bufferingeffectshonorsthesis

Running head: BUFFERING EFFECTS OF GENDER IDEOLOGY !1
Buffering Effects of Gender Ideology on Body Image
University of California, San Diego
Ga Young Yoo
Honors Thesis for Department of Sociology

BUFFERING EFFECTS OF GENDER IDEOLOGY !2
Abstract: The present study utilized a combination of an experimental survey and qualitative interviews to
examine how the objectification and sexualization of both males and females, as found in various media
platforms, had affected participants’perceptions of self in the realm of confidence and self-acceptance. A
multistage cluster sampling method was used to obtain the sample for the survey experiment with the
utilization of a web-based software to distribute the survey to both the experimental and control groups.
The study had posed the following hypothesis: H1) Those who have a strong adherence to gender roles
will be more likely to be dissatisfied about their body. H2) Those who have strong adherence to gender
roles will have negative reactions to objectified images of their given sex. Surprisingly, a regression
analysis had revealed lack of support for H1 and H2. Indeed, some had responded positively in terms of
body image when shown images of objectification. In light of these findings, it appears the qualitative
interviews obtained in the second stage of this study may provide insight into these findings. Specifically,
males and females are more likely to have a different understanding of gender roles and that the Bem Sex
Inventory may be an outdated form of measuring gender orientation. Indeed, many of the masculine and
feminine traits that were once deemed mutually exclusive were perceived as being interchangeable. The
study advises a revision of the Bem Sex Inventory as an instrument of measuring gender ideology to better
reflect current and evolving standards as understood by popular mentality.

Buffering Effects of Gender Ideology on Body Image: A Study Examining the Intersection of
Popular Culture and Self-perception
Introduction
A continuous debate in social science revolves around the topic of advertisements, particularly
regarding its role in American society. The two main conflicting arguments rests on the discussion of
whether advertisements constitute an ideological tool, thus serving as a catalyst for change, or whether
they are an ideological mirror, merely reflecting the nature of society (Lantos, 1987). A historical inquiry
reveals that the character of advertisements has changed over the past few decades. Particularly, the shift
has been towards the communication of social values and away from the informative content about the
specific product being sold (Haugh, 1986). In tandem with this shift, social scientists have noted how
individuals increasingly depend on advertisements to gain a sense of particular social meanings which is
then used to mediate relationships and shape one’s identity (Haugh, 1986). To the extent that individuals
rely on advertisements as an influential source of social values, social scientists have been concerned
regarding advertisements’ role in the dissemination of negative stereotypes (Lantos, 1987). Given the fact
that the average American is exposed to over 3000 advertisements a day (Baker,2005) it is reasonable to
assume that many individuals may encounter certain negative stereotypes in the form of advertisements.
Many of these advertisements revolve around sex-role stereotypes and involve hegemonic ideals
of femininity and masculinity. Indeed, a brief glance at advertisements reveal explicit patterns of the
sexualization of thin female figures; thus providing social cues that women must be thin to be desirable
and one’s physical beauty is a defining characteristic of a person. Frederickson and Roberts (1997) refers
to the sexualization of women as objectification, in which the individual’s body is divorced from her
personality and the primary purpose of the body is to satisfy the sexual urges of the viewer. Therefore,
many researchers are worried that objectification, and its dissemination of feminine standards of beauty, is
responsible for the increased patterns of eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem in addition to
other various mental health consequences found among women today (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997 )

(Tiggemann & McGill, 2004). Since these health risks impede women’s social mobility, the potential
effects of objectification of women has received considerable research attention in the form of
quantitative to qualitative and from macro to micro level studies.
An extensive inquiry into the effects of objectification has not been applied to studies involving
males. However, it appears that men too are beginning to face the same societal experience that has been
up to this point, unique to women. Specifically, within the last decade, men have reached the same level
of objectification in the visual media as women (Rohlinger, 2002). In addition, objectification of men, has
involved the sexualization of an overly muscular build (Rohlinger, 2002). Although the little research that
examines this relatively new phenomenon is few in numbers, its findings should raise a concern.
Evidence indicates that men respond to objectification similarly as women. Men are becoming
increasingly susceptible to eating disorders and steroid abuse as result of having a low body image
( Lorenz, Grieve & Thomas, 2004).
Some individuals are more influenced by images of male and female objectification, more so than
others. This is revealed by the observation that although the media has been blamed for the leading cause
of eating disorders, not everyone are equally susceptible in exercising abnormal eating habits. Similarly,
not everyone experiments with diets, buy protein supplements, opt for surgical operations for aesthetic
reasons, engage in steroid abuse or engage in compulsive exercise regimes. Therefore, there are some
who respond negatively to objectification as disseminated by the visual media but we cannot ignore those
groups who do not experience the same amount of pressure. Clearly, other influences must be factored in
as potential variables when attempting to explain this difference.
If one accepts that objectification are visual forms of sex-role stereotypes, it is reasonable to
argue that an individual’s gender-role orientation can influence how one responds to hegemonic images of
masculinity and femininity. Gender Role is conceptualized as “the cultural belief that certain ideas,
values, behavior and motives are more appropriate in one sex than the other” (Perry & Bussy, 1979).
Thus, my research focuses on how an individual’s gender-role orientation can shape how an individual

responds to the objectification of their given sex. In doing so, my research attempts to advance several
theories and provide insight as to how they are all interrelated.
The present research has compiled a comprehensive collection of literature review to provide
readers with a background of influential theoretical claims regarding gender, gender ideology and1
cultural hegemony. First, I provide an overview of Judith Bulter’s theory on sex and gender as social
constructs. Second, I cover how the gender dichotomy has been historically utilized in ways that reinforce
patriarchy by going over the Critical Cultural approach. In addition, I supplement this view by arguing for
the inequalities that exist among men, largely by the use of Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity.
Third, I use the theory of the Cultural Industry to argue that the capitalist system is responsible for the
increasing use of the objectification of men and women. I argue that objectification revolves around the
commodification of bodies which rests on hegemonic ideals of femininity and masculinity, tailored to
fueling the economic system. Fourth, I cover various theorists’ claim that gender is a performance in
which the body serves as another arena in which individuals can act out their gender. Finally, I provide an
overview on Gender Schema theory and provide a background of a traditional form of measurement
commonly used to assess an individual’s gender-role orientation. The Gender Schema illustrates how
individuals are equipped with different sets of gender ideologies that may influence whether they resist or
buy into hegemonic ideals as exemplified by objectification.
My hypothesis is: 1) Those who have strong adherence to gender roles will be more likely to be
dissatisfied about their body. 2) Those who have strong adherence to gender roles will have negative
reactions to objectified images of their given sex. It seems reasonable to assume that low body image may
be more severe for those who strive to conform to societal expectations in gender roles ; with lower body
image being the result of feelings of inadequacy from not meeting feminine and masculine expectations
of attractiveness. My research employs two methodologies to test this hypothesis: The first, through
survey method, attempts to replicate previous experimental studies to determine whether mere exposure
to objectification can have an immediate negative attitudinal effect among students. It contains an
The value of Gender-Role orientation, as a term, is in its precise definition; which allows for the operationalization1
of the variable gender ideology. However, the two are often used as interchangeable theoretical concepts.

