, for clinicians working with gay men, it is important to assess and attend to gay mens experiences of sexua l objectification and harassment for gender nonconformity. The current study suggests that intern alization of cultu ral standards of attractiveness, internalized homophobia, and se lf-objectification are ways in which these experiences might be translated into disordered eating symptomatology. Thus paying attention in therapy to how these experiences are perceive d and interpreted is important for designing appropriate interventions that can successfully decrease or pr event internalization and selfobjectification. For example, therapists may work with their clients to identify experiences that are sexually objectifying so that they may combat internalizat ion and become more aware of habitual body monitoring. Additionally, the current st udy suggests that reducing body shame is important for prevention and intervention of eating disorder symptoms among gay men. Exploring in therapy, feelings of internalized hom ophobia and how those feelings might promote self-objectification and shame regarding ones body may be one way in which shame can be reduced. Specifically, it may be beneficial for clinicians to help clie nts recognize internalized feelings of homophobia

PAGE 64

64 and explore how and when those f eelings are experienced. In addi tion, clinicians may help their clients to become more aware of when they ar e monitoring their bodily movements. Exploring a clients motivations for habitual body monito ring may decrease body shame and promote greater acceptance of ones body. Summary The findings of the current study support th e utility of objectifi cation theory and its tenants for understanding disordered eating among gay men. The findi ngs also suggest that it is important to consider the additional roles of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia in di sordered eating for this population. Future studies examining objectificati on theory can expand on the curre nt findings by exploring the longitudinal links and causal rela tionships among the variables in the model. Finally, the findings can inform prevention and in tervention strategies.

PAGE 65

Sexual objectification experiences Body shame Eating disorder symptoms Internalization of cultural standards Internalized Homophobia .1 4 ** .20** .40*** .16** .12* .23*** .22* .16** .53*** .25*** .34*** .18*** .33*** Selfobjectification Harassment for gender nonconformity Body Mass Index -.15* .20*** Figure 5 3. Trimmed model depicting re lationships among vari ables of interest 65

PAGE 66

66 APPENDIX A OBJECTIFICATION EXPERI ENCES QUESTIONNAIRE Please use the following scale to indicate how of ten during the past year you have experienced each of the events below. 1 = Never 2 = Once in a while (less than 10% of the time) 3 = Sometimes (10-25% of the time) 4 = A lot (26-49% of the time) 5 = Most of the time (50-75% of the time) 6 = Almost all of the time (more than 70% of the time. 1. Had someone refer to me with a de meaning or degradi ng label specific to gay men (e.g., faggot, queer, homo)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Had sexual comments made about parts of my body or clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Someone stared at my body while talking to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Heard someone make comments about sexual behavior I might do or things they would want to do with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Had my romantic partne r (current or former) check out other men in my presence, in a way that was offensive or hurtful to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Someone made offensive or unwante d, sexualized gestures toward me (e. g., pantomime of masturbation or intercourse). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Felt that a date was more interested in my body (and gaining access to it) than in me as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Someone did or said something that made me feel threatened sexually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Experienced unwanted staring or og ling at myself or parts of my body when the person knew or should have known I was not interested or it was inappropriate for the s ituation or our relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Experienced unwanted flirting when the person knew or should have known that I was not interested or it was inappropriate for the situation or our relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Had someone inappropriately grab or touch me to express sexual interest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Had people shout sexual comments, whistle, or make catcalls at me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Been checked out or cruised (i .e., had my body stared at in an intrusive way) by a person in public. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Had my appearance/body comment ed on in a way that I felt was inappropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Heard someone make sexual comments about another mans body or mens bodies in general (eithe r positively or negatively) 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Heard someone make evaluative or judging comments about my weight or body shape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Heard someone make evaluative or judging comments about another mans weight/body shape or mens weight/body shape in general 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Please describe any other times that you felt as if you were being treated as a sexual object.

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX B THE SOCIOCULTURAL ATTI TUDES TOWARD APPEAR ANCE INTERNALIZATION SUBSCALE (SATAQ) Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement with the statement. 1 = completely disagree 2 = somewhat disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = somewhat agree 5 = completely agree 1. Men who appear in TV shows a nd movies project the type of appearance that I see as my goal. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I believe that clothes look better on fit/lean men. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Music videos that show fit/lean men make me wish that I were fit. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I do not wish to look like the men in the magazines. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I tend to compare my body to people in magazines and on TV. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Photographs of fit/lean men make me wish that I were fit. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I wish I looked like an underwear model. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I often read magazines like GQ, Mens Fitness and Mens Health and compare my appearance to the models. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 68

68 APPENDIX C THE MOTHER FATHER PEER SCALE Please indicate the extent to which the follo wing statements describe your childhood/teenage relationship with the people indicated by using the following scale. FOR EACH STATEMENT: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 = Uncertain 4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Strongly Agree WHEN I WAS A CHILD, MY MOTHER (or mother substitute): 1. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports 1 2 3 4 5 2. Took pride in my masculinity. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Took pride in my feminine traits. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Would call me sissy. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Would often tease or criticize me fo r not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Would often tease or criticize me fo r being too feminine. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Would criticize or make f un of me for liking girl toys. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Would sometimes call me faggot. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Liked me because I was sensitive and smart 1 2 3 4 5 WHEN I WAS A CHILD, MY FATHER (or father substitute): 1. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports 1 2 3 4 5 2. Took pride in my masculinity. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Took pride in my feminine traits. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Would call me sissy. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Would often tease or criticize me fo r not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Would often tease or criticize me fo r being too feminine. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Would criticize or make f un of me for liking girl toys. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Would sometimes call me faggot. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Liked me because I was sensitive and smart 1 2 3 4 5 WHEN I WAS A CHILD, OTHER CHILDREN : 1. 2. Would often tease or criticize me fo r not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Criticized or teased me for being too sensitive. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Would often call me a crybaby. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Would call me a sissy. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Would call on me last (or close to last) to be on their sports team in gym. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Would criticize or make f un of me for liking girl toys. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Would sometimes call me a faggot. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Made me feel popular. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Liked me because I was athletic. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX D BODY SURVEILLANCE SUBSCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (OBC) Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement with the statement. Circle NA only if the stat ement does not apply to you. Do not circle NA if you don't agree with the statement. For example if the statement says "When I am happy, I feel like singing" and you don't feel like singing when you are happy, then you would circle one of the disagree choices. You would onl y circle NA if you were never happy. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Moderately Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Moderately Agree 7 = Strongly Agree NA = Item does not apply 1. I rarely think about how I look. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 2. I think it is more importa nt that my clothes are comfortable than whethe r they look good on me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 3. I think more about how my body feels than how my body looks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 4. I rarely compare how I look with how other people look. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 5. During the day, I think about how I look many times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 6. I often worry about whether the clothes I am wearing make me look good. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 7. I rarely worry about how I look to other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 8. I am more concerned with what my body can do than how it looks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX E BODY SHAME SUBSCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (OBC) Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement with the statement. Circle NA only if the stat ement does not apply to you. Do not circle NA if you don't agree with the statement. For example if the statement says "When I am happy, I feel like singing" and you don't feel like singing when you are happy, then you would circle one of the disagree choices. You would onl y circle NA if you were never happy. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Moderately Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree 4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 5 = Slightly Agree 6 = Moderately Agree 7 = Strongly Agree NA = Item does not apply 1. When I cant control my weight, I feel like something must be wrong with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 2. I feel ashamed of myself when I havent made the effort to look my best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 3. I feel like I must be a bad person when I dont look as good as I could. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 4. I would be ashamed for people to know what I really weigh. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 5. Even when I cant control my weight, I think Im an okay person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 6. I never worry that something is wrong with me when I am not exercising as much as I should. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 7. When Im not exercising enough, I question whether I am a good enough person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 8. When Im not the size I th ink I should be, I feel ashamed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

PAGE 71

71 APPENDIX F THE EATING ATTITUDES TEST 26 (EAT-26) For each of the following questions, please se lect the response that best describes you. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Usually 6 = Always 1. Am terrified about being overweight. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Avoid eating when I am hungry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Find myself preoccupied with food. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Have gone on eating binges wher e I feel that I may not be able to stop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Cut my food into small pieces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Aware of the calorie content of foods that I eat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Particularly avoid food w ith a high carbohydrate content (i.e., bread, rice, potatoes, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Feel that others would prefer if I ate more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Vomit after I have eaten. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Feel extremely guilty after eating. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Am preoccupied with a desire to be thinner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Think about burning up calo ries when I exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Other people think that I am too thin. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Am preoccupied with the thought of ha ving fat on my body. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Take longer than others to eat my meals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Avoid foods with sugar in them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Eat diet foods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Feel that food controls my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Display self-control around food. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Feel that others pressure me to eat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Give too much time and thought to food. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. Feel uncomfortable after eating sw eets. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Engage in dieting behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Like my stomach to be empty. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Enjoy trying new rich foods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. Have the impulse to vomit after meals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX G INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SCALE (IHP) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the scale below. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 = Uncertain 4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Strongly Agree 1. I have tried to stop being attracted to men in general. 1 2 3 4 5 2. If someone offered me the chance to be completely heterosexual, I would accept the chance. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I wish I were not gay. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I feel that being gay is a persona l shortcoming for me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I would like to get professional help in order to change my sexual orientation from gay to straight. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I have tried to become more sexually attracted to women. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I often feel it best to avoid pe rsonal or social involvement with other gay men. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I feel alienated from my self because of being gay. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I wish that I could develop more er otic feelings about women. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Please tell us a little about yourse lf. This information will be used only to describe the sample as a group. 1. Age: _______ 2. Gender: ___Man ___Woman ___Transgender 3. Your current relationship status (p lease select the best descriptor): ___Single ___ Partnered ___ Dating, long term ___Dating, casual 4. Completed Education (please select one): ___Less than High School ___Some High School ___High School Graduate ___Some College ___College Degree (e.g. B.A., B.S.) ___Professional Degree (e.g., MBA, MS, Ph.D, M.D.) 5. Current Employment status (please select the one best descriptor): ___Employed Full Time __ _Employed Part Time ___ Not employed 6. Yearly household income (income of those on whom you rely financially): ___Below $10,000 ___$60,001 to $70,000 ___$10,001 to $20,000 ___$70,001 to $80,000 ___$20,001 to $30,000 ___$80,001 to $90,000 ___$30,001 to $40,000 ___$90,001 to $100,000 ___$40,001 to $50,000 ___$100,001 to $110,000 ___ $50,001 to $60,000 ___Above $110,001

PAGE 74

74 7. Your current social class (please select the one best descriptor): ___lower class ___working class ___middle class ___upper middle class ___upper class 8. Race/ethnicity (Please check one) ___African American/Black ___Asian American/Pacific Islander ___American Indian/Native American ___Hispanic/Latino/a White ___Hispanic/Latino/a Black ___White/Caucasian ___Multi-racial, please specify: ____________________ ___Other, please specify: _________________________ 9. Current height: _____feet ______inches 10. Current weight in pounds ________ 11. Your sexual orientation (please check the one best descriptor): ___Exclusively gay ___Mostly gay ___Bisexual ___Mostly Heterosexual ___Exclusively Heterosexual

PAGE 75

75 12. How much are you physically attracted to men ? low moderate high 1 2 3 4 5 13. How much are you physically attracted to women ? low moderate high 1 2 3 4 5 14. How much are you emotionally attracted to men ? low moderate high 1 2 3 4 5 15. How much are you emotionally attracted to women ? low moderate high 1 2 3 4 5 16. Sexual behavior: Have you had sex with men, women, or both genders? ___ Never had sex ___ Men only ___ Men mostly ___ Both genders equally ___ Women mostly ___ Women only 17. How connected are you to the gay community? Please select one. ___ Very slightly or not at all ___ A little ___ Moderately ___ Quite a bit ___ Extremely

PAGE 76

76 18. Are you involved in a sport, pr ofession, or other activity which requires weight maintenance? (e.g. professional dancer, wrestling, etc.) ___Yes ___No If yes, please describe ___________________________________ 19. Finally, we would like to obt ain information regarding the ge ographic location of our sample. This information will remain confidential and will only be used to describe the sample as a group. Please fill in the city, st ate, and country in which you currently reside down below: City: _____________________________ State: ____________________________ Country: _________________________

PAGE 77

77 REFERENCES Andersen, A. E. (1992). Males with eating disorders. In J. Yager, H. E. Gwirtsman, & C. K. Edelstein (Eds.), Special problems in m anaging eating disorders (pp. 87-118). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Andersen, A. E. (1999). Eating disorders in gay males. Psychiatric Annals, 29, 206-212. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos (V ersion 6.0) [Computer software ]. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation. Barron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderato r-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra tegic, and statisti cal consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 1173-1182. Beren, S. E., (1997). Stigmatization and sham e as determinants of subclinical eating disorder pathology: A comparis on of gay and heterosexual men Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58, 2109. Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The influence of sexual orientation on body dissatisfact ion in adult men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20(2), 135-141. Bramon-Bosch, E., Troop, N. A., & Treasure, J. L. (2000). Eating disorders in males: A comparison with female patients. European Eating Disorders Review 8 321-328. Brand, P. A., Rothblum, E., & Solomon, L. J. (1992). A comparison of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on weight and restrained eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders 11 253-259. Burnett, R. E. (1995). Gendered objectification experiences: Construct validity, implications for dysphoria and depression, and phenomenology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University. Carlat, D. J., Camargo, C. A., & Herzog, D. B. (1997). Eating disorders in males: A report on 135 patients. American Journal of Psychiatry 154, 1127-1132. Cashel, M. L., Cunningham, D., Landeros, C., Cokley, K.O., & Muhammad, G. (2003). Sociocultural attitudes and symptoms of bulimia: Evaluating the SATAQ with diverse college groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 287-296. Clark, D. (1995). Commodity lesbianism. In Dines, G. & Humez, J. (Eds.), Gender, race and class in media: A text reader (142-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Crosscope-Happel, C., Hutchins, D. E., Getz, G. H., & Hayes, G. L. (2000). Male anorexia

PAGE 78

78 nervosa: A new focus. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 22 365-370. DiCarlo, J. (2001, March 30). The gym body and heroic myth. The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide 8(4), 14. Epel, E. S., Spanakos, A., Kasl-Godley, J., & Br ownell, K. D. (1996). Body shape ideals across gender, sexual orientation, socioeco nomic status, race and age in personal advertisements. International Journal of Eating Disorders 19 265-273. Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential sel f-theory: Implications for developmental psychology. In Gunnar, M. & Scroufe, L.A. (Eds.), Self processes and development, 23. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, (79-123). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Epstein, J. & Klinkenberg, W. D. (2002). Collec ting data via the inte rnet: The development and deployment of a web-based survey. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 19(2/3), 33-47. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. ( 2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51(1), 115134. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997) Objectification theory : Toward understanding womens lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21 173-206. Fredrickson, B. L, Roberts, T. A, Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M, & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self -objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personalit y & Social Psychology 75(1), 269-284. French, S. A., Story, M., Remafedi, G., & Resn ick, M. D. (1996). Sexual orientation and prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating di sordered behaviors: A population-based study of adolescents. International Journal of Eating Disorders 19 119-126. Frisch, R. E. (1988). Fatness and fertility, Scientific American 88-95. Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2 Professional Manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9, 273-279. Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garf inkle, P. E. (1982). The eating attitudes test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological Medicine, 12, 871-878. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

PAGE 79

79 Granello, D. G., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Onlin e data collection: Stra tegies for Research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 387-393. Heffernan, K. (1994). Sexual orientation as a f actor in risk for binge-eating and bulimia nervosa: A review. International Journal of Eating Disorders 16 335-347. Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towa rd Appearance Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders 17 81-89. Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., Gillis, J. R.., & Gl unt, E. K. (1998). Correlates of internalized homophobia in a community sample of lesbians and gay men. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Associciation, 2, 1998. Herzog, D., Bradburn, I., & Newman, K. (1990). Sexua lity in males with eating disorders. In Andersen, A. E. (Ed), Males With Eating Disorders (40-53). New York: Bruner/Mazel,. Hill, M. S. (2002). Examining objectification th eory: Sexual objectifications link with selfobjectifiction and moderation by sexual orientation and age in White women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron. Kahn, C. (2004). Troubled body image. The Advocate, 911 25. Kashubeck-West, S., & Mintz, L. B., & Saunders, K. J. (2001). Assessment of eating disorders in women. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 662-694. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of st ructural equation modeling New York: Guilford Press. Klingenspor, B. (2002). Gender-related self-dis crepancies and bulimic eating behavior. Sex Roles 47 51-64 Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of objectification theory with lesbian women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 348-357. Lakkis, J., Ricciardelli, L. A ., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Ro les of sexual orientation and gender-related traits in disordered eating. Sex Roles 41 1-16. Laner, M. R., & Laner, R. H. (1979). Personal style or sexual prefer ence: Why gay men are disliked. International Review of Modern Sociology 9 215-228. Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expecta tions about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles 22 151-165. Martin J. L., & Dean, L. L. (1988). The impact of AIDS on gay men: A research instrument, 1988. Unpublished technical report. New York: Columbia University.

