Skip to main content
Log in

The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study analyzed the influence that gender and gender concepts have on predominantly white young adults' attitudes toward their body parts (body-as-object) and body functions (body-as-process). Results indicated that, regardless of gender, participants held more positive attitudes toward their body functions than toward body parts. Masculinity was positively related to body-as-object attitudes, yet this relationship was true only for women. As expected, femininity had exactly the opposite effect on women's body-as-object attitudes. Unexpectedly, femininity was found to be positively related to men's body-as-object attitudes. Regarding the body-as-process, although no attitudinal gender differences were found, masculinity had a significant positive correlation. Finally, results suggested that what may partly account for the more positive body esteem expressed by males than females in previous research are that men appear to hold a higher percentage of neutral attitudes toward their body parts and women hold a higher percentage of negative attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, G. R., & Crossman, S. M. (1978).Physical attractiveness: A cultural perspective. New York: Libra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D. B., & Barrios, M. (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1992). Gender characteristics and adjustment: A longitudinal study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.63, 485–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banner, L. (1983).American beauty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly attractive couples and individuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 772–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal body-image assessment: Factor analysis of the body-self relations questionnaire.Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.),Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calden, G., Lundy, R. M., & Schlafer, R. J. (1959). Sex differences in body concepts.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27, 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, T. F., & Brown, T. A. (1989). Gender and body images: Sterectypes and realities.Sex Roles, 21, 361–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986). The great American shape-up: Body image survey report.Psychology Today, April, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want: Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. (1990). Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal advertisements.Sex Roles, 23, 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiNucci, J. M., Finkenberg, M. E., McCune, S. L., McCune, E. D., & Mayo, T. (1994). Analysis of body esteem of female collegiate athletes.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 315–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster (Hatfield), E. (1972). What is beautiful is good.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. I., Turner, S. H., Ghee, K. L., & Getz, J. G. (1990). Is androgynous sex role related to cigarette smoking in adolescents?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 494–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think.Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, S. (1964). Sex differences in body perception.Psychological Monographs, 78, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L., & Herzog, M. E. (1987). Judging physical attractiveness: What body aspects do we use?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J., & Sugrue, P. A. (1989). Gender differences in the experience of body awareness: An experiential sampling study.Sex Roles, 21, 499–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The body esteem scale: Multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population.Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R. J. (1986).Beauty bound. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, R. J. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body-image change. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.),Body images: Development, deviance, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectations of thinness in women.Psychological Reports, 47, 483–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettelman, T. E., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). Actual differences and stereotypical perceptions in body image and eating disturbance: A comparison of male and female heterosexual and homosexual samples.Sex Roles 29, 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. D., & Chandler, T. J. L. (1991). Sport participation among adolescent girls: Role conflict or multiple roles?Sex Roles, 25, 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. C., Turell, S., & Jackson, L. J. (1983). Desirable and undesirable masculine and feminine traits in relation to students' dieting tendencies and body image dissatisfaction.Sex Roles, 9, 705–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L., & Hymes, J. (1987). Gender, gender role, and physical appearance.Journal of Psychology, 121, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L., & Rostker, R. (1988). Gender, gender role, and body image.Sex Roles, 19, 429–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karraker, K. H., & Stern, M. (1990). Infant physical attractiveness and facial expression: Effects on adult perceptions.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 371–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimlicka, T., Cross, H., & Tarhai, J. (1983). A comparison of androgynous, feminine, masculine, and undifferentiated women on self-esteem, body satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 291–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D., & Adinolfi, A. A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, social relations, and personality style.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langolis, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as socialization agents of sex-typed behaviors in young children.Child Development, 51, 1237–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langolis, J. H., & Stephan, C. (1981). Beauty and the beast: The role of physical attractiveness in the development of peer relations and social behavior. In S. S. Brehm, S. M. Kossin, & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.),Developmental social psychology: Theory and research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, R. M., Orlos, J. B., & Knapp, J. R. (1976). Physical attractiveness, physical effectiveness, and self-concept in late adolescents.Adolescence, 11, 313–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. Z. (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A cognitive analysis of the relationship between physical appearance and stereotyping. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.),Cognitive social psychology. New York: Elsevier/North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnick, M., Vanfossen, B., & Sabo, D. (1988). Developmental effects of athletic participation among high school girls.Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messner, M. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain.Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, L. B., Betz, N. E. (1986). Sex differences in the nature, realism, and correlates of body image.Sex Roles, 15, 185–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L R., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of masculinity: Cultural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions.American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigro, G. N., Hill, D. E., Gelbein, M. E., & Clark, C. L. (1988). Changes in the facial prominence of women and men over the last decade.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Heron, C. A., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1990). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 134–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbach, S. (1986).Hunger strike. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Herman, C. P. (1986). The psychology of height: An empirical review. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1988). Body image, attitudes to weight and misperceptions of figure preferences of the opposite sex: A comparison of men and women in two generations.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 342–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shifren, K., Bauserman, R., & Carter, D. B. (1993). Gender role orientation and physical health: A study among young adults.Sex Roles, 29, 421–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stannard, U. (1971). The masks of beauty. In V. Gormich & B. K. Moran (Eds.),Women in sexist society: Studies in power and powerlessness. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Story, M. D. (1979). Factors associated with more positive body self-concepts in preschool children.Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauber, M. A. (1979). Sex differences in parent-child interaction styles during a free-play session.Child Development, 50, 981–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions.Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. A. (1983). Muscular strength and mental health.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1255–1360.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I would like to thank Paul Sweeney and Dean McFarlin for their statistical advice in calculating regression equations for different values of the moderator variable

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franzoi, S.L. The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles 33, 417–437 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954577

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954577

Keywords

Navigation