additional component to assess whether one’s gender-role orientation influences their body image. The
second attempts to discover the role of gender-role orientation on body image at the micro level,
specifically through qualitative interviews.
Review of the Literature
Sex and Gender: Contested Arenas
What is the common perception towards sex and gender? The answer can be found by the simple
observation that the two terms are often used interchangeably, as if to denote synonymous concepts
equivalent in meaning. In addition, both the concept of sex and gender are treated as innate
characteristics, natural predispositions that claim an individual upon birth and as early as when one is
inside the mother’s womb. However, scholars not only strive to distinguish sex from gender, but they also
refer to both concepts as social constructs. More formally, sex refers to the quality of being either male or
female based on one’s reproductive traits and the possession of either XX or XY chromosomes (Lippa,
2005). Gender on the other hand, refers to behavior characteristics that are associated with one’s sex
(Lippa, 2005). This clear cut binary, the quality of being either male or female and of being either
masculine or feminine does not occur in such a straightforward manner in real life as illustrated by
philosopher Judith Butler (1993):
Sex is a regulatory ideal whose materialization is compelled, and this materialization
takes place through certain highly regulated practices. In other words, sex is an ideal
construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static
condition of the body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize sex and achieve
this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms. A given sex will
centrally concern the regulation of identificatory practices such that the identification with
the abjection of sex will be persistently disavowed. (p. 2)
Judith Butler first addresses how the concept of sex is a product of culture in which society strives to
allocate individuals into a male or female category based on their ability to meet certain biological criteria
as sanctioned by that society, yet even these criteria are socially constructed. To better understand this
argument, consider the example of Kleinfelter's syndrome, the case of inter-sexed individuals who are
born with both reproductive organs. It is often the result of medical discretion and numerous follow up

surgical procedures (such as the removal of one of the reproductive organs and the injection of hormones)
that succeed in taking the individual away from the inter-sexed category and placing them as being either
male or female (Kessler, 1991). Butler further argues that the practice of identifying oneself as either male
or female is never complete and must be substantiated by behavioral characteristics in which it is for
society to decide what these masculine and feminine traits entails (1993).
Taking into consideration that sex and gender are products of culture that rests on norms and
values, we now move on to the observation that sex and gender are social constructs that are treated in
terms of binary opposition, “Male is the opposite of female and masculine is the antithesis of all things
feminine..masculine identity is born in the renunciation of the feminine” (Kimmel, 2001, p. 274). Yet,
scholars argue that more similarities exist between men and women than actual differences (Lippa, 2005)
(Litosseliti, 2006). This leads to the question of: “What group is responsible for the reinforcement of
gender differences and how does such emphasis on differences matter?”
Critical Cultural Approach & Connell’s Hegemonic Masculinity
Scholars who adhere to the Critical Cultural Theory make the argument that our culturally
imposed gender distinction, into its incompatible categories, is no less but a deliberate attempt to obtain
political leverage over particular groups:
In critical cultural approaches, researchers attempt to deconstruct, or take apart and
critically examine, the cultural creation of differences and inequalities. They focus on
revealing possible explanations for socially created differences and similarities. Gender/
sex and other social identities are not seen as belonging solely to the individual but
rather as belonging to social systems and structures. (DeFrancisco & Palczewski, 2007,
p. 50)
Social Inequalities, then, are viewed as an inevitable byproduct of a society that insists on identifying
differences between males and females, differences that may not exist at all but in which members are led
to believe are natural and innate. If we accept the proposition of this theory, and accept that gender serves
as an influential political arena, whereby groups are engaged in a tug of war with power, we may wonder,

who is responsible for creating the illusion of gender differences? What particular group benefits? The
answer appears somewhat ambiguous and has the potential of varying between time and context. Yet
many feminists point to the male sex often in default because the concept of masculinity and femininity
have been historically utilized in ways that have successfully ostracized women, “much feminist thought
associates masculinity with the institutional practices, attitudes, and personality traits of men-like
aggressions and competitiveness-that uphold male dominance and oppress women. It casts such
masculinity as itself a social problem antithetical to feminist goals” (Gardiner,2002, p.3). Although there
are many historical examples to use to illustrate this matter, I will point to one in particular which is the
relatively recent Supreme Court case UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA. The case refers to the incident in
which gender based bias succeeded in excluding women from admission to a prestigious men-only
military school. Defendants attempted to justify sex segregation on grounds that inclusion of women
would require accommodations that would in turn drive down the quality of its training program for men.
These arguments were based on cultural assumptions that women were innately inferior and different
from men:
Virginia also argues that VMI's adversative method of training provides educational
benefits that cannot be made available, unmodified, to women, and that alterations to
accommodate women would necessarily be so drastic as to destroy VMI's program. It is
uncontested that women's admission to VMI would require accommodations, primarily in
arranging housing assignments and physical training programs for female cadets. Yet,
these assumptions were made because they were simply women. (United States V.
Virginia, et al., 1996)
Feminists, then, view gender differences as a cultural mechanism for the maintenance of a patriarchal
society.
Although the Critical Cultural Studies approach provides insight into how gender, as a political
arena, serves as ample ground for power inequalities to exist between the sexes, it does not attempt to
explain the power differences that occur within a sex, particularly among men. Connell’s theory on
hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity, equip us with a valuable framework in which to
examine the nuances of power differences. However, in order to understand hegemonic masculinity, it is
imperative to visit Gramsci’s notion of hegemony.

Gramsci’s theory on hegemony argues that particular groups exercise its control over society
through a unique combination of coercion and consent. A society can be controlled through brute force
such as the use of military measures. However, although this method of control has not been entirely
eliminated it is rarely employed. Instead, society is viewed as being under cultural domination, where the
values and norms of a particular group exercises control of other members. Individuals in society give
their consent by accepting the dominant group’s values, viewing these values as involving common-sense,
a natural and even desirable characteristic of society. Yet these rules often function to benefit a given
group at the expense of others (Mouffe, 1979)(Gramsci, 2005).
Connell’s usage of hegemony, specifically hegemonic masculinity, carries similar theoretical
significance:
in the concept of hegemonic masculinity, hegemony means a social ascendancy achieved
in a play of social forces that extends beyond contests of brute power in the organization
of private life and cultural processes. (Connell, 1987, p.184)
In addition Kimmel’s argument of hegemonic masculinity parallels that of Connell:
the hegemonic definition of manhood is a man in power, a man with power, and a man of
power. We equate manhood with being strong, successful, capable, reliable, in control.
The very definitions of manhood we have developed in our culture maintain the power
that some men have over other men and that men have other women. (Kimmel, 2001, p.
277)
At surface glance, masculinity appears to be an umbrella concept that serves to subordinate women by its
emphasis on values that subjugate the opposite sex. Yet, the two authors are treating masculinity as a
concept that is multi-dimensional, a colorful spectrum that contains many distinct shades. It is argued then
that a particular type of masculinity controls influence over all other sub-variations by appearing as if it is
the most natural, the most desirable form of masculinity and this often involves traits that appear to be
equated with power. In this way, men succeed in dominating other men. Thus, scholars have addressed

hegemonic masculinity to include race, with the image of the white Anglo male being perceived as the
ideal form of masculinity (Kimmel, 2001).
Similarly, Kimmel (2001) claims that adherence to a given form of masculinity is result of interplay
between coercion and consent:
these rules contain the elements of the definition against which virtually all American
men are measured. Failure to embody these rules, to affirm the power of the rules and
one’s achievement of them is a source of men’s confusion and pain. Such a model is, of
course, unrealizable for any man. But we keep trying, valiantly and vainly, to measure up.
American masculinity is a relentless test (p. 280)
When individuals deviate from a given form of hegemonic masculinity, it is viewed as resulting in
punishment; for the individual loses out in the obtainment of certain societal rewards.
Yet, scholars claim that strict adherence to standards of masculinity is oppressive; for it restricts men’s
options and behavior:
Profeminist men argued that men should support feminisms because most are harmed by
idealizing the masculine in opposition to women and subordinate men, especially
homosexuals and men of colors. All men were harmed by this hegemonic masculinity they
claimed, because it narrowed their options, forced them into confining roles, dampened
their emotions, inhibited their relationships with other men, precluded intimacy with
women and children, imposed sexual and gender conformity, distorted their self-
perceptions, limited their social consciousness, and doomed them with continual and
humiliating fear of failure to live up the masculinity mark(Gardine, 2002, p. 6)
Therefore, in terms of hegemonic masculinity, Connell (1987) makes an assertive argument that supports
many feminist theories, “the connection between hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal violence is close,
though not simple” (p. 186). He is agreeing with many feminist claims that that the norms and values
associated with the concept of femininity serve to subordinate women at the hands of men. Yet, the
concept of hegemonic masculinity indicates that men are susceptible to experiencing oppression as result
of adhering to standards that are inhibiting. Gender, then, rests on ideals and standards that can have
disastrous consequences to both sexes.
I have delved extensively into how distinctions in gender can be viewed as a cultural
construction, motivated to advantage particular groups at the expense of others. I next attempt to illustrate