PAGE 80

80 McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differen ces in undergraduates body esteem: The mediating effect of objectified body c onsciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy. Sex Roles, 39 113-123. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996) The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 181-215. Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptoma tology: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (3), 420-428. Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Ma gazine exposure: In ternalization, selfobjectification, eating attitude s, and body satisfaction in male and female university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 33(4), 269-279. Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self-object ification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26(4), 371-379. Noll, S. M, & Fredrickson, B. L. ( 1998). A mediational model linking selfobjectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22(4), 623-636. Nungesser, L. G. (1983). Homosexual acts, actors, and identities New York: Prager. Roberts, T., & Gettman, J. V. (2004). Mere e xposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a stat e of self-obj ectification. Sex Roles, 51(1/2 ), 17-27. Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cu ltural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46(3/4), 61-74. Russell, C. J. & Keel, P. K. (2002). Homosexua lity as a specific risk factor for eating disorders in men International Journal of Eating Disorders 31 300-306. Schneider, R. (2001). Body culture. The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 8(4), 4. Sender, K. (1999). Selling sexual subjectivi ties: Audiences respond to the gay window advertising. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16, 172-196. Shernoff, M. (2001). Steroids and the pursuit of bigness. The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 8(4) 32. Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and ge nder as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfa ction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology 62 252-260.

PAGE 81

81 Silberstein, L. R., Mishkind, M. E., Striegel -Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1989). Men and their bodies: A comparison of homosexual and heterosexual men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 337-346. Strong, S. M., Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2000). Childhood gender nonconformity and body dissatisfaction in gay and heterosexual men. Sex Roles 43 (7/8), 427-439. Strong, S. M., Williamson, D. A., & Netemeyer, R. G., Geer, J. H. (2000). Eating disorder symptoms and concerns about body diffe r as a function of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19 240-255. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Fer guson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for it incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues 57, 31-53. Tiggemann, M. & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43 299-311. Tiggemann, M. & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body imag e across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 243-253. Williamson, I. (1999). Why are gay men a hi gh risk group for eating disturbance? European Eating Disorders Review, 7, 1-4. Williamson, I., & Hartley, P. (1998). British resear ch into the increased vulnerability of young gay men to eating disturba nce and body dissatisfaction. European Eating Disorders Review 6 160-70.

PAGE 82

82 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Marcie Chantel Wiseman was born on N ovember 30, 1975 in Corning, New York. The oldest of three children, she gr ew up mostly in Ocala, Florida. She graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degr ee in Psychology from Saint Leo University in 2003. Marcie began the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at the University of Florida in August of 2004, and hopes to earn her Ph.D. in the next few years.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020968/00001

Material Information

Title: Eating Disorder Symptomatology in Gay Men: Testing an Extension of Objectification Theory
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020968:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020968/00001

Material Information

Title: Eating Disorder Symptomatology in Gay Men: Testing an Extension of Objectification Theory
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020968:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





EATING DISORDER SYMPTOMATOLOGY INT GAY MEN: TESTING AN EXTENSION OF
OBJECTIFICATION THEORY






















By

MARCIE C. WISEMAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA INT PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007




































O 2007 by Marcie C. Wiseman


































To my mother-in-law Nancy who first mentioned to me the possibility of graduate school.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am thankful to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Bonnie Moradi, for her invaluable

guidance, support, and encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank my

committee members Dr. Carlos Hernandez and Dr. Mary Fukuyama for their assistance. In

addition, I would like to thank my husband Ben. I could never have accomplished this without

his love and support. Finally, I would like to thank my mother for the love and encouragement

she has given me over the years.











TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

LIST OF TABLES ............ ..... .__ ...............7...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....

AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........9

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............11.......... ......


2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. ...............17.......... ....


Disordered Eating and Body Image Disturbance in Gay Men ................ ............ .........17
Obj ectification Theory ................. ...... ....... ...............22......
Gay Men's Experiences of Sociocultural Pressures .............. ...............26....
Sexual Obj ectification of Gay Men ................... .. ........ ... ... ......... .... ........2
Experiences of Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity ................... ......32
Purpose of Study ................. ...............3.. 5......... ....

3 M ETHODS .............. ...............39....


Participants .............. ...............39....
Procedure .............. ...............40....
M measures ................. ...............41.......... ......

4 RE SULT S .............. ...............47....


Descriptive Statistics .............. ...............47....
H ypothesis 1 .................. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ..............4
Hypotheses 2, 3, 4: Mediations Based on the Obj ectification Theory Framework ................48
Hypothesis 5: Direct and Indirect Links of Internalized Homophobia and
Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity .............. .....................5

5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............57................


Limitations and Directions for Future Research............... ...............60
Implications for Practice ................. ...............63........... ....
Summary ................. ...............64.................

APPENDIX


A OBJECTIFICATION EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE ................. .......................66

B THE SOCIOCULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD APPEARANCE
INTERNALIZATION SUBSCALE (SATAQ)............... ...............67











C THE MOTHER FATHER PEER SCALE .............. ...............68....

D BODY SURVEILLANCE SUB SCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY
CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (OBC) .............. ...............69....

E BODY SHAME SUB SCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS
SCALE (OBC)............... ...............70.

F THE EATING ATTITUDES TEST 26 (EAT-26) .............. ...............71....

G INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SCALE (IHP) .............. ...............72....

E DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE............... .............7

F REFERENCES .............. ...............77....

G BIOGRAPHICAL SKET CH ............ ..... ..__ ...............82...










LIST OF TABLES


Table


page


4 1 Summary statistics and partial correlations among variables of interest with body
mass index controlled .............. ...............55....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2 1. Hypothesized path model............... ...............38.

4 2. Full model depicting relationships among variables of interest ................ ................ ...56

5 3. Trimmed model depicting relationships among variables of interest ............... .... .........._.65









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EATING DISORDER SYMPTOMATOLOGY IN GAY MEN:
TESTING AN EXTENSION OF OBJECTIFICATION THEORY

By

Marcie C. Wiseman

May 2007

Chair: Bonnie Moradi
Major: Psychology

Men account for at least 10% of the cases of anorexia and bulimia. Gay men are

overrepresented among these cases, accounting for as much as 30% of men with a diagnosable

eating disorder. Obj ectification theory is a promising theoretical framework that has been used to

understand eating disorder symptomatology in women. This perspective posits that sexual

obj ectification experiences lead women to self-obj ectify and self-obj ectification in turn is an

important precursor to eating disorder-related attitudes and behaviors. There is evidence that

men, especially gay men, are becoming increasingly sexually objectified. Based on an

integration of research on obj ectification theory and research on eating disorder symptomatology

among gay men, the present study examined links among sexual obj ectification experiences,

internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness standards, teasing/harassment for childhood

gender nonconformity, internalized homophobia, self-objectification, body shame and eating

disorder symptomatology with a sample of 23 1 gay men. These links were examined through a

path analysis of the theory-based model. The results indicated that the obj ectification theory

framework was applicable for gay men, and that the additional roles of teasing/harassment for

childhood gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia are important to consider for this










population. Limitations of the study, potential implications of the findings, and directions for

future research are also discussed.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Eating disorders have been perceived as women's disorders (Crosscope-Happel,

Hutchins, Getz, & Hayes, 2000). Nevertheless, men account for at least 10% of the cases of

anorexia and bulimia (Andersen, 1992). This percentage translates into nearly 1 million men

diagnosed with eating disorders each year and could actually reflect an underestimate because

eating disorders are often overlooked or misdiagnosed in men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins,

Getz, & Hayes, 2000). For example, even the DSM-IV-TR shows bias in diagnostic criteria for

anorexia nervosa in that amenorrhea is listed as a criterion but no parallel symptom is listed for

men, despite evidence that supports parallel physiological changes in men. More specifically, a

decrease in the amount of testosterone has been observed to occur with eating disorders among

men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, & Hayes, 2000) and a decrease in sperm production

has been observed among men weighing 25% less than their healthy body weight (Frisch, 1988).

Extant data suggest that eating disorders and related symptomatology may be more

prevalent among gay men than among heterosexual men. For example, several studies have

demonstrated that incidence of body dissatisfaction, concern with weight, and disordered eating

are much higher for gay men than for heterosexual men (Bramon-Bosch, Troop, & Treasure,

2000; Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; Carlat, Camargo, & Herzog, 1997; Epel, Spanakos,

Kasl-Godley, & Brownell, 1996; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Williamson

& Hartley, 1998). In fact, gay men are overrepresented among men with eating disorders; gay

men make up an estimated 3 to 5 % of the U. S. population (Andersen, 1999) but make up

approximately 30% of eating disorder cases among men (Crosscope-Happel, Hutchins, Getz, &

Hayes, 2000). Furthermore, a study by Russell and Keel (2002) identified gay orientation as a

specific risk factor for eating disorder symptomatology among men. More specifically, sexual









orientation accounted for significant variance in body dissatisfaction and symptoms of bulimia

and anorexia, above and beyond the variance accounted for by depression symptomatology and

level of self-esteem. This finding suggests that beyond the role of overall mental health,

something unique about the experience of being gay might contribute to the higher rates of

eating disorder symptomatology among men.

There has been much speculation about the reasons for the higher rates of eating

pathology among gay men than among heterosexual men (Heffernan, 1994; Klingenspor, 2002;

Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams, 1999; Siever, 1994). Some scholars have suggested that the

importance placed on gay men's attractiveness in gay culture may be one explanation for this

difference (Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989). For

example, a study by Siever (1994) found that compared to heterosexual men, gay men placed

more importance on physical appearance in evaluations of themselves and potential partners.

Gay men also were found to have a thinner ideal body type for themselves and their partners than

the body types preferred by heterosexual men (Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1991). These

ideals are reflected in the following excerpt from The Gay & Lesbian Review a popular

lesbian/gay periodical, "To find the perfect man, I must become the perfect man. Being

boyfriend material, in short, means having a nice body, which one needs as a kind of dowry to be

considered marriageable." (DiCarlo, 2001, p. 14). In addition, gay men's scores on measures of

body dissatisfaction and eating pathology were more similar to that of heterosexual women than

that of heterosexual men (Siever, 1994). Emphasis on physical appearance and attractiveness as a

source of body dissatisfaction and eating pathology for gay men parallels theoretical

conceptualizations that point to sociocultural pressures as a source of body dissatisfaction and

eating pathology for women. Thus, extant literature on sociocultural correlates of women' s









eating disorder symptomatology can serve as important groundwork for advancing understanding

of eating disorder symptomatology among gay men.

Obj ectifieation theory, developed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), represents an

important advancement in understanding eating disorder symptomatology among women. The

obj ectifieation theory framework suggests that through experiences of cultural sexual

obj ectifieation, women in western society come to view their bodies as obj ects. Fredrickson and

Roberts defined sexual obj ectifieation as "the experience of being treated as a body (or collection

of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others" (p. 174). Sexual

obj ectifieation experiences can include experiences such as viewing sexualized media images,

being called a derogatory name based on one's gender, having inappropriate comments made

about one's body, and being the target of offensive, sexualized gestures. These experiences

reduce an individual to her or his body, body parts, or body functions, especially sexual

functions. Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) posited that as a result of sexual obj ectifieation

experiences, the individual may adopt an observer's perspective upon her or his own body

(Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This taking on an observer' s perspective upon one' s own body

is referred to as self-obj ectifieation and is manifested as habitual body monitoring. Self-

obj ectifieation or habitual body surveillance has been linked consistently to eating disorder-

related attitudes, behaviors, and symptomatology (Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and

Twenge, 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Roberts &

Gettman, 2004). Self-obj ectifieation can be devastating when individuals evaluate themselves

against an internalized cultural ideal and feel that they do not measure up to that ideal. This

perceived discrepancy is often experienced as body shame. Body shame has been found to









mediate the relation between self-objectification and eating disorder symptomatology (Noll &

Frederickson, 1988; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005; Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001).

Although obj ectification theory focuses specifically on women' s experiences of sexual

obj ectification as a precursor to eating disorder-related attitudes, behaviors, and symptoms, there

is evidence that men are becoming increasingly sexually objectified in our society (Rohlinger,

2002). In fact, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) acknowledged that men also may experience

sexual obj ectification and that men' s unique experiences should be examined. Such attention is

particularly important in light of evidence that instead of reducing sexually obj ectifying

portrayals of women in the media, there has been an increase in sexually obj ectifying portrayals

of men in the media. More specifically, Rohlinger (2002) analyzed media images over a period

of 10 years (1987-1997), and found evidence suggesting that men increasingly are being

portrayed in sexually objectified ways. The focus of the study by Rohlinger (2002) was on the

erotic male which the researchers defined as "being placed on display either by himself or with

other models," being "positioned in a sexual manner, most often posed or 'caught' in a personal

movement." In addition, "he rarely smiles," the body is emphasized therefore the "setting is

typically plain, blurred, or otherwise unclear," and "his eyes are often focused on something

other than the surrounding models or audience" (p. 67). All of this serves to keep the focus on

the body (Rohlinger, 2002). Furthermore, sexualized and obj ectifying media images of men are

thought to be specifically targeting gay men, by capitalizing on the dual marketing approach

(Clark, 1995; Rohlinger, 2002; Sender, 1999). The dual marketing approach is a technique

employed by advertisers to target gay/lesbian consumers without offending the straight audience

(Clark, 1995; Sender, 1999). The guidelines set forth for this technique are to "avoid explicit

references to heterosexuality by depicting only one individual or same-sexed individuals within









the representation frame. In addition, these models bear the signifiers of sexual ambiguity, or

androgynous style. But 'gayness' remains in the eye of the beholder" (Clark, 1995, p.144). Thus,

the dual marketing approach is used to subtly target gay audiences. In an article of The Gay and

Lesbian Review, John DiCarlo (2001) expressed his concern regarding this issue. DiCarlo

describes his reaction after viewing an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue; "All the clothes seem

like an afterthought, as do the women placed in the margins." He also comments that the slim

but muscular body style represented in the catalogue is "especially appealing to gay men" and

that he himself works hard to achieve this "ideal" (p. 14).

In addition to the deleterious potential impact of experiences of sexual obj ectification

suggested by obj ectification theory, research on eating disorder symptomatology among gay men

points to experiences of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity as another type

of obj ectification that is correlated with eating disorder-related attitudes and behaviors for this

population. For example, Beren (1997) found that early negative attention, defined as childhood

teasing for gender nonconformity (e.g., being teased for liking girl toys or not being athletic or

masculine enough, being called a sissy, faggot, or crybaby), was related positively to internalized

homophobia (i.e., the internalization of society's negative stereotypes about lesbian/gay persons).

Higher levels of internalized homophobia, in turn, were related to higher levels of eating disorder

symptomatology (Beren, 1997). This pattern points to the importance of considering the role of

childhood teasing in eating pathology for gay men. One possible explanation for the role of

gender-nonconformity-based teasing and harassment in eating disorder symptoms of gay men is

that such teasing and harassment might promote increased awareness, monitoring, and attempts

to control one' s body, appearance, and behaviors (i.e., self-obj ectification) in order to avoid

further teasing, negative attention, harassment, and potential violence. Therefore, for gay men,









experiences of teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity might be linked with

eating disorder attitudes and behaviors much in the same manner that women's sexual

obj ectification experiences are posited to function in the obj ectification theory framework;

through their role in promoting self-obj ectification and habitual body monitoring.

Thus, obj ectification theory presents a promising groundwork for understanding eating

disorder symptomatology among gay men by providing a theoretical framework for integrating

the potential roles of experiences of (a) sexual obj ectification and (b) stigmatization and

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. Despite its promise and accumulating

empirical support in research with women, (Frederickson et al., 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001;

Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002; Noll & Frederickson, 1998, Roberts & Gettman, 2004;

Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001), however, obj ectification theory has not been tested with gay men.

Thus, the present study examined the applicability of obj ectification theory to understanding

eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. In addition, based on research on gay men's

eating disorder sypmptomatology (Beren, 1997) the present study examined the possible roles of

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia in its

examination of the obj ectification theory framework with gay men.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter provides an integrative review of the literature that informs the present

study. The chapter is divided into four parts. First, a review of the literature on disordered eating

and body image disturbance in gay men is provided. Second, extant literature on obj ectifieation

theory is described. Third, gay men' s experiences of sexual obj ectifieation and stigmatization of

gender-nonconformity are discussed. Finally, the proposed conceptual model and hypotheses of

the present study are presented.

Disordered Eating and Body Image Disturbance in Gay Men

Extant data suggest that rates of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology

are higher among gay men than among heterosexual men. In addition, gay men seem to be more

similar to heterosexual women than to heterosexual men in terms of body dissatisfaction and

eating di sorder-symptomatology For example, Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko,

and Rodin (1989) surveyed 71 gay men and 71 heterosexual men and found that, compared to

heterosexual men, gay men's responses revealed (a) greater discrepancies between their

perceived and ideal body images, (b) less satisfaction with their bodies, (c) greater frequency of

exercising, and (d) greater likelihood of using exercise as a way to improve attractiveness rather

than as a way to improve health. These Eindings suggest that gay men show a higher rate of body

dissatisfaction than do heterosexual men.

A similar study by Brand, Rothblum & Solomon (1991) examined the roles of both

gender and sexual orientation in eating disordered and related attitudes and behaviors. More

specifically, these authors compared 124 lesbian women, 13 gay men, 39 heterosexual men, and

133 heterosexual women on restrained eating practices and body dissatisfaction. These authors

found a significant gender by sexual orientation interaction effect for weight preoccupation,










suggesting that heterosexual women and gay men were more preoccupied with their weight than

were lesbian women and heterosexual men, F (1,303) = 3.27, p < .07. Brand et al.'s (1991)

results must be interpreted cautiously, however, because the sample sizes for gay men and

heterosexual men were quite small. In addition, there was a significant difference in age between

groups F (1,305) = 5.41, p < .01, with the mean age for the gay and lesbian participants at about

34 years, and the mean age for heterosexual women and men at about 19 years. Thus, the extent

to which gender by sexual orientation effects could have reflected gender by age interactions is

unclear.

A later study by Siever (1994) addressed one of the limitations of Brand et al.'s (1991)

study by having larger samples of lesbian women and gay men. More specifically, Seiver (1994)

examined levels of disordered eating and body dissatisfaction in a sample of 250 participants that

included lesbian women (n = 53), gay men (n = 59), heterosexual men (n = 63) and heterosexual

women (n = 62). A MANOVA, with two different measures of disordered eating as dependent

variables, revealed that gay men scored similarly to both groups of women but differently from

heterosexual men on one eating disorder dependent variable, and similarly to heterosexual

women and heterosexual men, but differently from lesbian women on the other eating disorder

dependent variable. More specifically, gay men, heterosexual women and lesbian women scored

significantly higher than heterosexual men on eating disorder symptomatology, as measured by

the Eating Attitudes Test-26, F (1,249) = 9.99, p < .0001. In addition, gay men, heterosexual

women, and heterosexual men scored significantly higher than lesbian women on restrained

eating, as measured by the oral control sub scale of the Eating Attitudes Test-26, F (1,249) =

5.70, p < .001. Furthermore, on the oral control sub scale of the EAT-26, gay men scored the

highest among the groups. Although this difference did not reach significance in all group









comparisons, gay men did score significantly higher than heterosexual men and lesbian women.

The pattern of findings in this study suggests that gay men' s level of eating disorder

symptomatology is similar to levels of eating disorder symptomatology among heterosexual

women but higher than that among heterosexual men.

In addition to these findings regarding level of eating disorder symptomatology, Siever

examined proportions of each group that scored at clinically significant levels of eating

pathology and found that much higher percentages of gay men and heterosexual women scored

in the clinically significant range of eating disorder symptomatology (on the EAT) than did

lesbian women and heterosexual men. More specifically, 9 of the 59 gay men (16.7%), and 8 of

the 62 (13.8%) heterosexual women in the sample scored in the clinically significant range,

whereas only 2 of the 53 (4.2%) lesbian women, and 2 of the 63 (3.4%) heterosexual men scored

in this range. Although Siever did not report whether these differences in percentages were

statistically significant, he highlighted them as "striking."

Finally, Siever (1994) found that gay men scored significantly higher on body

dissatisfaction, as measured by current-ideal discrepancy scores for Body Size Drawings, than

did all other groups. Gay men also scored significantly lower on body esteem, as measured by

the Body Esteem Scale, than did lesbian women and heterosexual men. Taken together, the

pattern of findings from Siever' s study suggests that gay men demonstrated rates of overall

eating disorder symptomatology and body dissatisfaction that were as high as that among

heterosexual women and in most cases higher than heterosexual men and lesbian women.

Another study, conducted by Strong, Williamson, Netemeyer, and Geer (2000), also

found that rates of clinically significant eating disorder symptoms, level of eating disorder

symptomatology, and body size concerns for gay men were similar to those for heterosexual and









lesbian women but different from rates for heterosexual men. These authors surveyed 95

heterosexual men, 103 gay men, 112 heterosexual women, and 82 lesbian women. Clinically

significant eating disorder symptoms were determined by scores greater than 19 on the EAT-26.

Using these guidelines, 1 heterosexual man (1%), 10 gay men (9.7%), 14 heterosexual women

(13.1%), and 7 lesbian women (9.1%) scored in the clinical range; with heterosexual men having

significantly lower rates of clinically significant symptoms than the other three groups (p < .05).

Heterosexual women scored higher than all other groups on body shape dissatisfaction, as

measured by the Body Shape Questionnaire. Gay men and lesbian women scored higher on body

shape dissatisfaction than did heterosexual men.

Williamson and Hartley (1998) replicated Eindings that gay men in the United States

experience greater body dissatisfaction than heterosexual men, with a sample of 91 British men

aged 15-25. Their sample consisted of 47 heterosexual men and 41 gay men. Gay men scored

higher than heterosexual men on eating disturbance, as measured by an overall score of the

Eating Attitudes Test-26, t(87) = 3.79, p < .001. Gay men also scored higher than heterosexual

men on each of the three subscales of the Eating Attitudes Test-26 (i.e., oral control, bulimia, and

food preoccupation subscales). They also favored a slimmer ideal body size, as assessed by a set

of nine body-line drawings, and were more dissatisfied with their bodies, as measured by the

Body Satisfaction Scale, t(87) = 2.80, p < .01. In addition these authors found a strong

correlation between global self-esteem, body dissatisfaction, and eating disturbance.

Even when actual body size is taken into consideration, gay and heterosexual men differ

in valuation of their bodies. For example, Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, and Grilo (1996) compared

58 gay men, 58 heterosexual men, 69 lesbian women, and 72 heterosexual women on indicators

of body dissatisfaction. In this sample, there were no significant differences between groups on









their perceived level of discrepancy between their current and ideal body size, as measured by

discrepancy scores on the Body Size Drawings. Nevertheless, compared to heterosexual men,

gay men and both groups of women were more discontent with their current body size, as

measured by the Body Shape Questionnaire, F (3,88) = 11.52, p < .0001, and the body

dissatisfaction sub scale of the Eating Disorders Inventory F (3,88) = 9.28, p < .0001. Thus,

although the groups did not differ on the amount of discrepancy that they perceived between

their current and ideal body size, gay men and both groups of women reported more

dissatisfaction with their current body size. As discussed previously, however, results of Beren et

al.'s (1996) study should be interpreted with caution since there was a significant difference in

age between groups; with a mean age of approximately 18 for heterosexual women and men,

compared to mean ages of approximately 30 and 35 for gay men and lesbian women,

respectively .

Overall these studies highlight that rates of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder

symptoms are higher for gay men than for heterosexual men. These studies also show that gay

men are similar to heterosexual women with regard to how they view their bodies, and on

measures of eating pathology.

There has been much speculation about the reasons for the higher rates of body

dissatisfaction and eating pathology among gay men (Heffernan, 1994; Strong, Singh, &

Randall, 2000; Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams, 1999; Siever, 1994). In her review of the

literature on binge eating and bulimia among gay men, Heffernan (1994) highlighted that earlier

investigations often pointed to a disturbance in psychosexual development as an explanation for

gay men's higher rates of eating disorders compared to heterosexual men. However the findings

of these earlier studies tended to be interpreted as evidence of the pathology of homosexuality.










Also, many of these studies were based on clinical samples of men diagnosed with an eating

disorder. In light of the perception of eating disorders as women' s disorders, however, men may

be hesitant to seek treatment. Therefore men who have been diagnosed with an eating disorder

may represent the most severe cases. In addition, comorbidity of mental disorders can be a

confounding issue when recruiting participants from hospital settings. These issues may have

contributed to the pathological view of homosexuality that emerged from early studies of gay

men with eating disorders. On the other hand, Heffernan pointed out that the studies based on

nonclinical samples highlighted sociocultural factors, such as an emphasis on physical

appearance, as potential explanations for the greater prevalence of eating disorder

symptomatology among gay men. Thus, theoretical frameworks that outline sociocultural

correlates of eating disorders among men might serve as a useful starting point for understanding

sociocultural correlates of eating disorder symptomatology in gay men.

Objectification Theory

Obj ectifieation theory, developed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), has been used to

integrate sociocultural and psychological understanding of eating disorder symptomatology

among women. Obj ectifieation theory suggests that through experiences of cultural sexual

obj ectifieation, women in western society come to view their bodies as obj ects. Fredrickson and

Roberts defined sexual obj ectifieation as "the experience of being treated as a body (or collection

of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others" (p. 174). Sexual

obj ectifieation experiences can include experiences such as viewing sexualized media images,

being called a derogatory name based on one's gender, having inappropriate comments made

about one's body, and being the target of offensive, sexualized gestures. These experiences

reduce an individual to her or his body, body parts, or body functions, especially sexual

functions. Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) posited that as a result of sexual obj ectifieation










experiences, the individual may adopt an observer's perspective upon her or his own body

(Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This taking on an observer' s perspective upon one' s own body

is referred to as self-obj ectification and is manifested as habitual body monitoring. Self-

obj ectification or habitual body surveillance has been linked consistently to eating disorder-

related attitudes, behaviors, and symptomatology (Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and

Twenge, 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama, 2002 & Roberts &

Gettman, 2004). Self-obj ectification can be devastating when individuals evaluate themselves

against an internalized cultural ideal and feel that they do not measure up to that ideal. This

perceived discrepancy is often experienced as body shame. Body shame has been found to

mediate the relation between self-objectification and eating disorder symptomatology (Noll &

Frederickson, 1988; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005; & Tiggeman & Lynch, 2001).

A growing body of empirical research has supported the maj or premises of obj ectification

theory as applied to eating disorder-related attitudes and behaviors among women. Much of this

research has focused on and supported the critical proposed relations among self-obj ectification,

body shame, and eating disorder symptomatology. For example, Frederickson, Roberts, Noll,

Quinn, and Twenge (1998) experimentally manipulated level of self-obj ectification by randomly

assigning participants to wear either a swimsuit (high self-objectification) or a sweater (low self-

obj ectification) in front of a full length mirror. Fredrickson et al. compared level of body shame

and eating behaviors between the two groups. A multiple regression analysis revealed that

women in the swimsuit condition reported more body shame than those in the sweater condition.

In order to measure the behavioral consequences of self-obj ectification, the women were also

asked to participate in a "taste test" of cookies and a chocolate drink. Women who reported more

body shame were more likely to show restrained eating (i.e., ate less than one cookie) than










women who reported less body shame. In a second experiment the authors used a separate

sample of 40 men and 42 women, to determine if men were affected in the same way as women

by self-obj ectification. Both men and women experienced self-conscious emotions while

wearing the swimsuit; however women were more likely to feel "disgust" or "anger" while men

were more likely to feel "shy" or "silly." Therefore, the swimsuit condition produced body

shame for women only. However, it remains unclear if a state of self-objectification cannot be

achieved with men, or if it is merely not achieved in the same way as it is for women, and

therefore not induced in this experiment. Furthermore, only heterosexual men were included in

this study. Thus, the generalizeability of these findings with heterosexual women and men to gay

men is not clear.