how objectification, as sex role stereotypes, rests on hegemonic ideals of masculinity and femininity
which not only serve to be oppressive to both men and women but which further helps reproduce the
capitalist system.
The Cultural Industry in Modern Capitalism & Critical Theory of Advertisements: Objectification
as Hegemonic Stereotypes
Hegemonic concepts of masculinity and femininity have been extended to that of the physical
body in which objectification of men and women not only reinforce gender distinction but serve an
additional purpose of fueling the capitalistic system. Objectification of women has largely revolved
around a drastically thin figure (Baker, 2005) with objectification of men being visually based on a
muscular ideal (Strelen & Hargreaves, 2005). Feminists argue that as women are gaining influence in the
workplace, they succeed in blurring traditional gender lines and men turn to muscularity as a realm to
reassert their manhood and thus their power (Bridges, 2009). It has been argued that by associating female
ideals of beauty among women with thinness, men are trying to silence the presence of women by
diminishing the size of their physical body in the real world (Bordo, 1993).
The paradox of objectification is that although its purpose is to reinforce gender differences, it has
a latent effect of reducing sex stratification. Up to this point, women were the main demographic group
that was objectified in the media and women constituted a significant population that were more prone to
experiencing negative behavioral patterns such as eating disorders as result of objectification (Fredrickson
& Roberts, 1997). As objectification of men increased, to the point it now parallels female objectification
(Rohlinger, 2002) men are susceptible to experiencing the same level of negative behavioral
consequences such as steroid abuse and eating disorders (Gillett & White, 1992). Thus, with
objectification transforming the human figure into a vehicle for the expression of unobtainable and
elusive notions of gender, we must question what group benefits from this distinction.

In order to illustrate the role of hegemonic sex role stereotypes in modern capitalistic society, this
paper adopts the theoretical framework of critical theorists who emphasize the role of the cultural
industry, a product of modern capitalism. The premise of their argument is provided in the following:
the culture industry employs Marxian arguments by stressing capitalist control of culture,
the commodification and reification of culture, its ideological functions and the ways in
which it integrates individuals into capitalist society…the culture industries illuminates
the processes promoting standardization, homogenization and conformity that
characterize social life under what they call “totalitarian capitalism.” The tendencies
toward manipulation and domination in the culture industry illuminate similar trends
throughout capitalist society (Kellner, 1989, p. 132)
The cultural industry adopts Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and the accompanying concept of ideological
domination. In our contemporary market driven society, the bourgeoisie such as large corporate owners
who have a stake in the advertisement industry, appropriate advertisements as a tool in achieving
ideological domination (Kellner, 1989)(Connell, 1987). This instrument of control revolves around the
motive of facilitating consumption patterns. Note that this is the survival tactic of modern capitalism. In
order to maintain its presence as an enduring economic system, it must be able to generate a ready supply
of consumers, individuals who will not hesitate to dispose their money in order to obtain a need. Yet,
today the notion of need is qualitatively different than how it was perceived decades earlier. For example,
today we live in an era where poverty is less likely to be absolute and individuals more or less have access
to basic subsistence such as food and shelter (Iceland, 2006). Theorists then argue that advertisements
succeed in integrating individuals into the capitalism system when hegemonic messages create feelings of
relative deprivation, “analysis of the persuasive form of modern advertising indicates how cultural forms
of communication create meanings through non-discursive visual imagery which come to shape
consciousness and behavior subtly by sanctioning some forms of thought while delegitimizing
others..” (Kellner, 1989, p.133). Thus, when a particular societal value is portrayed as being the ideal, the
value becomes transformed into a societal norm that causes individuals into evaluating themselves based
on their deviation from or ability to meet this standard.
Objectifications of male and female figures provide insight into society’s standard of masculine
and feminine beauty. In turn, a restricted sense of beauty succeeds in transforming the body into a
commodity:

the sculpted body is intextuated with images and texts recognized as masculine within a
widely shared and powerful consumer culture. The more the body comes to represent an
idealized image of muscular masculinity, the higher its potential exchange value in social
relationships the muscular body then is a commodity presented to others in exchange for
social recognition (Gillet & White, 1992, p. 363)
Fashion and beauty standards are shaped by the manufacturing, advertising and fashion
industries, which offer a range of material and symbolic resources for creating femininity.
In participating in consumer femininity, a woman constructs herself as an object
requiring work, establishing a practical relation wither herself as a thing (Litosselti,
2006, p. 92).
The authors illustrates how gender distinctions and therefore the body, has been appropriated by the
Capitalistic system. The repetition of images in advertisements, thin bodies for women and muscular
bodies for men, can lead individuals to engage in a comparative discourse with the images, transforming
the body into a commodity. A possible result is that individuals are no longer satisfied with the body that
they currently possess. In addition, the logic of capitalism is to provide a solution, a solution that is tied
with the purchase of a product. It appears that there is no coincidence to the increase in body
dissatisfaction among individuals and the increase in the purchase of protein supplements, cosmetic
surgeries and other body modification remedies (Morgan, 1991)(Harvey & Robinson, 2004). Yet, the
idealized male and female bodies are so far from the norm that it will ensure consumption patterns. For
example, no matter how many diet drinks or protein supplements an individual consumes, they can never
be thin enough or muscular enough because these ideals are nearly impossible to meet, indeed roughly
10% meet the images of what’s presented in the media today (Bordo, 1993).
It is important to clarify that, the cultural industry, as a source of ideological domination provides
a cultural arena for resistance:
hegemony does not mean total cultural dominance, the obliteration of alternatives. It
means ascendancy achieved within a balance of forces, that is, a state of play. Other
patterns and groups are subordinated rather than eliminated. If we do not recognize this
it would be impossible to account for the everyday contestation that actually occurs in
social life, let alone for historical changes in definitions of gender patterns on the
grander scale (Connell, 1987, p. 184)

Individuals can resist hegemonic ideals and demand for alternatives whereby Capitalism will, though not
often, pay attention to this demand. We can cite many examples that illustrate this case. For example,
although the idea of feminine beauty rests on a thin standard, a proportion of women voiced their
discontent, demanding that other body types such as a woman with large curves be represented in the
media. Hence, our entertainment society has come out with program such as “More to Love” and “Dove
Commercials” that not only portray and spotlight heavy women, but associate them as being beautiful.
Thus, Connell states that hegemonic norms will always be accompanied by those that are counter-
hegemonic. Yet, counter-hegemonic ideals will always be far outnumbered so that although they have a
presence in society, they are few in number.
In addition, critical theorist such as Adorno and Horkheimer have been critiqued for their
assertion that culture domination is imposed on the masses; not accounting for the fact that individuals are
fully capable of resisting these messages or appropriating them in ways to fit their own need. Bordo
(1993) criticizes cultural hegemony as revolving purely around indoctrination as she cites Fisk in her
work:
Pleasure results from a particular relationship between meanings and power..there is no
pleasure in being a “cultural dope.” Pleasure results from the production of meanings of
the world and of self that are felt to serve the interests of the reader rather than those of
the dominant. The subordinate may be disempowered, but they are not powerless (as
cited in Bordo, 1993 p. 260)
Thus although the capitalist market benefits financially from its dissemination of hegemonic bodily
images, it does not necessarily mean that some individuals do not take pleasure from participating in acts
that lead to the modification of their bodies such as engaging in workout routines and opting for aesthetic
surgery. Ideological domination can be resisted or appropriated in various ways. This leads to the question
of which groups are likely to resist hegemonic messages of body image and which groups are likely to
appropriate them? I attempt to provide this answer by adopting the Gender Schema Theory. But first, I
would like to go over the framework of gender as a performance to connect how the body serves as
another arena in which individuals can perform their gender.