A later study by Roberts and Gettman (2004) demonstrated that simply being exposed to

sexually obj ectifying words is enough to induce self-obj ectification and its correlates for women.

A sample of 70 men and 90 women, with a mean age of 19 years, were primed with either

sexually obj ectifying words (e.g., slender, desirable) or words related to body competence (e.g.,

vitality, coordinated), and then completed a survey designed to assess body shame and

appearance-related anxiety. Women who were in the sexual obj ectification condition

experienced more body shame than women in the body competence condition, however men's

scores did not differ significantly by condition, F(2, 154) = 4.73, p < .01. Similarly, women's

level of appearance anxiety was significantly higher in the appearance condition than in the body

competence condition, while men's anxiety scores did not differ with condition, F (2,154) =

3.89, p< .05. An overall main effect for gender was also observed, with women experiencing

more appearance anxiety than men, F (1,154) = 14.09, p < .0005. These results indicate that even

a subtle reminder of sexual obj ectification can induce a state of self-obj ectification for women.









This study did not assess sexual orientation of participants. Therefore the generalizability of

findings to gay men is not clear.

While the previously described studies link self-obj ectification with body shame, Noll

and Fredrickson (1998) examined the obj ectification theory proposition that body shame would

mediate the relation between self-objectification and disordered eating. They tested this

hypothesis with two independent samples of 93 and 1 11 undergraduate women. Using guidelines

set forth by Barron and Kenny (1986), Noll and Fredrickson (1998) demonstrated that body

shame mediated the relation between self-objectification and eating disorder symptomatology. In

the first sample their model accounted for 3 5% of the variance in bulimic symptoms (p < .01),

and 27% of the variance in anorexic symptoms (p < .01). The second sample replicated findings

from the first sample, with body shame again mediating the relation between self-obj ectification

and disordered eating symptomatology, and the model accounting for 51% of the variance in

bulimic symptoms (p < .01), and 30% of the variance in anorexic symptoms (p < .01). The

findings of this study highlight the importance of considering the mediating role of body shame

in understanding how sociocultural factors may be linked to disordered eating symptomatology.

In order to further explore the role of sociocultural factors in the development of eating

disorder symptomatology, Moradi, Dirks, and Matteson (2005) tested an expanded

obj ectification theory framework with 222 undergraduate women with a mean age of

approximately 20 years, the majority of whom identified as heterosexual (91%). These authors

examined the role of sexual obj ectification experiences in the obj ectification theory framework

and tested the mediating roles of self-obj ectification, body shame, and internalization of

sociocultural beauty standards. Using path analysis, the authors found, after controlling for body

mass index, that reported sexual obj ectification experiences were related positively to









internalization of cultural beauty standards, r (222) = .25, p < .05. Internalization of beauty

standards, in turn, were related positively to body surveillance (indicator of self-objectification),

B (222) = .50, p < .05, body shame, B (222) = .24, p < .05, and eating disorder symptomatology,

a (222) = .34, p < .05. In addition, internalization partially mediated the link of sexual

obj ectification to body surveillance, and fully mediated the link of body shame to eating disorder

symptomatology, and body shame mediated the links of both internalization and body

surveillance to eating disorder symptomatology. Overall, the model accounted for 50% of the

variance in eating disorder symptomatology. These findings are consistent with the notion that

sexual obj ectification experiences may be translated into eating pathology by promoting self-

obj ectification, body shame, and internalization of cultural beauty standards.

This body of research supports the tenets of obj ectification theory. At this point, however,

we can not be sure if and how obj ectification theory applies to gay men because it has not been

studied in this population. Nevertheless, evidence that gay men might be exposed to experiences

that parallel women' s sexual obj ectification experiences points to the possibility that the

framework of obj ectification theory can be used to understand the roles of sexual objectification

experiences, self-obj ectification and body shame in eating disorder symptomatology of gay men.

Gay Men's Experiences of Sociocultural Pressures

Gay men's experiences of sociocultural pressures for attractiveness and thinness may be

shaped by several factors. Some authors have posited that both heterosexual and gay men prefer

partners that are attractive (Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; French, Story, Remafedi,

Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin,

1989; Williamson, 1999). This preference may translate into an emphasis on appearance for gay

men as they may experience pressure to be thin and attractive in order to attract a man, while

heterosexual men may not feel as much pressure in this regard as their goal is to attract women.









Second, recent media images of men seem to be much more sexually obj ectifying than in the

past. This trend reinforces cultural expectations of attractiveness, and serves to focus attention on

the body. Finally, gay men may experience teasing, harassment, and societal stigmatization for

gender nonconforming behaviors. These experiences may contribute to gay men's body image

disturbance. Research related to each of these factors is described next.

Sexual Objectification of Gay Men

Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, and Rodin (1989) tested the hypothesis

that gay men are at increased risk for disordered eating due to an emphasis on physical

appearance in gay culture. This emphasis may be highlighted in gay culture as a result of the

emphasis that men (both heterosexual and gay) place on attractiveness of their partners (Brand,

Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Siever, 1994;

Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989; Williamson, 1999). For example,

Silberstein et al., asked 71 gay men and 71 heterosexual men to rate 13 different roles (including

general appearance, physical activity, and physical health) on how important they felt each role

was to them. Other roles that were included but not analyzed were "myself as a leader" and

"myself as a social person." They found that gay men rated physical appearance as more

important than did heterosexual men to their sense of self, while heterosexual men rated the role

of physical activity as more important to their sense of self. The finding of the greater

importance of appearance to gay men than to heterosexual men suggests that dissatisfaction with

physical appearance may be particularly damaging to gay men's sense of self.

A similar study by Brand, Rothblum & Solomon (1991) examined the influence of both

gender and sexual orientation on body dissatisfaction. These authors compared 124 lesbian

women, 13 gay men, 39 heterosexual men and 133 heterosexual women on body dissatisfaction.

Compared to women (of both sexual orientations), men (of both sexual orientations) reported









that they would be less attracted to a potential partner who they considered to be overweight, F

(1,302) = 5.41, p < .05. This finding again highlights the importance men (both heterosexual and

gay) place on thinness when considering potential partners. As mentioned previously, Brand et

al.'s (1991) results must be interpreted cautiously, because the sample sizes for gay men and

heterosexual men were quite small. In addition, there was a significant difference in age between

groups F (1,305) = 5.41, p < .01, with the mean age for the gay and lesbian participants at about

34 years, and the mean age for heterosexual women and men at about 19 years. Thus, the extent

to which gender by sexual orientation effects could have reflected gender by age interactions is

unclear.

Gay men have also been found to have similar concerns to that of heterosexual women

about physical attractiveness and media influences on body image. For example, Strong,

Williamson, Netemeyer, and Geer (2000) surveyed 95 heterosexual men, 103 gay men, 112

heterosexual women, and 82 lesbian women. These authors found that gay men and heterosexual

women scored higher than heterosexual men and lesbian women on concern for physical

appearance, and the perceived influence of the media in promoting thinness as the ideal body

size, as measured by the Psychosocial Risk Factors Questionnaire.

The importance of attractiveness for gay men was further examined by Epel, Spanakos,

Kas1 Godley, and Brownell (1995) using a random sample of 500 personal advertisements from

publications with a wide variety of target audiences. At least 50 advertisements placed by men

and 50 advertisements placed by women were collected for each target group represented (in

terms of race, sexual orientation, SES, and age). To determine the importance that each group

placed on body shape, any mention of actual weight or height, or any adj ectives describing body

shape or size was counted as a body shape descriptor (B SD), and computed as a percentage of









overall words in the advertisement. Epel et al. found that 42 % of gay men and 36% of

heterosexual men requested at least one B SD in their ads compared to 27% of heterosexual

women and 18% of lesbian women. Gay men's ads reflected a significantly higher percentage of

BSDs in self-descriptions (86% of gay men' s advertisements mentioned at least one BSD in

describing the solicitor) compared to lesbian women's ads (46% of lesbian women's

advertisements mentioned at least one BSD in describing the solicitor), P = 14. 1, p < .001.

There was no significant difference in the percentage of BSDs used in self-descriptions between

the advertisements placed by heterosexual men (65%) and heterosexual women (56%), P2 = 3.4,

p < .06. In addition, 70 % of the advertisements placed by gay men, compared to only 29% of the

advertisements placed by heterosexual men, 13.5% of the advertisements placed by heterosexual

women, and 10% of the advertisements placed by lesbian women, reported the solicitor' s weight.

These findings provide additional evidence suggesting the importance that gay men may place

on attractiveness and thinness and also the pressure that they might experience in this regard. An

important strength of this study is that it did not relying on self report measures and therefore

avoided the potential bias of participants responding in a socially desirable manner.

There is also broader evidence that men are becoming increasingly sexually obj ectified in

our society (Rohlinger, 2002). In fact, in outlining objectification theory, Fredrikson and Roberts

(1997) acknowledged that men also may experience sexual obj ectification and that men' s unique

experiences should be examined. Such attention is particularly important in light of evidence that

instead of reducing sexually obj ectifying portrayals of women in the media, there has been an

increase in sexually obj ectifying portrayals of men in the media. Indeed, Rohlinger (2002)

analyzed media images over a period of 10 years (1987-1997), and found evidence suggesting

that men are being portrayed in increasingly objectified ways. More specifically, Rohlinger









reviewed depictions of men in four popular men' s magazines (i.e., Sports Ilhtstrated, M~en 's

Health, Popular M~echanics, GQ, and Business Week) and identified the following nine

categories: the hero, the outdoorsman, the urban man, the family man, the breadwinner, the

working man, the consumer, the quiescent man, and the erotic male. Overwhelmingly, the most

common male depiction was the erotic male, accounting for 36.9% of all images in the sample.

Rohlinger defined the erotic male as "being placed on display either by himself or with other

models," being "positioned in a sexual manner, most often posed or 'caught' in a personal

movement." In addition, "he rarely smiles," the body is emphasized therefore the "setting is

typically plain, blurred, or otherwise unclear," and "his eyes are often focused on something

other than the surrounding models or audience" (p. 67). Depicting the model in this manner is

effective in keeping the focus on his body (Rohlinger, 2002).

Given the erotic male' s prominence in depictions of men, Rohlinger further explored

depictions of the erotic male and examined "touch" and "gaze" behavior of the models. She

found that the erotic male was depicted similarly to the ways in which women have been

traditionally depicted in terms of touch and gaze. More specifically, Goffman (1979) described

feminine touch as a passive self-touch that serves to keep the focus on the model's body, and

masculine touch as an active touch (e.g., manipulating an obj ect) that serves to maintain the

focus on the obj ect or product, rather than the on the model's body. Women and men can both

be depicted as engaging in either feminine touch or masculine touch, but women are most

typically depicted to engage in feminine touch and men are most typically depicted to engage in

masculine touch. Like depictions of touch, depictions of gaze (i.e., where the model is looking)

tend to differ by gender as well. A "mental drift" is a gaze in which the model does not make

direct eye contact with the audience but instead focuses on something off in the distance or the









head and/or face may be obscured or missing altogether. Again, this keeps the focus on the body.

Women are typically depicted in a mental drift. By contrast, men in advertisements are typically

depicted looking directly at the audience, or at another model in the advertisement. In the study

by Rohlinger (2002) the erotic male model was depicted as women typically are depicted in

advertisements, most often shown engaging in "feminine" touch, engaging in a "mental drift," or

with the head and/or face obscured or missing.

In addition, the perceived sexual orientation of the models in the study by Rohlinger

(2002) were coded as heterosexual, homosexual, ambiguous, or unknown. Approximately 76%

of the erotic male models were of ambiguous or unknown sexual orientation. The ambiguity of

the sexual orientation of the erotic male may not be accidental. Many of these sexualized media

images might be targeting gay men specifically by capitalizing on the dual marketing approach.

The dual marketing approach is a technique that allows advertisers to speak to gay/lesbian

consumers without offending the straight audience (Clark, 1995; Sender, 1999). The guidelines

set forth for this technique are to "avoid explicit references to heterosexuality by depicting only

one individual or same-sexed individuals within the representation frame. In addition, these

models bear the signifiers of sexual ambiguity, or androgynous style. But 'gayness' remains in

the eye of the beholder" (Clark, 1995, p. 144). Thus, the dual marketing approach is used to

subtly target gay audiences. In an article of The Gay and Lesbian Review, John DiCarlo (2001)

expressed his concern regarding this issue. DiCarlo described his reaction after viewing an

Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue; "All the clothes seem like an afterthought, as do the women

placed in the margins." He also comments that the slim but muscular body style represented in

the catalogue is "especially appealing to gay men" and that he himself works hard to achieve this

"ideal ."









The study by Rohlinger provides evidence that the sexual obj ectifieation of men is an

important area to pursue in understanding body image issues and disordered eating among gay

men. In addition, the many articles that focus on body image in popular gay periodicals also

point to the significance of this issue (DiCarlo, 2001; Kahn, 2004; Schneider, 2001; Shernoff,

2001). Collin Kahn, in an issue of the popular gay periodical, The Advocate, summarizes this

point by saying, "Young gay men are expected to always be tanned, smell good, wear the latest

and greatest clothing, and of course, be in wonderful shape....each season's clothes have become

more "muscle fit".... I always hear gay men say, 'Wow look at how those jeans fit that guy. I bet

he works out all the time'" (p. 25). Such pressures for gay men might parallel the sexual

obj ectifieation experiences that Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) highlight as a precursor to eating

disorder-related attitudes, behaviors, and symptoms for women.

Experiences of Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity

In addition to experiences of sexual obj ectifieation, gay men may also experience

teasing/harassment related to gender nonconformity that could lead to increased rates of eating

disturbance. For example, Strong, Singh, and Randall (2000) surveyed 181 men (129 gay men

and 52 heterosexual men) ranging in ages from 18 to 58. These authors were interested in the

relation between respondents' recollection of their own childhood gender nonconformity and

current body dissatisfaction. A MANOVA revealed that gay men reported more childhood

gender nonconforming behaviors than heterosexual men, F (1,177) = 13.16, p < .05. Gay men

also reported more body dissatisfaction than heterosexual men, F (1,177) = 9.85, p < .05. A

regression analysis indicated that recalled childhood gender nonconformity was a significant

predictor of body dissatisfaction for gay men and heterosexual men (p < .001). This study only

assessed respondents' recollection of their own childhood gender nonconformity, and did not

address teasing and harassment by others related to that gender nonconformity. Teasing and









harassment may be an important aspect to consider because of the stigmatizing nature of such

experiences.