Gender as a Performance
Sociologists are increasingly coming to view gender as belonging more in the grammatical
categorization of verb than a noun (Coates, 2004). Particularly, gender is viewed as being performed by
the individual rather than seen as default behavior characteristics that accompany a given sex
(Defrancisco & Palczewski, 2001). Thus, gender is a display in which individuals modify their behavior
in ways that fulfill societal expectations of masculinity and femininity:
femininity and masculinity are regarded as prototypes of essential expressions. Gender is
a socially scripted dramatization of the culture’s idealization of feminine and masculine
natures, played for audience that is well schooled in the presentation idiom. (West &
Zimmerman, 2008, p. 49)
Many studies support the claim of gender as a performance. For example, a study by Frith &
Gleeson (2004) revealed that participants used clothing in various ways to express their gender such as
opting for certain patterns, size and texture in clothing that made them appear taller, bigger, smaller,
muscular or slender. Similarly, the human body serves as another arena in which gender can be expressed:
The body-what we eat, how we dress, the daily rituals through which we attend to the
body-is a medium of culture. The body, as anthropologist Mary Douglas has argued, is a
powerful symbolic form, a surface on which the central rules, hierarchies, and even
metaphysical commitments of a culture are inscribed and thus reinforced through the
concrete language of the body (Bordo, 1993, p. 165)
To the extent that individuals use their body to communicate their gender, this latter can be achieved
through the physical transformation of the body, such as decreasing one’s physical size or increasing it.
Yet, not everyone attempts to perform their gender and we can think of many counter examples.
Those who refuse to lose weight and those who refuse to wear form enhancing suits for instance. Bem’s
theory on gender schema will provide us with an insight as to how some groups may feel more pressured
to perform their gender over others.

Gender Schema as an Assessment of Gender-Role Orientation
Bem’s Sex Inventory (1981) and her theory on psychological androgyny has provided the
academia with a tool for the measurement of an individual’s gender ideology. In particular, she has
advanced a theory known as Gender Schema. Bem argues that individuals are equipped with many
diverse cognitive frameworks in which to perceive their reality, a significant one involving gender. In
turn, having a strong gender framework will cause an individual to perceive the world within a gendered
lens.
According to Bem, some individuals have a relatively strong gender schema in relation to others.
Gender for this group, serves as the significant component in which to define oneself as well as others. In
addition, this group tends to evaluate themselves and others according to strong gender stereotypes and
attempt to modify their behaviors to fit their perceptions of gender. In contrast, those who lack a strong
gender schema are labeled as possessing a high level of psychological androgyny, individuals who do not
discriminate according to gender roles and possess high degrees of both masculine and feminine
personality characteristics.
Bem views the androgynous group of individuals to be more successful in life because they will2
be able to adapt to a number of circumstances. It is argued that life require flexibility in transitioning from
one gendered role to another. Whether or not one has a relatively strong gender schema is partially
influenced by socialization in childhood but is a continuous process that can be adjusted according to the
individuals’ present experience.
The Bem Sex Inventory contains twenty items that are viewed as masculine, feminine or gender
neutral personality traits. These items were selected based on face validity and Bem’s students served as
the panel of judges. Items of femininity and masculinity revolve around gender stereotypes such as
independence and sensitivity. Individuals are asked to rate each item in degrees of importance. Individuals
are then labeled as either gender schematic (having high degrees of either masculine or feminine qualities
The present research refers to “androgyny” and “androgynous” in terms of psychological androgyny, that is the2
possession of both masculine and feminine personality traits.

but not both) or gender aschematic (having high degrees of both masculine and feminine traits regardless
of sex) based on the individuals’ response to these items. Many sociologists continue to use the Bem Sex
Inventory to examine how one’s gender-role orientation influence patterns of behavior, such as its
influence on body image (Borchert & Heinberg, 1996)(Forbes, Adams-Curtis, Rade & Jaberg, 2001).
Survey Methods
Population
The units of analysis were the individual UCSD students who received an email and had
completed the online survey. UCSD Telephone Directory for the year 2008-2009 served as the sampling
frame which listed the names and phone numbers of all the students who had chosen to have their
information made publicly available. This aggregation of students served as the survey population for this
study. The sample size was 73 for males and 76 for the females; this was based on students’ response
rates. Half of the respondents for each sex were assigned to an experimental group by linking them to
online survey containing the stimulus.
Sample Selection
A three stage Multistage Cluster Sampling method was used in combination with simple random
sampling to obtain a sample for this study . The names selected were entered into UCSD homepage’s3
search device in order to find students’ email address. These steps were repeated until the study had
generated 1200 emails.
Measures
Body Dissatisfaction
Each page that listed students’ information was treated as a cluster. Through simple random sampling, using a3
random number generator (random.org) a page would be selected. The columns of students’ names for each page
were also treated as its own cluster, which would also be chosen through simple random sampling. The row with the
student’s name would then be selected through the simple random sample method.

Body dissatisfaction served as the dependent variable and was conceptualized as the discrepancy
between self and ideal body, this conceptualization is consistent with the existing literature. Body
Dissatisfaction was operationalized by respondents’ answers to four close-ended questionnaire items.
Items “I feel confident about my body shape” and “I do not want to change my body composition” were
rated on a 4-point Likert scale with response categories of “Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly
Disagree” statements. Item “My ideal weight would be” was rated on a 5-point Likert Scale consisting of
response categories of “A lot lower”, “a little lower”, “the same”, “a little higher” and “a lot higher.”
Questionnaire item “I feel satisfied about” was rated on a 4-point Likert Scale with response categories of
“little to no parts of my body”,” some parts of my body”, “most parts of my body”, and “all parts of my
body.” The Body Dissatisfaction Index ranks varying degree of body dissatisfaction on an ordinal level.4
Higher scores on the Body Dissatisfaction Index indicate higher levels of body dissatisfaction.
Gender-Role Orientation
Gender-Role orientation was operationalized using a portion of the Bem Sex Inventory. The
original Bem Sex Inventory consists of forty items to measure masculinity and forty items to measure
femininity in which respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they believe the adjective applied
to them. Respondents’ scores are used to determine their level of masculinity and femininity. For this
research, five masculine and five feminine adjectives were selected.
Male students were presented with the items: Aggressive, athletic, independent, willing to take
risks, and ambitious . Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they believe the given adjective5
A pilot study among male students revealed that the items were strongly related with one another and served as a4
sufficient index, producing a Cronbach’s Alpha of .651. However, only 3 female students responded to the pilot
study which made it difficult to analyze the inter-correlation between items. Based on the pilot study among male
students, all the original items were viewed as being strong indicators of body dissatisfaction for the female students
and all items were kept.
A reliability analysis in the pilot study for the male subjects revealed that the item “analytical” was not strongly5
related to the rest of the masculine items. The Chronbach Alpha of .608 would be raised to .841 upon deletion of this
item. Therefore, another adjective to assess masculinity was chosen based on face validity which was “high
ambitions.”

applied to them. These responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 being strongly agree and 7
being strongly disagree. However, a pilot study conducted onto a portion of male UCSD students revealed
that there was little variation in subjects’ responses to these items. This may be due to the fact that the
adjectives appeared ambiguous in its isolated context. Thus, the items were placed in a hypothetical
scenario to avoid ambiguity. The final study used the following questionnaire items to assess adherence to
masculine gender roles: Q1: “I think it is important that I act aggressive in order to obtain what I need,”
“Q2: I think it is important that I have basic athletic skills, regardless of whether or not these skills may
be required in my future profession,” Q3: “I think it is more important to be independent than relying on
others for help,” Q4: “I think it is important that I am willing to take risks in order to achieve my personal
goals” and Q5 “I think it is important that I have high ambitions in life rather than settling for less.”
Female students were presented with the items: affectionate, cheerful, gentle, sensitive to the
need of others and loyal. Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they believe the given
adjective applied to them. These responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 being strongly
agree and 7 being strongly disagree. The final study used the following questionnaire items to assess
adherence to feminine gender roles: “Q1: I think it is important that I behave affectionately, even towards
people that I may not feel positively towards,” “Q2: I think it is important that I hold a surface appearance
of cheerfulness most of the time.” “Q3: I think it is important that I am sensitive to the needs of others,
even if this means that I prioritize their needs over mine,” “Q4: I think it is important that I behave in a
gentle manner whenever I communicate my needs,” “Q5: I think it is very important that I prove to most
people that I am a reliable person.

Objectification
Images of Objectification served as an independent variable and these images would be
administered to the experimental group as a stimulus. An image was accepted as representing
objectification if it met the following criteria: 1) the person depicted in the image were partially to
completely nude 2) the body of the person is seen as representing the individual rather than his or her
personality 3) the individual was presented in a sexualized manner. These criteria have been adopted from
Fredrick’s Objectification Theory. Objectification was measured on a nominal level of having attributes
present or non-present based on these criteria.
Two advertisements were presented to the male students that composed the experimental group.
One of the advertisements was adopted from a campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
otherwise known as PETA. This image depicted celebrity Dennis Rodman in nude fashion. The second
image was a Calvin Klein Ad which depicted a male CK model in partially nude fashion. The present
research makes the argument that there is no harm imposed on subjects receiving these sexualized images
because these political and commercial advertisements are currently circulating widely through media
outlets in which subjects are likely to encounter them on their own outside the realm of this study.
Two advertisements were presented to female students that composed the experimental group.
Both advertisements were adopted from a campaign by PETA. The first advertisement consists of an
image of celebrity Pamela Anderson in partially nude fashion. The second advertisement consists of
celebrity Maggie Q also in partially nude fashion.
A neutral image of a forest was presented to female and male students composing the control
group.
Results: Analysis of Male Students
The Role of Adherence to Masculine Gender Roles and Exposure to Objectification on Body
Dissatisfaction

I conducted a regression analysis to test whether those who have strong adherence to gender roles
will report higher levels of body dissatisfaction. It appears that one’s gender orientation does not have a
significant influence on body dissatisfaction. However, a reliability analysis of the inter-correlation
between items in the body dissatisfaction index reveals that Q3 may not have been a reliable indicator. In
addition, it appears that the masculinity scale also served as a poor index as revealed by the weak
correlation between items. Yet, the lack of relationship between the items in the masculinity index is an
interesting finding itself. Particularly, a student may adhere to a given form of masculinity such as
independence, but this in itself does determine whether or not they will adhere to another form of
masculinity such as ambitions. This observation provides support for Kimmel’s claim. Kimmel
emphasizes the need to address masculinity as a complex phenomenon that contains many variations. A
given form of masculinity can succeed in supporting, co-opting, or challenging another form of
masculinity. Thus, this may explain why students’ responses to questions of masculinity did not take the
form of a consistent pattern. Masculinity, as an ideal, is highly subjective and students may differ in terms
of what constitutes masculinity. This point will be further elaborated on in my qualitative data.
Taking into account the mentioned discrepancies in the interrelationships between items in both
the Body Dissatisfaction and Masculinity Index, the following research decisions were made which
involved: 1) The omission of Q3 of the body dissatisfaction and treating this item as an independent
variable. The purpose of this maneuver was to have a control variable, ideal weight, for the regression
analysis. It is reasonable to assume that one’s ideal weight would determine one’s satisfaction with their
bodies. Having a control variable would help pinpoint what the influencing factors are in terms of body
dissatisfaction. 2) The masculinity index was broken down and the influence of each indicator on body
dissatisfaction was examined separately. A regression analysis was then repeated to test whether the
indicators of masculinity, as individual components, had an effect on body images. The findings of this
study point to unexpected results. Particularly, strong adherence to independence was negatively related
to body dissatisfaction. However, a strong adherence to ambition was positively correlated to body
dissatisfaction. Finally, those who had a strong desire to increase their body size tended to be more

dissatisfied with their body. Finally, it appears that exposure to objectification has no influence on one’s
body image among male UCSD students (see Table 1).
Table 1. Coefficients for Regression of the Men's Body Dissatisfaction (N=73)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Independent -0.113 # -0.095 # -0.096 #
(.058) (0.054) (0.054)
High Ambitions 0.193 * 0.182 * 0.182 *
(.089) (0.082) (0.083)
Ideal Weight 0.378 *** 0.375 ***
(0.110) (0.111)
Exposed to Sexualized Image 0.057
(0.139)
constant 2.288 *** 1.492 *** 1.465 ***
(0.174) (0.282) (0.291)
Adjusted R2 0.061 0.191 0.181
F 3.227 *** 6.444 *** 4.814 **
# p < .10 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Standard errors are shown in parentheses.

Results: Analysis of Female Students
Adherence to Feminine Gender Roles and Exposure to Objectification on Body Dissatisfaction
In contrast to masculinity scale, a reliability analysis of the interconnection between items in the
Femininity index indicate that the items served as valid measures and thus served as a strong index.
However, the interconnection between items in the Body dissatisfaction were weak, Q3 was taken out and
treated as an independent variable, for the same reason cited in the male analysis such as the need for a
control variable. Q4 was treated as the dependent variable for reasons that Q4 appeared to be the strongest
indicator for one’s body image. Thus for females, the dependent variable measures Body
SATISFACTION as opposed to body DISSATISFACTION in males.
Findings indicate that gender orientation has no effect on satisfaction with body. However, results
of this study point to an interesting trend. The majority of female Students at UCSD had scored low on
the femininity index. With 7 being the maximum response, indicating the highest degree of adherence to
feminine gender roles, students had a mean response of 2.9. Based on this observation, one would assume
that the majority of female students have a low adherence to feminine gender roles. However, I argue that
this is not the case. A large portion of students have high adherence to feminine gender roles, but ideas of
feminine gender roles are changing. I will elaborate more on this point in my qualitative portion of this
paper. Ideal weight influences one’s satisfaction with their body with those who do not wish to change
aspects of their body are the most satisfied. Finally, an unexpected finding emerged which revealed that
exposure to a sexualized image has a positive effect on satisfaction with body (see Table 2).
Table 2. Coefficients for Regression of the Women's Body Satisfaction (N=78)
Model
1 Model 2 Model 3

Feminity Index -0.004 -0.004
(0.017) (0.017)
Exposure to Sexualized
Image 0.373 * 0.372 *
(0.165) (.164)
Ideal Weight 0.743 *** 0.744 ***
(0.205) (.203)
Constant 2.648 *** 2.258 ***
(0.267) (.119)
Adjusted R2 -0.013 0.185 0.197
F 0.057 9.185
# p < .10 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Standard errors are shown in parentheses.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
body_dissatisfactionQ
4 73 1 5 2.589 0.779
Feminity_Index 73 5 32 14.616 5.379
idealWT 73 0 1 0.206 0.407
stimulus 73 0 1 0.480 0.503
Valid N (listwise) 73