Other researchers have explored the role of teasing and harassment related to weight and

appearance (Beren, Hayden, Wilfey, and Grilo, 1996). In their study with 58 gay men, 58

heterosexual men, 69 lesbian women, and 72 heterosexual women, Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, and

Grilo (1996) found that gay men scored higher on measures of psychosocial distress, reported

more childhood teasing about general appearance, and reported more weight-specific teasing

than did all other groups, F (6,23 8) = 3.40, p < .01. As mentioned previously, the results of

Beren et al.'s (1996) study should be interpreted with caution since there was a significant

difference in age between groups; with a mean age of approximately 18 for heterosexual women

and men, compared to mean ages of approximately 30 and 35 for gay men and lesbian women,

respectively .

A later study by Beren (1997) examined stigmatization experiences such as shame,

internalized homophobia, and childhood teasing/harrassment for gender nonconformity as

correlates of eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. Beren (1997) defined shame as

"the painful negative affect that results from internalizing others' scorn." Internalized

homophobia is the internalization of society's negative stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and

bisexual persons, and childhood teasing for gender nonconformity was defined by Beren (1997)

as "negative reactions from family and peers." Using Structural Equation Modeling, Beren tested

two different models with gay men (a general model and a model specific to gay men's

experiences) and one model (the general model only) with heterosexual men. The general model

included early negative attention as measured by childhood teasing related to appearance and

gender nonconformity, shame, self-worth, and eating disorder symptomatology, but did not take









into consideration those experiences that are posited to be unique to gay men, such as

internalized homophobia and feelings of acceptance/rej section regarding coming out. This general

model explained 58% of the variance in eating disorder symptoms for this sample of 94 gay men.

Shame and early negative attention, as assessed by childhood teasing about appearance, and

criticism and teasing specific to gender nonconforming behaviors, were unique correlates of

eating pathology in this model. Furthermore, the relation between early negative attention and

eating pathology was mediated by shame. This general model was also tested with 94

heterosexual men. The model explained only 3 5% of the variation in eating pathology for

heterosexual men. As in the model with gay men, in the model with heterosexual men early

negative attention was related directly to eating pathology and shame; however for heterosexual

men shame did not mediate this relationship. In fact, while the total effect of shame on eating

pathology was only .04 for heterosexual men, the total effect of shame on eating pathology was

.49 for gay men. The second model, which was tested only with gay men, added acceptance from

parents, siblings, and friends during the coming out process and internalized homophobia as

predictors. This model accounted for 59% of the variation in eating pathology for gay men.

While this model added only 1% to the overall explained variance in eating disorder

symptomatology, the addition of internalized homophobia increased the variance explained in

shame from 16% to 54%. Furthermore, internalized homophobia mediated the relation between

early negative attention and shame.

Thus, in Beren' s (1997) study, for both heterosexual and gay men, early negative

attention for gender nonconformity was related to eating pathology. Shame mediated this link

for gay men, but not for heterosexual men. Also, for gay men internalized homophobia increased

the variance explained in shame and mediated the link of early negative attention to shame.









These findings highlight the importance of attending to experiences of teasing and harassment

for gender-nonconformity shame, and internalized homophobia in understanding eating disorder-

related attitudes, behaviors, and symptoms among gay men.

One possible explanation for the role of gender-nonconformity-based teasing and

harassment in eating disorder symptoms of gay men is that such teasing and harassment might

promote increased awareness, monitoring, and attempts to control one's body, appearance, and

behaviors (i.e., self-obj ectification) in order to avoid further teasing, negative attention,

harassment, and potential violence. Therefore, for gay men, experiences of teasing/harassment

for childhood gender nonconformity might be linked with eating disorder attitudes and behaviors

much in the same manner that women's sexual objectification experiences are posited to function

in the obj ectification theory framework; through their role in promoting self-obj ectification and

habitual body monitoring.

Taken together, these studies indicate that gay men recall more gender nonconforming

behaviors. Experiences of teasing and harassment for gender nonconformity, along with the

internalization of society's negative stereotypes about gay men, each may contribute to gay

men's body image disturbance and disordered eating and therefore should be included in

examining the obj ectification theory framework with gay men.

Purpose of Study

Obj ectification theory has been examined in samples of mostly heterosexual college

women and men (Frederickson et al., 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001; Muehlenkamp & Saris-

Baglama, 2002; Noll & Frederickson, 1998, Roberts & Gettman, 2004; Tiggeman & Lynch,

2001). This extant literature has supported the tenets of obj ectification theory with women, but

obj ectification theory has not been tested with gay men










Thus, the present study aims to examine the applicability of obj ectification theory to

understanding eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. In addition, based on research

on gay men's eating disorder symptomatology (Beren, 1997), the present study will examine the

possible roles of stigmatization for gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia in its

examination of the obj ectification theory framework with gay men. The model tested in the

current study is presented in Figure 2 1 and will examine the following hypotheses:

1. Consistent with obj ectification theory, it is hypothesized that reported sexual
obj ectification experiences will be related positively to internalization of
cultural standards of attractiveness, self-objectification, body shame, and
disordered eating. Support for this hypothesis is a prerequisite to hypotheses 2
and 3.

2. Consistent with obj ectification theory, body shame will mediate the link
between self-obj ectification and disordered eating.

3. Consistent with prior research (Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005),
internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness will mediate the links of
sexual objectification experiences to self-objectification, body shame, and
disordered eating.

4. Consistent with prior research (Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005), self-
obj ectification will mediate the link between obj ectification experiences and
body shame.

5. The direct and indirect links of internalized homophobia and
teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to other variables in
the model will be explored based on Beren's findings that (a)
teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity was related to
internalized homophobia, (b) that internalized homophobia mediated the link of
teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to shame, and (c)
internalized homophobia was related indirectly to disordered eating symptoms
through shame.


In order to provide a more stringent test of the hypotheses, Body Mass Index (BMI) will

be entered as a covariate in the model. This is in keeping with previous research that has

considered BMI to be a possible confounding variable when examining eating disorders (Beren,









1997; Beren, Hayden, Wilfey, & Grilo, 1996; Frederikson et al, 1998; Morry & Staska, 2001;

Noll & Frederickson, 1998).












































__
__
___
__
__
___
___
__
__
__
__
___
___
__
__
__
__


Figure 2 1. Hypothesized path model.









CHAPTER 3
IVETHOD S

Participants

A total of 264 individuals chose to participate in the current online study. Of these, 13

duplicate submissions were identified and discarded. In addition, 27 participants were excluded

from the analyses because of incorrect responses to 2 or more of the 10 validity check items

(n=1 1), or due to considerable amounts of missing data (n=18). Finally, two participants were

excluded because they self-identified as women and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Four men who self-identified as mostly (but not exclusively) heterosexual and two men who did

not report their sexual orientation were included in the analyses because their responses to

questions assessing physical and emotional attraction to men and sexual behavior indicated that

they were attracted to men and had engaged in sex with men. Thus, the final sample included

231 individuals between the ages of 17 and 70 (M~= 32.73; M~dn = 27.0; SD = 13.82) who self-

identified as either men (97.4%; n = 226) or transgender (2.2%; n = 5), and exclusively gay

(65.9%; n = 153), mostly gay (19.8%; n = 46), bisexual (11.6%; n = 27), or mostly heterosexual

(1.7%; n = 4).

Regarding the racial/ethnic background of the sample, 77% identified as

White/Caucasian, 5% as Hispanic/Latino, 4% as Asian American/Pacific Islander, 1% as African

American, and 1 1% as multi-racial or other. Participants were from a wide range of geographic

locations with 78% reporting that they were currently living in the United States (n = 183) and

19% (n = 43) reporting that they were currently living in other countries. Four participants did

not report their current location. Of the 183 participants who reported currently living in the

United States, 31% were located in the South (n = 56), 29% in the West (n = 53), 23% in the

Midwest (n = 42), and 17% in the Northeast (n =32). These regional categories represent









divisions used by the U.S. Census Bureau. With regard to the 43 participants who reported living

in countries other than the United States, 40% reported residing in Canada (n = 17), 26% in the

United Kingdom (n = 11), 14% in India (n = 6), and 17% living in a variety of other countries

(e.g., Australia, Iraq, Indonesia) with 2 participants or less residing in any one of these countries

(n = 8). These international participants correctly responded to the validity check items,

indicating that they were able to read and understand the instructions and survey questions.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through personal contacts and advertising in LGBT internet

listserves and groups. Advertisements were sent to listserves used for general information

exchange because such listserves target broad audiences of LGBT persons (rather than subgroups

with specific political, dating, or religious interests). The study was also advertised through

Yahoo, Google, AOL, Livejournal, and My Space groups. Flyers advertising the study were also

posted in local community establishments. In addition, listerserves, internet groups, and

organizations targeting racial/ethnic minority gay and bisexual men were targeted in an attempt

to obtain a racially and ethnically diverse sample. Data was collected using an online survey.

This was to help assure anonymity, since participants were not required to come into the

laboratory and meet with the researchers. This method of data collection is likely to result in

better representation of individuals who are less "out" about their sexual orientation than data

collection strategies that require lesbian and gay persons to "come out" to researchers in person

(Epstein & Klinkenberg, 2002).

The study advertisements directed participants to an online survey through the

advertisement methods mentioned previously. Upon connecting to the survey website, the

informed consent was displayed which described the purpose of the study and confidentiality of

responses, and provided contact information of the researcher to participants. Participants then










clicked a link stating "Start the survey" which served as an indication that they were voluntarily

agreeing to participate. The survey instruments were counterbalanced in order to reduce order

effects. Embedded into each of the measures in the survey was a validity item. These items

directed participants to respond in a particular manner. For example, an item may ask

participants to select the option for "strongly agree." The purpose of these items was to identify

random responding, and to ensure that participants were reading and understanding the

questions. Following the completion of the survey, all participants received a thank you and

debriefing message that included website links to national eating disorder support networks.

Participants were again given the researcher' s contact information so that any additional

questions or concerns could be addressed.

Measures

Cultural sexual objectification. Reports of sexual obj ectification experiences were

assessed using a measure comprised of 8 items from the Obj ectification Experiences

Questionnaire (OEQ; Burnett, 1995), 5 items from the sexual objectification subscale (SOS;

Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998), and 3 items from the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale

(CSOS; Hill, 2002). Because these measures were originally designed for women, the language

was modified so that it was applicable to gay men. The modified items were reviewed by five

consultants who identified as gay men. Based on their feedback the wording of the items was

further modified to increase applicability and consistency across measures, and one additional

item was created.

The OEQ is an 18-item measure that assesses the frequency of sexually obj ectifying

experiences and was selected particularly because its items and language were applicable to

respondents of both genders and of all sexual orientations. OEQ scores have demonstrated

convergent validity, as evidenced by high correlations with measures of mild sexual harassment,









and discriminant validity, as evidenced by low correlations with measures of more severe forms

of sexual harassment. The reported alpha for OEQ scores in a sample of 253 female

undergraduate women was .70 (Burnett, 1995).

The 8 OEQ items were supplemented with 5 items gathered from the sexual

obj ectification subscale (SOS). There is a great deal of item overlap between the OEQ and the

SOS, therefore only those items which reflected distinct experiences of sexual obj ectification

from those assessed by OEQ were chosen. The SOS is a 7-item measure that assesses reported

sexual objectification experiences. SOS scores have demonstrated construct validity in that

women reported more obj ectification experiences than men (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson,

2001). With regard to the reliability of the SOS, Moradi, Dirks, and Matteson (2005) reported an

alpha of .87 with a sample of women.

In order to obtain a more thorough assessment of sexual obj ectification experiences, 3

additional items were added from the Cultural Sexual Objectification Scale (CSOS). The CSOS

is a 40-item measure developed by Hill (2002) which combined 28 items borrowed from several

existing measures along with 12 items created specifically for her study. The items used in the

current study were from the 12 items created by Hill, one of these was chosen because it assessed

whether/how often participants felt they were being evaluated by others, a seemingly important

aspect of sexual obj ectification. The other two items were selected because they assessed

whether/how often participants witnessed other men being obj ectified. These aspects of

obj ectification were not tapped by any of the other measures reviewed. Hill reported an alpha of

.96 for scores on the CSOS (2002).

Participants rated the combined set of items according to how often they had experienced

each event in the past year (1=Never to 6= Almost all of the time, more than 70% of the time).









This format was used by Hill (2002). The alpha obtained with the current sample for the

combined set of items was .91. Sample items include "Have you ever felt that a date was more

interested in your body or gaining access to it, than you as a person?" and "Has your romantic

partner ever "checked out" another man in your presence?"

Internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness. The 8-item Internalization

subscale of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ; Heinberg,

Thompson, & Strormer, 1995) was used to measure the degree to which cultural standards are

accepted and internalized (e.g., "I believe that clothes look better on muscular/fit models" and

"Men who appear in TV shows and movies proj ect the type of appearance that I see as my

goal"). Each statement is rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 =

completely agree). This scale was developed with women, but has been used successfully with

men by replacing the word "thin" with "muscular/fit" for all relevant items (Morry & Staska,

2001). Cashel, Cunningham, Landeros, Cokley, and Muhammad (2003) obtained an alpha of .79

for internalization scores in a sample of 138 men. The alpha obtained with the current sample

was .89. Convergent validity of SATAQ internalization scores is supported by positive

correlations with scores on the internalization sub scale of the Eating Disorders Inventory, r =

.28-.35 (Garner, 1991), and a positive correlation with body image preoccupation (Morry &

Staska, 2001).

Teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. A 30-item measure

modeled after The Mother-Father-Peer Scale (MFP; Epstein, 1991) and developed by Beren

(1997) to assess the degree to which an individual perceived being criticized, rejected, and teased

as a child for gender nonconforming attitudes and behaviors, was used to measure

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. Sample items include "When I was a









child, my mother criticized or teased me for being too sensitive" and "When I was a child, other

children would sometimes call me a "faggot." Items are rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1 =

strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Beren (1997) reported an alpha of .75 for scores on this

scale with a sample of 195 undergraduate men. With the present sample, one item was omitted in

the final analysis because it seemed to measure reinforcement of gender nonconformity rather

than teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity, thus this item did not fit

conceptually with the others. This was reflected by low item-total correlation for this item in the

reliability analysis. Omission of this item increased the alpha from .92 to .94 in the current

sample. Scores obtained on this measure have demonstrated adequate construct validity, with

scores correlated positively with shame and internalized homophobia, and correlated negatively

with acceptance from others during the coming out process (Beren, 1997).

Internalized homophobia. The 9-item Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHP; Herek,

Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998) measures the degree to which individuals have internalized

society's negative views about homosexuality. Sample items include "I have tried to stop being

attracted to men in general" and "I feel that being gay is a personal shortcoming for me." Each

item is rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly).

Cronbach's alpha for IHP items was .83 with a community sample of gay men (Herek, Cogan,

Gillis, & Glunt, 1998). The alpha obtained with the current sample was .88. In terms of validity,

IHP scores were correlated positively with depressive symptomatology, and negatively

correlated with self-esteem (Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998).