Conclusion:
The findings of my survey point to trends that are unexpected. For male students, it appears that
adherence to particular masculine gender roles is significantly related to body dissatisfaction while
adherence to others is not. Specifically, the quality of striving for independence led to more confidence in
body image while conforming to the role of “ambitious male” led to lower confidence. In addition,
exposure to objectification in itself does not lead to lower self esteem in males; this contradicts the results
of prior experimental studies. Among female students, adherence to feminine gender roles had no effect
on body image. Female students who were exposed to sexualized images of models reported greater
satisfaction about their body, again contradicting previous experimental studies.
These findings, although unexpected, appears to be explained by my qualitative data. My
interviews with students at UCSD provide insight into the mechanisms that are responsible for the
patterns that I identified in my quantitative data. Briefly, interviews revealed that current body size is
more significant than mere exposure to images of objectification in determining confidence levels for
male students. For female students, the type of advertisement displayed influences confidence levels. For

both sexes, gender-role orientation influences how one interacts with images of objectification. I will go
over these findings in more detail in the following section.
Qualitative Interviews
Methodology
Population
I conducted thirty-five brief interviews with UCSD students. The subjects for this stage of the
research project were obtained through a combination of snowball sampling and reliance on availability.
The interviews were held on various locations on the UCSD campus such as coffee shops, the Price
Center and the library walkway. Interviews were recorded and lasted an average of 15-25 minutes.
Roughly half the respondents were female and half male.
Measures
Gender-Role Orientation
Based on students’ responses to the pilot study , the present study made a decision to leave the6
Bem Sex Inventory and instead add a degree of freedom in allowing students to identify what they
believed constituted masculine and feminine traits and why it was important to them. Thus, in the final
study, male and female students were asked, “In your opinion, how would you describe masculine traits
as idealized in American society?” “Do you consider these traits important for you to have? Why or why
not?” “In your opinion how would you describe feminine traits as idealized in American society?” “Do
you consider these traits important for you to have? Why or why not? “Based on your description, would
you consider yourself as possessing more masculine qualities, feminine qualities or equally both?”
The present research did not take into account sexual orientation or race. Questions were designed to
Interview questions in the pilot study involved the same set of items as posed in the survey; which involved taking6
a portion of the Bem Sex Inventory to assess students’ gender ideology. For example, male students were asked,
“How important do you consider the trait of being aggressive?” and female students were asked, “How important do
you consider the trait of being agreeable?” However, results from the pilot study revealed that these questions led to
difficulty in responses from the subjects and may have been due to the ambiguity of the questions itself. Many
students claimed, “It depends on what situation you are talking about.”

assess students’ self perception of their bodies and how their views may be influenced by objectification.
These questions included: “Overall, how confident do you feel about your body?” “Whenever you
encounter images of this nature, whether it is on billboards or in magazines, how does it influence how
you view your own body?” “Do these images pressure you into wanting a certain body type?” However,
responses in confidence levels appeared to lack variation. Thus the question of “What are some
hypothetical scenarios in which you feel less confident about your body?” was asked in the later stages of
conducting qualitative interviews in order to tap into more variance in students’ responses.
Objectification
Students were presented with advertisements that contained images of objectification of their
given sex. For example, male students were presented with sexualized images of male models and female
students were presented with sexualized images of female models. These images were consistent to the
ones that were used in the portion pertaining to survey research but the present study included additional
images in order to cover a wider array of advertisements that students may be more familiar with. The
present study makes the argument that there is no harm imposed upon subjects as result of exposure to
objectification based on the reasoning that, as result of the prevalence of sexualized images dominating
our entertainment based society today, individuals are likely to across similar images of sexualization on
their own.
Results of Male Students
Males with Strong Adherence to Masculinity: Masculinity as a Form of Cultural Capital
The present research uncovered many variations in themes as students provided their own
definition of masculinity, providing evidence to many theorists’ claim such as that of Connell (1987) and
Kimmel (2000), who argue for a new understanding of masculinity, particularly in that masculinity is in
constant flux and contains many variations. Students’ ideas of masculinity often supported previously
stated masculine traits as listed in the Bem Sex inventory, such as the adherence to independence,
ambition, and career-orientation. Yet, students also disclosed new ideas regarding their understanding of

ideal male sex roles which detracted from the traditional measurement, such as sociability and reliance on
others.
Despite the differences in students’ responses, a common pattern emerged. The present study
discovered an identifiable group at UCSD which involves male students who confidently classify
themselves as being more masculine. This group places heavy importance on the possession of masculine
traits for reasons that they perceive masculinity as a pathway towards the obtainment of societal rewards.
Masculinity, then, was treated as a personal tool that could secure one’s future prospects, a form of
cultural capital that brings advantages to the group that adheres to them.
Some masculine traits that male students listed were unconventional; for they overlapped with
qualities most commonly associated with females. Take Cory for example; who found that sociability
would facilitate his career:
I like to think myself as being more on the masculine side..because..I’m funny.. and I try
to be charming and respectful. I think they (traits) are good to have just because being
social is important..i mean for life in America…not just to fit in but to be you know to be
a functional member of society. In order to be a successful person, the more outgoing you
are the more successful your life is going to be.. that’s what I noticed.. the more I reach
out..the more I network, the more connections I make.. the more friends I have.. it really
benefits you on a larger scale. That’s why I decided to join a fraternity.. yeah there’s some
stigma..because there’s of course a lot of drinking .. but it’s not just about partying, it’s
about having those people skills..I’m not saying that the average Joe is like that, he
probably is not, but a guy should have some people skills.
Note that Cory’s values networking skills in a male and considers this quality an ideal form of
masculinity. Yet, networking requires a certain degree of reliance on others, a contradiction to the
traditional masculine trait of independence. Yet, at the same time that Cory detracts from the customary
perspective of masculinity, he retains fundamental components of it, such as the values that pertain to
career and ambitions. Specifically, Cory prized sociability and networking skills largely to the extent that
it would help him secure a successful position in society.
Similarly, when asked to describe masculinity, Arthur had pointed to humor and sociability which he
found personally beneficial to possess:

I would usually assume more on the funny side. Yeah, they’re important! When you are
talking to a professor or you’re in a professional setting, having a sense of humor helps
ease that tension..you know prevent things from going awkward..then you come off as
being confident and confidence is always a plus in getting you that respect and getting
you somewhere.
Note that Arthur viewed humor as a masculine trait because he felt that one’s ability to amuse others
would help facilitate social interactions, which he considered to be an important quality to the degree it
could help alleviate possible tensions with individuals who held powerful positions. Thus, Arthur
associated humor as a leverage that helps an individual receive positive light in the eyes of those who
hold higher status in which the established rapport may personally benefit him in the future in the form of
career advancement.
In addition, Mike’s opinion of masculine traits reveals that the traditional view of masculinity is
becoming increasingly blurred:
In a male, being reliable, being trustworthy is your typical good boy characteristic that’s
kind of what’s expected of you. It’s important because they kind of make sense in the
grander scheme of things such as being a good person in a good society, they’re positive
traits. But one can debate that they can also get you ahead in terms of meeting people in
the business world, a general social navigation.
Mike regards reliability, in which the Bem Sex Inventory lists as a feminine trait, as an ideal male
sex role. However, Mike appreciates this quality largely based on his reasoning that reliability
helps secure a traditional masculine trait ; such as that of improving one’s profession.
Others, such as Shawn, appeared to adhere to traditional values of masculinity, such as rationality thereby
voicing traits that are listed in the Bem Sex Inventory. However, when asked why they were important,
they cited reasons that were similar to those who found unconventional masculine traits to be desirable:
I would have to say….that I’m more masculine.. masculinity….overall…it’s about being
well rounded.. …well grounded..and rational…I guess they’re important to me because
we live in a society that is very competitive so I guess..in order to stand out as an
individual..being ambitious..being level headed and being rational..i think are very
important..unfortunately society sets up a standard that people have to reach in order to
become somebody in society..like having a good job…having a salary is what is
standardized I guess..so in order to have that you need to stand out… being all those
things are important.

Shawn values the possession of traditional masculine qualities because he feels that it would provide him
with leverage in which to function in the real world. Note that he mentions how certain social experiences
are standard for a male, such as having a salary. It seems that Shawn views the possession of standardized
masculine traits as a pathway towards an idealized standard way of living.
Students with Strong Adherence to Masculinity: Personal Investment with Forms of Objectification
Students who adhere strongly to their given understanding of masculinity feel that the one’s
ability to display a masculine body is equally important in determining one’s access to societal rewards.
That students connect the possession of a masculine body to that of social acceptance is illustrated by
Arthur’s following claim:
yeah.. I would say it’s important..cause..talking to the opposite sex..they value more of a
well conscientious body. A guy needs to look like he was aware of his health at least. I
might not look the best naked but I’m somewhat toned and girls like that.
Thus, Arthur felt pressured to present an ideal male body type in order to be appreciated by the opposite
sex.
In addition, one’s gender ideology appears to transfer over to the domain of media influence so
that students with strong adherence to masculinity become more personally invested with given forms of
male objectification. Specifically, students derive motivational messages from the images of male models.
When asked about his opinion about the male bodies depicted in the advertisements, Arthur replied with:
The way I look at it..striving for excellence kind of keep you on your toes. I want to be
good as I can get, be the best I can be. But I’ve worked with body stuff before. I’ve
worked in personal training and vitamin and supplements before, I’ve helped train some
body builders a few times so I’ve seen both sides of it, the people who are born like this
and people who take way too much crap to look like this. And I look at these and I’m just
like okay, I cant look like that today but it’s a good goal, so its balancing what I know I
can do and what I think can do, you know setting a goal for myself, little goals, like I
want to be able to see my obliques in a month.
Arthur feels that it is healthy to have high standards for males, especially regarding a male’s physical
attributes. A high standard in terms of masculine attractiveness is ensured by the prevalence of media
images that communicate an ideal male body. When students such as Arthur view a sexualized image of a

male model, it leads to an almost immediate effect of behavioral changes as indicated by Arthur’s self
made promises to further enhance the physical composition of his body.
Similarly, Cory appears to derive a motivational aspect from advertisements:
well it feels important to hold something above myself... Definitely have a goal in
mind..like an ideal for myself and hold that ideal self in front of me so that I can keep up
progressing you know..and so like I won’t fall out of shape..like if I started getting fat..if I
didn’t have that ideal you know in shape guy to imagine like what I could be like then I
would probably let myself get out of shape pretty fast. So holding that ideal there
definitely keeps me in check.. I’m pretty confident with the rest of my body but I mean all
these guys have just these bold lines coming out from their six pack and they all look like
as if they’re Spartans you know , definitely makes me want to work on my own but it
doesn’t make me self conscious you know..it just it reminds me that I need to work on my
stomach
Note that earlier, Cory’s definition of masculinity revolved around a work ethic. To the extent that he
believed it was ideal for men to participate in the workforce as successful members, he appeared to
believe that a male should provide the same commitment to one’s body.
The tendency to derive motivational messages from male objectification is also revealed by Shawn:
I think honestly….it’s definitely doable.. I mean I feel somewhat discouraged but at the
same time I think “oh if this guy can do it whey cant I do it?” and it kind of like…it kind
of encourages me.. like “okay I can do this” you know so that’s why I have been running
again..to lose weight and get back in shape. I feel more encouraged to do something
about my body as a whole
Thus, Shawn echoes the other students as he makes self-promises in the improvement of his body
composition.
Androgynous Male Students: Androgyny as a Safeguard for Individuality
Students who identify themselves as possessing both feminine and masculine personality traits did not
find a compelling reason to adhere to only masculine values. Thus, when asked why they labeled
themselves as androgynous (possessing equally masculine and feminine personality characteristics), they
cited reasons that strict adherence to masculinity took away from one’s individuality. This example is
illustrated by Dylan who claims:
Well you can break them (masculine qualities) down by what you see in movies, you
know the whole alpha male stereotype. Like for a lot of action, male oriented movies, you

have Bruce Willis, Van Diesel, meaty headed, one dimensional guys who are there to
shoot people and throw witty one liners. Then you also have the romantic comedies where
the males, are generally more, sophisticated in a way. Better to hold a conversation, they
can be smart and charming, those types of personalities.. They’re (the traits) not
important to me particularly, because, I mean I’m like a self proclaimed geek… and
geeks are generally..we are what we call beta males. We don’t really care about social
dominance in a way, we just do whatever we do and we enjoy what we do and don’t mind
what the social norms are.
Dylan was able to recognize that masculinity was a social construct by associating concepts of
masculinity with stereotypes depicted in movies. He found that masculinity, although idealized in movies,
were limiting, this was indicated about his reference to his affiliation with “geeks” in which he believed
geeks were relieved from proscribed behavior because geeks did not adhere to societal norms. Dylan
views conformity to masculinity as limiting the cultivation of his unique identity.
Many of these respondents, who label themselves as androgynous, describe masculinity from a detached
point of view as illustrated by Stephan:
To encompass it all (masculinity) in one characteristic would be..to be strong.. not just
physically strong or muscle strong but strong willed. So I think being strong will be the
main word that I will stick with right now..I don’t think it’s important for me..not really..I
just never really considered it. I really am..I’m just kind of am who I am. And I’m okay
with that. I don’t really try to focus on anything else that I may or may not be..if that
makes sense.
Although Stephan is able to identify stereotypical masculinity, he appears to be relatively uninfluenced by
the stereotypes, echoing previous statements that attempting to actively pursue masculinity succeed in
taking away from one’s individuality. Thus, Stephan refuses to pursue masculinity as a goal:
I think everyone has their ideals but I mean no one really follows them. I mean there’s
like an idealistic man and an idealistic woman but you can probably say that 99% of the
world isn’t that ideal, so I think everyone is okay with that, so because of that I don’t
really have to be worried
The theme of strict adherence to masculinity as a negative quality is also reflected by Gary:
Definitely having that dominance and having that aggression, it’s what I notice a lot.
Kind of a tendency to being an alpha male in their own little world. With a group, it’s
always about having to be the top dog. It’s not important to me because.. well those
personality traits can look fairly good..like on paper..but the way it’s carried out, doesn’t
seem all that good to have. They (masculine males) seem to have to be like the alpha
male for different reasons, if It’s not for money, then it’s over competition with each other

and over women. There’s all these competition for all sorts of things.. I think it’s flawed
on how they (men) handle it. The focus.. the constant need to have this drive, the
endurance to keep going, is based on trying to be the best at something..especially in
colleges, everyone is like “oh I’m going to get better grades than you” it’s always over
being better that drives everyone, not helping someone else out with their school or
degree.
Gary describes ambition as a particularly negative masculine trait that is often taken to an extreme by
many males at school. Thus, he finds ambitions to be particularly limiting, especially in terms of
cultivating meaningful societal relations. Gary views having high ambitions as taking away from one’s
ability to commit their energy on other aspects of life that are more important, such as building quality
friendships.
Slater also does not strive to embody certain masculine values:
Masculine traits..? well it’s expected that they’strong. independent and assertive..even
the way he walks..he has to have a certain type of swagger, certain confidence. No, I
don’t find them important, personally I think the whole notion of masculinity is
ridiculous.. I just go on being me…if society thinks that what I do is masculine or
feminine then whatever..you can’t set yourself towards..for the standards of
society..because if you do that you are doomed to fail..society puts an image up there for
you to live up to but you just got to go on being just you cause if you’re not happy with
yourself then you’re just not going to be happy at all.
Edward echoes previous claims that masculinity serves as limitations; for when a male takes masculinity
to an extreme, it can take away from his individuality:
Confidence..being assertive..someone who is more rash..they tend to be decisive..more
rushed to decisions, a more spur of the moment. I don’t think they are too important
because I feel that masculinity almost has a negative connotation. Like its someone who
can be over confident, too assertive. I feel like sometimes masculinity tends to take those
values, those personality traits to an extreme.
Overall, it is clear that this group of students view masculinity as a barrier to one’s individuality and
therefore pursues androgyny to be liberated from societal constraints.
Androgynous Males: Detached Stance with Forms of Male Objectification.