Self-objectification. The Body Surveillance subscale of McKinley and Hyde' s (1996)

Obj ectified Body Consciousness Scale is an 8-item measure of how much an individual thinks of

his or her body in terms of how it looks, versus how it feels. Participants are asked to rate the









degree to which they agree with statements such as "I rarely think about how I look," (reverse

coded) and "I think it is more important that my clothes are comfortable than whether they look

good on me" (reverse coded). Each statement is rated on a 7 point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with a NA (not applicable) option for items that do not apply.

Higher scores indicate greater self-obj ectification as manifested by body surveillance. Body

surveillance scores have shown adequate validity, as scores were positively correlated with body

shame, and negatively correlated with body esteem (McKinley, 1998). Reported alpha was .79

when used with a sample of undergraduate men (McKinley and Hyde, 1998), and .88 when used

with a mixed gender sample (Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). For the current sample of gay men,

the alpha obtained was .89.

Body shame. The Body Shame subscale of McKinley and Hyde' s (1996) Obj ectified

Body Consciousness Scale is an 8-item measure of the degree to which an individual feels like a

failure for not achieving the cultural ideal body standard. Participants are asked to rate the degree

to which they agree with statements such as "I feel like I must be a bad person when I don't look

as good as I could," and "When I'm not the size I think I should be, I feel ashamed." Each

statement is rated on a 7 point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with

a NA (not applicable) option for items that do not apply. Higher scores reflect greater body

shame. Body shame scores have shown adequate validity, as scores were positively correlated

with body surveillance, and negatively correlated with body esteem (McKinley, 1998). Reported

alphas were .73 when used with a sample of undergraduate men (McKinley and Hyde, 1998),

and .81 when used with a mixed gender sample (Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). For the current

sample of gay men, the alpha obtained was .89.









Eating disorder symptomatology. The Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26; Garner,

Olmsted, Bohr, & Garfinkel, 1982) is a 26-item instrument measuring disordered eating attitudes

on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = always to 6 = never). The EAT-26 is recommended for use

with nonclinical samples (Siever, 1994). Sample items for this measure are "Cut my food into

small pieces" and "Have the impulse to vomit after meals." Following Siever's (1994)

suggestion scores are based on averaging continuous responses as this method is more

appropriate for use with nonclinical samples, and reduces the possibility of skewed scores

(Siever, 1994). EAT-26 scores have been found to be correlated with scores on other measures of

disordered eating (Kashubeck-West & Mintz, 2001). Reported alphas for scores on the EAT-26

range from .79 to .94 (Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, (2005); Morry & Staska,2001; Russel & Keel,

2002; Siever, 1994; Williamson & Hartley, 1998). The alpha for the current sample was .90.

EAT scores have demonstrated construct validity by differentiating between individuals with a

diagnosable eating disorder and nonclinical controls (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979).

Demographics. Sexual orientation was measured on a Kinsey-type scale ranging from 1

(exclusively gay) to 5 (exclusively heterosexual). Participants were also asked to report

demographic information such as their age, race/ethnicity, educational level, and socio-economic

status. In addition, participants were asked for their height and weight and Body Mass Index

scores were computed using the formula recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (http://www. cdc. gov/ncedphp/dnpa/bmi/bmi -adult-formula. htm).









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The mean Body Mass Index for the present sample was 27.01 (SD = 7.46). This mean

BMI is comparable with population data collected in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control,

and reported by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA reported that the

average American adult has a BMI of 28 http://www.fda.gov/fdac/departs/2005/105_oehm)

The Levels of sexual obj ectification experiences, internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, self-objectification, body shame, internalized homophobia, teasing for gender

nonconformity, and disordered eating symptoms for the current sample were generally close to

the mid range of possible scores for each measure (see Table 4 1).

To test for order effects across the two orders of the survey, a MANOVA was conducted

with survey order as the independent variable and the variables of interest (i.e., BMI, sexual

obj ectification experiences, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-

obj ectification, body shame, teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity,

internalized homophobia, and eating disorder symptoms) as the dependent variables. No overall

effect was found for survey order, F [1, 230] = 1.10, p = .36.

Hypothesis 1

Partial correlations, controlling for BMI, were computed to test the relations among

variables of interest and evaluate whether pre-conditions for mediation were met (see Table

4 1). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, after controlling for BMI, reported experiences of sexual

obj ectification were correlated positively with internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness (r = .25, p < .001), self-objectification (r = .33, p < .001), body shame (r = .29, p

< .001), and eating disorder symptoms (r = .25 p < .001).









Hypotheses 2, 3, 4: Mediations Based on the Objectification Theory Framework

To test the mediations proposed in Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, Baron and Kenny's (1986)

procedures were followed. According to these authors, for a variable to be considered as

mediator, significant relations must exist between (a) the predictor and the mediator, (b) the

mediator and the criterion, and (c) the predictor and criterion. These preconditions were satisfied

for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 (see Table 4 1 for partial-correlations). That is for Hypothesis 2,

self-obj ectifieation (predictor) was correlated significantly with body shame (potential

moderator), which in turn was correlated significantly with eating disorder symptoms (criterion).

In addition, self-obj ectification (predictor) was correlated significantly with eating disorder

symptoms (criterion). With regard to hypothesis 3, reported experiences of sexual obj ectification

(predictor) were correlated significantly with internalization (potential mediator), which in turn

was correlated significantly with self-objectification, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms

(criterion variables). In addition, reported sexual obj ectification experiences (predictor) were

correlated significantly with self-obj ectification, body shame, and eating disorder symptoms

(criterion variables). For hypothesis 4, reported experiences of sexual obj ectification (predictor)

were correlated significantly with self-obj ectification (potential mediator), which in turn was

correlated significantly with body shame (criterion). In addition, self-objectification (predictor)

was correlated significantly with body shame (criterion).

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), if these conditions are satisfied, a variable acts as

a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relationship between the predictor and criterion

variable(s). In order to test the significance of mediations, Amos 6.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) was used

to conduct a path analysis of the specified model in which direct and indirect paths were

estimated (see model presented in Figure 2 1). BMI was entered as a covariate in the model by









estimating links between it and all variables with which it was significantly correlated. As such,

links from BMI to internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, self-obj ectification, and

body shame were estimated. Given that the model was near fully saturated, the Goodness of Fit

Index (GFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Normed Fit Index

(NFI) were all 1.0. The overall model accounted for 47% of the variance in internalized

homophobia, 1 1% of the variance in internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, 44%

of the variance in self-obj ectification, 53% of the variance in body shame, and 39% of the

variance in disordered eating symptoms. As indicated in Figure 4 2, most of the standardized

path coefficients were significant, indicating significant unique direct links. Significant unique

direct links did not emerge however, from teasing/harassment for childhood gender

nonconformity to internalized homophobia and disordered eating symptoms; from sexual

obj ectification experiences to body shame and disordered eating symptoms; from internalized

homophobia to self-obj ectification and disordered eating symptoms; from internalization of

cultural standards of attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms.

To test the significance of mediations through internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, self-obj ectification, and body shame (the proposed mediators in hypotheses 2, 3,

and 4), appropriate standardized path coefficients were multiplied to compute indirect effects, a

procedure recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983). Next, Sobel's formula (Baron & Kenny,

1986; Frazier, Tix, & Baron, 2004) was used to determine whether or not the indirect effects

were significantly different from zero. Hypothesis 2 proposed that body shame would mediate

the link of self-obj ectification with disordered eating symptoms. Consistent with this hypothesis,

through body shame, self-obj ectification had a significant indirect link of .12 (.32 x .39; z = 3.79,

p < .001) with disordered eating symptoms. Thus, body shame mediated the link between self-










obj ectification and disordered eating symptoms. In addition there was a significant direct link

from self-objectification to disordered eating.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness would

mediate the links of sexual obj ectification experiences to self-obj ectification, body shame, and

eating disorder symptoms. Consistent with this hypothesis, through internalization of cultural

standards of attractiveness, reported experiences of sexual obj ectification had a significant

indirect link of .11 (.21 x .53; z = 3.09, p < .01) to self-obj ectification and there was an

additional significant direct link from sexual obj ectification experiences to self-obj ectification.

Also consistent with this hypothesis, through internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, reported experiences of sexual obj ectification had a significant indirect link of .07

(.21 x .34; z = 2.83, p < .01) to body shame; the additional direct link of sexual obj ectification

experiences to body shame was not significant. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 3, the indirect link

of sexual obj ectification experiences to disordered eating symptoms through internalization was

not significant, .01 (.21 x .04; z = 0.58, p = .56). Thus, internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness mediated the link of sexual obj ectification experiences to self-obj ectification and

body shame, but not to disordered eating symptoms.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that self-obj ectification would mediate the links of sexual

obj ectification experiences with body shame. Consistent with this hypothesis, through self-

obj ectification, sexual obj ectification experiences had a significant indirect link of .05 (. 16 x .32;

z = 2.64, p <.01) to body shame. Thus, self-obj ectification mediated the link between sexual

obj ectification experiences to body shame. The additional direct link of sexual obj ectification

experiences to body shame was not significant.









In addition to testing the previous hypotheses, the significant direct link of internalization

of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame and disordered eating symptoms, allowed

self-obj ectifieation and body shame to be explored as possible mediators of the links of

internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame and disordered eating

symptoms. Significant indirect links of .13 from internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms, through self-obj ectifieation (. 53 x .25; z = 2.34, p

S.05), and .13 through body shame (.34 x .39; z = 3.94, p < .001) were found. Thus, both self-

obj ectifieation and body shame mediated the link between internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness to eating. The additional direct link of internalization to disordered eating

symptoms was not significant.

Additionally, the significant direct link of internalization of cultural standards to self-

obj ectification, the direct link of self-obj ectification to body shame and eating disorder

symptoms, and the direct link of sexual obj ectification experiences to self-obj ectification,

allowed self-obj ectification to be explored as a mediator of the links of internalization of cultural

standards to shame, and sexual objectification to disordered eating symptoms. Through self-

obj ectification, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness had a significant indirect

link of .17 (. 53 x .32; z = 2.78, p <.01) to body shame, and sexual obj ectification experiences to

eating disorder symptoms .04 (.16 x .25; z = 2.25, p < .05). Thus self-objectification also

mediated the links of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame, and

sexual obj ectification to disordered eating symptoms. The additional direct link of internalization

of cultural standards of attractiveness to body shame was significant, while the direct link of

sexual obj ectification to disordered eating symptoms was not significant.









Hypothesis 5: Direct and Indirect Links of Internalized Homophobia and
Teasing/Harassment for Childhood Gender Nonconformity

Hypothesis 5 proposed to explore direct and indirect links of internalized homophobia

and teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity. After controlling for BMI, partial

correlations indicated that teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity was

correlated positively with sexual objectification experiences, internalization of cultural standards

of attractiveness, self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating symptoms. Inconsistent

with Beren' s (1996) findings however, teasing/harassment was not significantly correlated with

internalized homophobia (r = .13, p = .06). Internalized homophobia was correlated positively

with sexual objectification experiences, internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness,

self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating symptoms.

The path model allowed examination of unique direct and indirect relations of

internalized homophobia and teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity with other

variables in the model. The path model indicated that there was a direct link of

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, self-obj ectification and body shame. In addition, there was a direct link of

internalized homophobia to body shame.

Consistent with Beren' s (1996) findings there was a significant indirect link of

internalized homophobia to disordered eating symptoms, through body shame .07 (. 18 x .39; z =

3.62, p .001). The additional direct link of internalized homophobia to eating disorder

symptoms was not significant.

Furthermore, through internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness there were

indirect links of .08 (. 15 x .53; z = 2.23, p .05) and .05 (. 15 x .34; z = 2. 13, p .05) from

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to self-obj ectification and to body









shame respectively. Additional direct links of teasing/harassment for childhood gender

nonconformity to self-objectifieation and body shame were significant. Thus, internalization of

cultural standards of attractiveness mediated these links.

Similarly, through self-obj ectifieation there were significant indirect links of .05 (. 16 x

32; z = 2.67, p < .01) and .04 (. 16 x 25; z = 2.28, p < .05) from teasing/harassment for childhood

gender nonconformity to body shame and disordered eating symptoms respectively. In addition

to these indirect links, the direct link of teasing/harassment for gender-nonconformity to body

shame was significant, and the direct link of teasing/harassment for gender-nonconformity to

disordered eating symptoms was not significant. Additionally, a significant indirect link of .05

from teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to disordered eating symptoms

(. 13 x .39; z = 2.45, p < .01), through body shame was found; therefore along with the mediating

role of self-obj ectification, body shame also mediated this link.

Finally, the indirect link of .03 from sexual obj ectification experiences to body shame,

through internalized homophobia was found to be significant (. 18 x .18; z = 2. 15, p < .05). In

addition the direct link of sexual obj ectification to body shame was not significant. Thus,

internalized homophobia mediated this link.

Next, the fit of the specified model was compared to that of an alternative trimmed model

that eliminated the non-significant direct paths from (a) teasing/harassment to gender

nonconformity to internalized homophobia and disordered eating symptoms, (b) sexual

obj ectification experiences to self-obj ectification, body shame and disordered eating (c)

internalized homophobia to self-obj ectification and disordered eating symptoms, and (d)

internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to disordered eating symptoms. The Chi

Square statistic was not statistically significant and the fit index values for this model were all









above acceptable cut offs (GFI = 1.0; IFI = 1.0; CFI = 1.0; NFI = .99) and similar to those for the

original model. The amount of variance accounted for in each of the criterion variables and the

magnitude of the significant paths in the trimmed model were similar to those in the original

model (see Figure 5 3). Specifically, the variance accounted for in internalized homophobia

dropped from 47% to 39%, the variance accounted for in internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness dropped from 1 1% to 10%, the variance accounted for in self-obj ectification

dropped from 44% to 43%, the variance accounted for in body shame was identical (53%), and

the variance accounted for in disordered eating symptoms dropped from 39% to 38%. Thus, the

trimmed model appears to be equally appropriate in explaining the relations among the variables

of interest.











Table 4 1. Summary statistics and partial correlations among variables of interest with body mass index controlled
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Possible Sample
Range Range

1. Cultural objectification 1-6 1.12-4.65
experiences
2. Teasing/harassment .25** 1-5 1.19-4.81

3 Internalization of cultural .25** .20* 1-5 1-5
standards of attractiveness
4. Internalized homophobia .21** .13 .35** 1-5 1-5

5. Self-objectification .33** .31** .60** .25** 1-7 1-7

6. Body shame .29** .33** .62** .40** .62** 1-7 1-7

7. Eating disorder symptoms .25** .26** .44** .21* .52** .62** 1-6 1.08-4.62

Note: *p < .01. **p <.001. Higher scores indicate higher levels of the construct assessed


M SD cc





Figure 4 2. Full model depicting relationships among variables of interest









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The present study addressed important gaps in the literatures on obj ectification theory

and eating disorders among gay men, by examining obj ectification theory and its tenets with a

sample of gay men and integrating the posited roles of harassment for gender nonconformity and

internalized homophobia within this framework. As such, the findings of this study have

important implications for future research and practice.

First, results of the present study suggest that the tenets of obj ectification theory, which

have been supported with both heterosexual women and lesbian women (Fredrickson & Roberts,

1997; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; Kozee & Tylka, 2006; Moradi,

Dirks, & Matteson, 2005; Morry & Staska, 2001; Noll & Fredrickson, 1988; Roberts & Gettman,

2004; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001), are also supported with gay

men. Specifically, the present results indicated that the links of sexual obj ectification experiences

to self-obj ectification and body shame were mediated by internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness. In addition, the links of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to

body shame and disordered eating symptoms, and sexual objectification experiences to body

shame and disordered eating symptoms, were mediated by self-obj ectification. Together these

findings are consistent with prior research (Graham, 2006; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005;

Morry & Staska, 2001) and suggest that experiences of sexual obj ectification might translate into

self-obj ectification and body shame, through internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, and that self-obj ectification might be an important way in which experiences of

sexual obj ectification and internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness are translated into

body shame and disordered eating symptoms. Interestingly, internalization of cultural standards

did not mediate the link of sexual obj ectification experiences to disordered eating symptoms in









the present sample. This finding is inconsistent with prior research examining obj ectification

theory with women (Graham, 2006; Moradi et al., 2005). One possible explanation might be that

sexual obj ectification experiences were not perceived or interpreted as "obj ectifying." This

perception and interpretation of events may affect how one experiences the related correlates of

obj ectification theory.

Additional important patterns of relations were found for the links of teasing/harassment

for childhood gender nonconformity to self-obj ectification, body shame, and disordered eating

symptoms. Specifically, internalization of cultural standards was found to mediate the links of

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity with self-obj ectification and body

shame. Additionally, self-obj ectification mediated the links of teasing/harassment for childhood

gender nonconformity to body shame and disordered eating symptoms. Interestingly the relations

involving teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity paralleled relations involving

sexual obj ectification experiences. Thus, teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity

may be conceptualized as another type of obj ectification that promotes increased awareness,

monitoring, and attempts to control one's body, appearance, and behaviors (i.e., self-

obj ectification) in order to avoid further teasing, negative attention, harassment, and potential

violence. This conceptualization is supported by the current findings that teasing/harassment for

childhood gender nonconformity seems to function in the obj ectification theory framework in a

similar manner to how sexual obj ectification experiences function, through their role in

promoting self-objectification.

Previous studies have also identified body shame as a mediator in the link of self-

obj ectification to disordered eating symptoms (Graham, 2006; Moradi et al., 2005; Noll &

Fredrickson, 1998). The current study replicated this finding, and in addition found that body









shame acted as mediator in the link of internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness to

disordered eating symptoms, as well as in the links of internalized homophobia and

teasing/harassment for childhood gender nonconformity to disordered eating symptoms.

Consistent with prior research and conceptualizations, these findings suggest that body shame

might be promoted through habitual body monitoring, and feeling as if one does not measure up

to the cultural standards of attractiveness. Specifically relevant for gay men, however, these

findings also suggest that body shame may be promoted through experiencing

teasing/harassment for gender nonconformity and feelings of internalized homophobia. The links

of harassment for gender nonconformity and internalized homophobia with body shame have

been posited to be related to not feeling masculine enough. As Beren (1997) points out,

masculine traits are often associated with the body. For example, masculinity is in part evaluated

based on muscularity and how the body performs (e.g., sports abilities). Gay men, who are more

likely than heterosexual men to experience teasing/harassment for childhood gender

nonconformity as children, may experience higher levels of body shame due to feeling less

masculine. (Beren,1996). In a parallel manner, internalized homophobia may promote body

shame as well. There is evidence that gay men (Laner & Laner, 1979) and young boys (Martin,

1990) who are judged to be less masculine are more disliked than those who more closely fit the

masculine stereotype. A more recent study by Wilkinson (2004) also suggests that gay men who

are less masculine may experience more stigma due to greater gender nonconformity. As a result

of this stigma, greater levels of internalized homophobia may be experienced and manifested as

body shame due to feelings of not measuring up to the masculine ideal, which is related to body

shame. In addition, internalized homophobia was found to act as a mediator in the link of sexual










objectifieation experiences to body shame. Thus, sexual objectification experiences may be

related to greater internalized homophobia which in turn is linked with greater body shame.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Limitations of the current study include the self-report nature of the measures being used.

Responses may be influenced by perception, or inaccurate memory recall. Self-reports of

obj ectifieation experiences might be particularly vulnerable to the influence of perception. For

example, in assessing obj ectifieation experiences in the current study, an open response option

was provided for respondents to list other obj ectifieation experiences that were not directly asked

about. Several participants expressed the opinion that they did not perceive these experiences as

"obj ectifying" and in fact dressed or behaved in a way that would invite this type of response

from other men. In addition, some expressed that they had not experienced instances of sexual

obj ectifieation, but would like to have experienced them. This perception of obj ectification

experiences serving as an affirmation of desirability may affect how one experiences the related

correlates of obj ectification theory. Given the finding that internalization of cultural standards

did not mediate the link of sexual obj ectification experiences to disordered eating symptoms,

future research that explores the effects of either perceiving or not perceiving an experience as

sexually obj ectifying, is needed to understand this inconsistency with previous research on

objectification theory (Graham, 2006; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005). In addition, future

research is needed to develop instruments that accurately assess gay men's unique experiences of

sexual obj ectification, and how these experiences are perceived and interpreted.

Given that we know very little about gay men's experiences regarding eating disorder

symptomatology, self-reported perceptions and cross-sectional research is a necessary first step

to begin to provide the basis for other methods of data collection and experimental and

longitudinal research. The findings of the current cross-sectional study advance our knowledge









and understanding of disordered eating as experienced by gay men, by extending the literature on

obj ectifieation theory, and illustrating that this framework is useful in understanding the

experiences of gay men. The current Eindings also inform future research on eating disorders

among gay men. Specifically, the Eindings of the current study demonstrate that in addition to

body shame, experiences of sexual objectifieation, habitual body monitoring (i.e., self-

obj ectifieation) and internalization of cultural standards of attractiveness, are important to

understanding the development of disordered eating in this population. In addition, the Eindings

of the current study highlight that experiences of stigmatization for gender nonconformity and

internalized homophobia are important variables to consider in future research on eating

disorders in this population. However, additional experimental and longitudinal research is

needed to directly test the causal and directional relations suggested by the current and previous

findings of studies evaluating the objectification theory framework.

Another limitation of the study is the mode of data collection. By using the internet to

collect data, persons who did not have access to a computer and internet were excluded. In

addition online surveys may be especially vulnerable to random responding. The current study

utilized validity check items in order to ensure that participants were not randomly responding,

and that they were in fact reading and understanding the questions. While these factors are a

concern, using an online survey offers some important advantages at this point in the

development of research on eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. One important

benefit of online survey methodology with gay men is that it helps to promote anonymity, since

participants were not required to come into the laboratory and "come out" to the researchers. As

such, this method of data collection is likely to result in a better representation of individuals

who are less "out" about their sexual orientation (Epstein & Klinkenberg, 2002), In addition,









online data collection may increase the generalizeability of the Eindings since participants were

from a broader range of backgrounds than would be found in a traditional undergraduate sample.

One last concern with regard to online data collection is that there is no way to know if all

participants met the inclusion criteria specified in the invitation to participate. However, this

concern is not unique to online data collection. In fact, inclusion criteria are not always visually

evident (e.g., gay identification), and researchers must trust that participants are being forthright

with regard to their eligibility for participation.

An additional potential limitation is that while participants were diverse in terms of age

and geographic location, the sample was largely White/Caucasian, and most reported at least a

college degree. This limits the generalizeability of the Eindings to those of a similar racial/ethnic

background and socioeconomic status. Future studies are needed to assess the applicability of

obj ectifieation theory and its tenets with more diverse populations of gay men.

A critical direction for future research is to explore variables that may act as protective

factors for gay men. Prior research has suggested that gay men are at an increased risk for

developing eating disorders (Bramon-Bosch, Troop, & Treasure, 2000; Brand, Rothblum, &

Solomon, 1992; Carlat, Camargo, & Herzog, 1997; Epel, Spanakos, Kasl-Godley, & Brownell,

1996; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Williamson & Hartley, 1998).

Furthermore, Russell and Keel (2002) identified gay orientation as a specific risk factor for

eating disorder symptomatology among gay men. The Eindings of the current study have further

elucidated some of the variables that may play a role in this increased risk, but future research is

needed to investigate potential protective factors, such as intrapersonal variables that prevent

negative cultural messages from becoming internalized.










Implications for Practice

The Eindings of the current study not only inform future directions for research, but are

also able to inform clinical interventions aimed at reducing attitudes and behaviors related to

disordered eating symptomatology among gay men. The Einding that obj ectifieation theory and

its tenets are applicable to this population can inform intervention strategies that directly address

the relations of these variables to disordered eating symptoms. More specifically, the current

study suggests that sexual obj ectification experiences are important to understanding disordered

eating among gay men. Interventions aiming to decrease media and interpersonal sexual

obj ectifieation of men in general and gay men in particular, are important avenues for

prevention. Furthermore, for clinicians working with gay men, it is important to assess and

attend to gay men' s experiences of sexual obj ectification and harassment for gender

nonconformity. The current study suggests that internalization of cultural standards of

attractiveness, internalized homophobia, and self-obj ectification are ways in which these

experiences might be translated into disordered eating symptomatology. Thus paying attention in

therapy to how these experiences are perceived and interpreted is important for designing

appropriate interventions that can successfully decrease or prevent internalization and self-

obj ectification. For example, therapists may work with their clients to identify experiences that

are sexually obj ectifying so that they may combat internalization and become more aware of

habitual body monitoring.

Additionally, the current study suggests that reducing body shame is important for

prevention and intervention of eating disorder symptoms among gay men. Exploring in therapy,

feelings of internalized homophobia and how those feelings might promote self-obj ectification

and shame regarding one's body may be one way in which shame can be reduced. Specifically, it

may be beneficial for clinicians to help clients recognize internalized feelings of homophobia









and explore how and when those feelings are experienced. In addition, clinicians may help their

clients to become more aware of when they are monitoring their bodily movements. Exploring a

client' s motivations for habitual body monitoring may decrease body shame and promote greater

acceptance of one' s body.

Summary

The findings of the current study support the utility of objectification theory and its

tenants for understanding disordered eating among gay men. The findings also suggest that it is

important to consider the additional roles of teasing/harassment for childhood gender

nonconformity and internalized homophobia in disordered eating for this population. Future

studies examining obj ectification theory can expand on the current findings by exploring the

longitudinal links and causal relationships among the variables in the model. Finally, the findings

can inform prevention and intervention strategies.














































Figure 5 3. Trimmed model depicting relationships among variables of interest









APPENDIX A
OBJECTIFICATION EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE


Please use the following scale to indicate how often during the past year you have experienced
each of the events below.
1 = Never
2 = Once in a while (less than 10% of the time)
3 = Sometimes (10-25% of the time)
4 = A lot (26-49% of the time)
5 = Most of the time (50-75% of the time)
6 = Almost all of the time (more than 70% of the time.
1. Had someone refer to me with a demeaning or degrading label specific 1 2 3
to gay men (e.g., faggot, queer, homo)?
2. Had sexual comments made about parts of my body or clothing. 1 2 3
3. Someone stared at my body while talking to me. 1 2 3
4. Heard someone make comments about sexual behavior I might do or 1 2 3
things they would want to do with me.
5. Had my romantic partner (current or former) "check out" other men in 1 2 3
my presence, in a way that was offensive or hurtful to me.
6. Someone made offensive or unwanted, sexualized gestures toward me 1 2 3
(e. g., pantomime of masturbation or intercourse).
7. Felt that a date was more interested in my body (and gaining access to 1 2 3
it) than in me as a person.
8. Someone did or said something that made me feel threatened sexually. 1 2 3
9. Experienced unwanted staring or ogling at myself or parts of my body 1 2 3
when the person knew or should have known I was not interested or it
was inappropriate for the situation or our relationship.
10. Experienced unwanted flirting when the person knew or should have 1 2 3
known that I was not interested or it was inappropriate for the situation
or our relationship.
11. Had someone inappropriately grab or touch me to express sexual 1 2 3
interest.
12. Had people shout sexual comments, whistle, or make catcalls at me. 1 2 3
13. Been "checked out" or "cruised" (i.e., had my body stared at in an 1 2 3
intrusive way) by a person in public.
14. Had my appearance/body commented on in a way that I felt was 1 2 3
inappropriate.
15. Heard someone make sexual comments about another man's body or 1 2 3
men's bodies in general (either positively or negatively)
16. Heard someone make evaluative or judging comments about my weight 1 2 3
or body shape.
17. Heard someone make evaluative or judging comments about another 1 2 3
man's weight/body shape or men's weight/body shape in general
18. Please describe any other times that you felt as if you were being treated
as a sexual object.


45 6


45 6

45 6

45 6


45 6


45 6


45 6

45 6

45 6

45 6









APPENDIX B
THE SOCIOCULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD APPEARANCE INTERNALIZATION
SUB SCALE (SATAQ)

Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement
with the statement.


completely disagree
somewhat disagree
neither agree nor disagree
somewhat agree
completely agree


1. Men who appear in TV shows and movies proj ect the type of
appearance that I see as my goal.
2. I believe that clothes look better on fit/lean men.
3. Music videos that show fit/lean men make me wish that I were
fit.
4. I do not wish to look like the men in the magazines.
5. I tend to compare my body to people in magazines and on TV.
6. Photographs of fit/lean men make me wish that I were fit.
7. I wish I looked like an underwear model.
8. I often read magazines like GQ, M~en 's Fitness, and M~en 's
Health and compare my appearance to the models.


1 2 345









APPENDIX C
THE MOTHER FATHER PEER SCALE

Please indicate the extent to which the following statements describe your childhood/teenage
relationship with the people indicated by using the following scale. FOR EACH STATEMENT:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Somewhat Disagree
3 = Uncertain
4 = Somewhat Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

WHEN I WAS A CHILD, MY MOTHER (or mother substitute):
1. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports 1 2 3 4 5
2. Took pride in my masculinity. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Took pride in my feminine traits. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Would call me sissy. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Would often tease or criticize me for not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Would often tease or criticize me for being too feminine. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Would criticize or make fun of me for liking "girl toys." 1 2 3 4 5
9. Would sometimes call me "faggot." 1 2 3 4 5
10. Liked me because I was sensitive and smart 1 2 3 4 5
WHEN I WAS A CHILD, MY FATHER (or father substitute):
1. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports 1 2 3 4 5
2. Took pride in my masculinity. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Took pride in my feminine traits. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Would call me sissy. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Would often tease or criticize me for not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Would often tease or criticize me for being too feminine. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Would criticize or make fun of me for liking "girl toys." 1 2 3 4 5
9. Would sometimes call me "faggot." 1 2 3 4 5
10. Liked me because I was sensitive and smart 1 2 3 4 5
WHEN I WAS A CHILD, OTHER CHILDREN:

2. Would often tease or criticize me for not being athletic. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Criticized or teased me because I was more interested in arts than sports. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Criticized or teased me for being too sensitive. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Would often call me a crybaby. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Would call me a sissy. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Would call on me last (or close to last) to be on their sports team in gym. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Would say I was not masculine enough. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Would criticize or make fun of me for liking "girl toys." 1 2 3 4 5
10. Would sometimes call me a "faggot." 1 2 3 4 5
11. Made me feel popular. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Liked me because I was athletic. 1 2 3 4 5









APPENDIX D
BODY SURVEILLANCE SUB SCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS
SCALE (OBC)

Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement
with the statement. Circle NA only if the statement does not apply to you. Do not circle NA if
you don't agree with the statement. For example if the statement says "When I am happy, I feel
like singing" and you don't feel like singing when you are happy, then you would circle one of
the disagree choices. You would only circle NA if you were never happy.

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Moderately Disagree
3 = Slightly Disagree
4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
5 = Slightly Agree
6 = Moderately Agree
7 = Strongly Agree
NA = Item does not apply


1. I rarely think about how I look.
2. I think it is more important that my clothes are
comfortable than whether they look good on me.
3. I think more about how my body feels than how
my body looks.
4. I rarely compare how I look with how other people
look.
5. During the day, I think about how I look many
times.
6. I often worry about whether the clothes I am
wearing make me look good.
7. I rarely worry about how I look to other people.
8. I am more concerned with what my body can do
than how it looks.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA


NA
NA









APPENDIX E
BODY SHAME SUB SCALE OF THE OBJECTIFIED BODY CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE
(OBC)

Please read each of the following items and select the number that best reflects your agreement
with the statement. Circle NA only if the statement does not apply to you. Do not circle NA if
you don't agree with the statement. For example if the statement says "When I am happy, I feel
like singing" and you don't feel like singing when you are happy, then you would circle one of
the disagree choices. You would only circle NA if you were never happy.

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Moderately Disagree
3 = Slightly Disagree
4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
5 = Slightly Agree
6 = Moderately Agree
7 = Strongly Agree
NA = Item does not apply


1. When I can't control my weight, I feel like
something must be wrong with me.
2. I feel ashamed of myself when I haven't made the
effort to look my best.
3. I feel like I must be a bad person when I don't look
as good as I could.
4. I would be ashamed for people to know what I
really weigh.
5. Even when I can't control my weight, I think I'm
an okay person.
6. I never worry that something is wrong with me
when I am not exercising as much as I should.
7. When I'm not exercising enough, I question
whether I am a good enough person.
8. When I'm not the size I think I should be, I feel
ashamed.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA









APPENDIX F
THE EATINTG ATTITUDES TEST 26 (EAT-26)

For each of the following questions, please select the response that best describes you.

1 = Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Usually
6 = Always

1. Am terrified about being overweight. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Avoid eating when I am hungry. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Find myself preoccupied with food. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Have gone on eating binges where I feel that I may not be 1 2 3 4 5 6
able to stop.
5. Cut my food into small pieces. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Aware of the calorie content of foods that I eat. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Particularly avoid food with a high carbohydrate content 1 2 3 4 5 6
(i.e., bread, rice, potatoes, etc.)
8. Feel that others would prefer if I ate more. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Vomit after I have eaten. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Feel extremely guilty after eating. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Am preoccupied with a desire to be thinner. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. Think about burning up calories when I exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Other people think that I am too thin. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. Am preoccupied with the thought of having fat on my body. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Take longer than others to eat my meals. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Avoid foods with sugar in them. 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. Eat diet foods. 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Feel that food controls my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6
19. Display self-control around food. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. Feel that others pressure me to eat. 1 2 3 4 5 6
21. Give too much time and thought to food. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. Feel uncomfortable after eating sweets. 1 2 3 4 5 6
23. Engage in dieting behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. Like my stomach to be empty. 1 2 3 4 5 6
25. Enjoy trying new rich foods. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. Have the impulse to vomit after meals. 1 2 3 4 5 6









APPENDIX G
INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SCALE (IHP)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the
scale below.


Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Uncertain
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree


I have tried to stop being attracted to men in general.
If someone offered me the chance to be completely heterosexual,
I would accept the chance.
I wish I were not gay.
I feel that being gay is a personal shortcoming for me.
I would like to get professional help in order to change my sexual
orientation from gay to straight.
I have tried to become more sexually attracted to women.
I often feel it best to avoid personal or social involvement with
other gay men.
I feel alienated from myself because of being gay.
I wish that I could develop more erotic feelings about women.


1 2 345
1 2 345









APPENDIX H
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Please tell us a little about yourself. This information will be used only to describe the sample as
a group.

1. Age:


2. Gender:


Transgender


Man


Woman


3. Your current relationship status (please select the best descriptor):


Single


Partnered


Dating, long term


Dating, casual


4. Completed Education (please select one):

Less than High School
Some High School
High School Graduate
Some College
College Degree (e.g. B.A., B.S.)
Professional Degree (e.g., MBA, MS, Ph.D,


M.D.)


5. Current Employment status (please select the one best descriptor):
Employed Full Time Employed Part Time _Not employed



6. Yearly household income (income of those on whom you rely financially):


Below $10,000
$10,001 to $20,000
$20,001 to $30,000
$30,001 to $40,000
$40,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $60,000


$60,001 to $70,000
$70,001 to $80,000
$80,001 to $90,000
$90,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $110,000
Above $110,001










7. Your current social class (please select the one best descriptor):

lower class
working class
middle class
upper middle class
upper class


8. Race/ethnicity (Please check one)

African American/Black
Asian American/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Native American
Hispanic/Latino/a White
Hispanic/Latino/a Black
White/Caucasian
Multi-racial, please specify:
Other, please specify:





9. Current height: feet inches



10. Current weight in pounds





11. Your sexual orientation (please check the one best descriptor):
Exclusively gay
Mostly gay
Bisexual
Mostly Heterosexual
Exclusively Heterosexual










12. Howmuch are you physicall attracted to men?
low moderate high
1 2 3 4 5
13. Howmuch are you physicall attracted to women?
low moderate high
1 2 3 4 5
14.1 How much are you emotionally attracted to men?
low moderate high
1 2 3 4 5
15.1 How much are you emotionally attracted to women?
low moderate high
1 2 3 4 5


16. Sexual behavior: Have you had sex with men, women, or both genders?


Never had sex

Men only

Men mostly

Both genders equally

Women mostly

Women only





17. How connected are you to the gay community? Please select one.


Very slightly or not at all

A little

Moderately


Quite a bit

Extremely










18. Are you involved in a sport, profession, or other activity which requires weight maintenance?
(e.g. professional dancer, wrestling, etc.)

Yes No

If yes, please describe


19. Finally, we would like to obtain information regarding the geographic location of our sample.
This information will remain confidential and will only be used to describe the sample as a
group. Please fill in the city, state, and country in which you currently reside down below:

City:


State :


Country :










REFERENCES


Andersen, A. E. (1992). Males with eating disorders. In J. Yager, H. E. Gwirtsman, & C. K.
Edelstein (Eds.), Special problems in managing eating disorders (pp. 87-1 18).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Andersen, A. E. (1999). Eating disorders in gay males. Psychiatric Annals, 29, 206-212.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: SmallWaters
Corporation.

Barron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1 173-1 182.

Beren, S. E., (1997). Stigmatization and shame as determinants of subclinical eating
disorder pathology: A comparison of gay and heterosexual men. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58, 2109.

Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The influence of sexual
orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. hIternational Journal of
Eating Disorders, 20(2), 135-141.

Bramon-Bosch, E., Troop, N. A., & Treasure, J. L. (2000). Eating disorders in males: A
comparison with female patients. European Eating Disorders Review, 8, 321-328.

Brand, P. A., Rothblum, E., & Solomon, L. J. (1992). A comparison of lesbians, gay men,
and heterosexuals on weight and restrained eating. International Journal ofEating
Disorders, 11, 253-259.

Burnett, R. E. (1995). Gendered objectification experiences: Construct validity, implications
for dysphoria and depression, and phenomenology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Duke University.

Carlat, D. J., Camargo, C. A., & Herzog, D. B. (1997). Eating disorders in males: A report
on 135 patients. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 154, 1127-1132.

Cashel, M. L., Cunningham, D., Landeros, C., Cokley, K.O., & Muhammad, G. (2003).
Sociocultural attitudes and symptoms of bulimia: Evaluating the SATAQ with diverse
college groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 287-296.

Clark, D. (1995). Commodity lesbianism. In Dines, G. & Humez, J. (Eds.), Gender, race and
class in media: A text reader (142-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crosscope-Happel, C., Hutchins, D. E., Getz, G. H., & Hayes, G. L. (2000). Male anorexia










nervosa: A new focus. Journal of2~ental Health Counseling, 22, 365-370.


DiCarlo, J. (2001, March 30). The gym body and heroic myth. The Gay and Lesbian Review
Worldwuide, 8(4), 14.

Epel, E. S., Spanakos, A., Kasl-Godley, J., & Brownell, K. D. (1996). Body shape ideals across
gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, race and age in personal
advertisements. International Journal of~ating Disorders, 19, 265-273.

Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: Implications for developmental
psychology. In Gunnar, M. & Scroufe, L.A. (Eds.), Selfprocesses anddevelopnzent,
23. M~innesota Synaposia on Child Psychology, (79-123). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Epstein, J. & Klinkenberg, W. D. (2002). Collecting data via the internet: The development
and deployment of a web-based survey. Journal of Technology in H~uman Services.
19(2 3), 33-47.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects
in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5 1(1), 1 15-
134.

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.

Fredrickson, B. L, Roberts, T. A, Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M, & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That
swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-obj ectification, restrained eating, and math
performance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(1), 269-284.

French, S. A., Story, M., Remafedi, G., & Resnick, M. D. (1996). Sexual orientation and
prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating disordered behaviors: A population-based
study of adolescents. hIternational Journal of~ating Disorders 19, 1 19-126.

Frisch, R. E. (1988). Fatness and fertility, Scientific American, 88-95.

Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder hzventory-2 Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the
symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychological M~edicine, 9, 273-279.

Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., Bohr, Y., & Garfinkle, P. E. (1982). The eating attitudes test:
Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychological M~edicine, 12, 871-878.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.










Granello, D. G., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for Research.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 387-393.

Heffernan, K. (1994). Sexual orientation as a factor in risk for binge-eating and bulimia
nervosa: A review. hIternational Journal of~ating Disorders 16, 33 5-347.

Heinberg, L. J., Thompson, J. K., & Stormer, S. (1995). Development and validation of the
Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire. hIternational Journal of
Eating Disorders, 1 7, 8 1-89.

Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., Gillis, J. R.., & Glunt, E. K. (1998). Correlates of internalized
homophobia in a community sample of lesbians and gay men. Journal of the Gay and
Lesbian M\~edical Associciation, 2, 1998.

Herzog, D., Bradburn, I., & Newman, K. (1990). Sexuality in males with eating disorders. In
Andersen, A. E. (Ed), Males With Eating Disorders (40-53). New York: Bruner/Mazel,.

Hill, M. S. (2002). Examining objectification theory: Sexual objectification 's linkl\ n ithr self-
objectifiction and moderation by sexual orientation and age in White women.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron.

Kahn, C. (2004). Troubled body image. The Advocate, 911, 25.

Kashubeck-West, S., & Mintz, L. B., & Saunders, K. J. (2001). Assessment of eating disorders in
women. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 662-694.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.

Klingenspor, B. (2002). Gender-related self-discrepancies and bulimic eating behavior. Sex
Roles, 47, 51-64

Kozee, H. B., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). A test of obj ectification theory with lesbian women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 348-357.

Lakkis, J., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Roles of sexual orientation and
gender-related traits in disordered eating. Sex Roles, 41, 1-16.

Laner, M. R., & Laner, R. H. (1979). Personal style or sexual preference: Why gay men are
disliked. international Review of2~odern Sociology, 9, 215-228.

Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and
traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.

Martin J. L., & Dean, L. L. (1988). The impact ofAIDS on gayggg~~~~~gggg men: A research instrument,
1988. Unpublished technical report. New York: Columbia University.










McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates' body esteem: The
mediating effect of obj ectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight
di screpancy. Sex Roles, 39, 1 13-123.

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale:
Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215.

Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. V. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification experiences and
internalization of standards of beauty in eating disorder symptomatology: A test and
extension of obj ectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 420-428.

Morry, M. M., & Staska, S. L. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internalization, self-
obj ectification, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in male and female university
students. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 33(4), 269-279.

Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological
outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 371-379.

Noll, S. M, & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-
objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Wonten Quarterly,
22(4), 623-636.

Nungesser, L. G. (1983). Homosexual acts, actors, and identities. New York: Prager.

Roberts, T., & Gettman, J. V. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative
effects of priming a state of self-obj ectification. Sex Roles, 51(1 2), 17-27.

Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male
objectification. Sex Roles, 46(3 4), 61-74.

Russell, C. J. & Keel, P. K. (2002). Homosexuality as a specific risk factor for eating
disorders in men. International Journal of~ating Disorders, 31, 300-306.

Schneider, R. (2001). Body culture. The Gay & Lesbian2 Review Worldwuide, 8(4), 4.

Sender, K. (1999). Selling sexual subjectivities: Audiences respond to the gay window
advertising. Critical Studies in Ma~ss Conanunication, 16, 172-196.

Shernoff, M. (2001). Steroids and the pursuit of bigness. The Gay & Lesbian Review
Worldwuide, 8(4), 32.

Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired
vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting Clinical
Psychology 62, 252-260.










Silberstein, L. R., Mishkind, M. E., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1989).
Men and their bodies: A comparison of homosexual and heterosexual men.
Psychosomatic M~edicine, 51, 337-346.

Strong, S. M., Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2000). Childhood gender nonconformity and body
dissatisfaction in gay and heterosexual men. Sex Roles, 43 (7/8), 427-439.

Strong, S. M., Williamson, D. A., & Netemeyer, R. G., Geer, J. H. (2000). Eating disorder
symptoms and concerns about body differ as a function of gender and sexual
orientation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 240-255.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence
for it incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal
of Social Issues, 57, 3 1-53.

Tiggemann, M. & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating
and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299-3 1 1.

Tiggemann, M. & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The
role of self-obj ectification. Developmental Psychology, 3 7(2), 243-253.

Williamson, I. (1999). Why are gay men a high risk group for eating disturbance? European
Eating Disorders Review, 7, 1-4.

Williamson, I., & Hartley, P. (1998). British research into the increased vulnerability of young
gay men to eating disturbance and body dissatisfaction. European Eating Disorders
Review, 6, 160-70.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Marcie Chantel Wiseman was born on November 30, 1975 in Corning, New York. The

oldest of three children, she grew up mostly in Ocala, Florida. She graduated summa cum laude

with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Saint Leo University in 2003. Marcie began

the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at the University of Florida in August of 2004,

and hopes to earn her Ph.D. in the next few years.