Dylan recognizes that masculine qualities are based on stereotypes and this awareness influences his
perception towards the ideal male figure:
It doesn’t really influence me at all. Obviously they pick the most in shape people for
these ads, its advertisements, it all prevents an idealized image and you can’t take any of
that seriously, same thing goes for ads featuring females. I know they show idealized
bodies to sell a viewpoint or product but it doesn’t really affect me.
Dylan views the ideal male body as resting on caricatures of masculinity. He is not negatively influenced
by advertisements of male objectification because he rejects the concept of masculinity altogether,
whether they emphasize personality or the physical body.
In addition, Stephan’s lack of adherence to masculinity shapes his reaction to male objectification in ways
that he becomes relatively uninfluenced by them:
I guess I can say that I’m relatively indifferent. I mean it’s their bodies not mine..so for
the most part..they can do whatever they want with it and I can do whatever with mine
king of thing.
To the extent that Stephan believes adherence to masculinity serves as a barrier to his individuality, he
reasons that ideal body types, as displayed in advertisements, should not delegitimize his own physical
body structure.
Gary’s current interaction with media images of male objectification contrasts with his prior views on
male models:
I guess when I was younger..like you know how we’re in high school..it seems like all
these things are so important..and I guess in those ways it kind of makes you feel as if
“oh god, I don’t look like that” and make you feel all self conscious..but now later, I’m
just like oh whatever, I kind of just reject those images. I ignore them. I guess it’s because
I’m thinking more in terms of how I myself look, the way I am, and not how I look in
comparison to those images..before, it was, in high school, you know, it’s always the, its
all the magazines and all the ads and that’s what everyone wants to look like…so then
that was kind of an issue, but now after, being more aware of myself, it all kind of just
doesn’t matter anymore.
Note that Gary argues that a focus on masculinity, whether it revolves around fulfilling a masculine
appearance or masculine trait, can be taken to an extreme so that the results are often negative for the
individual who adheres to them. Gary states that adhering to a standard of masculine attractiveness comes
at the expense of one’s self esteem while adhering to psychological masculinity lead to the detriment of

meaningful social relationships. Thus, he finds comfort in his own individuality by adhering to neither of
these values.
Slater also goes onto say:
The ads don’t influence me., because I know that it’s all smoke in mirrors, camera
techniques and stuff.
Edward also appears relatively uninfluenced by these ads.
If you’re talking about the physical characteristics associated with masculinity, it’s
somebody that takes care of their body and keep it in shape through exercises and stuff.
Anyone that makes it in the cover of a men’s health magazine.. I don’t think I would ever
be on cover of a men’s health magazine but I don’t think it’s important for me to fit the
image because it’s a stereotype. Its not a mold that everybody has to fit into. It’s actually
quite unindividualistic if you think that’s how everybody that’s a male, and therefore
masculine, should appear. That kind of takes away from somebody being a unique
individual so no I don’t think it’s important.
Body Mass Index as a Predictor for Levels of Confidence and Body Image:
It appears that regardless of one’s gender ideology and exposure to objectification, one’s current body size
is more influential in determining confidence levels. Note the following claims made by students who
claim strong adherence to masculinity such as Arthur:
I’m pretty confident, I have a normal body type, I workout exercise, eat decent, I don’t
have a six pack but I have some definition.
To the extent that his current body type does not detract too far from the ideal, images of male
objectification reinforce Arthur’s idea of masculinity without having a negative impact on his body
image.
In addition, Cory appears confident about his body because he recognizes that his body resembles the
bodies of the male models to some degree:

I like my body..I’m comfortable with myself.. I don’t mind stripping down to my
underwear in front of people you know.. (laughs) I’m pretty not bashful you know…but I
do feel like there are some features that I would like to tone up.. you know there are
things that I am sensitive about..but overall I’m fairly toned..at least than most guys..
Similarly, Shawn’s claims:
Not too confident I would say..but more confident than a month ago..(laughs) I think I
have some work to do. But I’ve been running again..like…getting back into shape..so
that’s helped my self confidence a bit.
Shawn’s boost in confidence was based on his ability to transform his physical composition in
ways that would resemble the bodies of male models as depicted in advertisements.
Students who classify themselves as androgynous males and their following statements reconfirm the
notion that one’s current body size is more influential in determining confidence levels than exposure to
objectification alone. For example, Dylan’s claims:
I’m pretty confident. I know that I am not..super buff or super toned..that can be
portrayed in media and advertisements and things like that but I have a degree of
athleticism from high school doing cross country and I know that I am not overweight
and even if it’s not as muscular as idealized in media culture, I think I have a fairly good
figure.
Similarly Gary states:
well…I’m confident about what my body can do. I’m confident about my body in that I
can run, even if I get tired I’ll keep on running and can give it another mile. I’m
confident that I can physically be able to do that kind of stuff.
In addition Edward claims:
I’m fine with it. I don’t’go to the gym everyday but I eat well and exercise when I can.
Exercise is good for you and good for your body and it’s good to get out and not fret over
your P-Chem notes all the time (laughs)
Summary of Male students
Although students differ in their ideas about what constitutes masculine traits, some hold a
common perception that masculinity serves as a tool that can secure one’s advancement in society. In

particular, the group of male students who adhere strongly to masculinity links masculine traits to one’s
material and social success in life. The findings of this paper reveal how students’ perception of
masculinity is tied to the idea of cultural capital. Cultural capital pertains to those non-capital resources
that an individual can appropriate in ways that enhance their status in society (Bridges, 2009). Thus,
present study makes a research decision to group the students who adhere strongly to masculinity under
the umbrella category of “ambitious males”, based on the observation that these students strive for the
obtainment of societal rewards in ways that sets them apart from others. Most importantly, when asked
about their interaction with advertisements depicting male objectification, their gender ideology appears
to transfer over to the realm of interaction with advertisements’ messages. These students seem especially
ambitious in appearing as competent members both physically and psychologically. Thus, images of male
objectification influences this group more strongly as indicated by their self promises to work out more
frequently in order to change their current body composition.
In contrast, male students who identify themselves as androgynous individuals acknowledge that
concepts of masculinity are grounded on strict standards that lead to the restriction of one’s behavior. This
group of students cited the value of maintaining one’s individuality and the importance of experiencing
freedom from some of society’s idealized values. Based on the responses of androgynous students, the
present study makes a research move of grouping them under the umbrella category of “independent
males,” to the extent that they seek to be liberated from the constraints of social norms. In turn, gender
ideology shapes their reactions to male objectification in ways that the students are fairly uninfluenced by
them, as indicated by their tendency to view male objectification in detached and apathetic terms. Thus,
the themes uncovered in the qualitative interviews among male students revolve around differences in
responses to male objectification.
My survey data indicated that exposure to objectification had no effect on body image and that
ambitious males tended to be more discontent about their bodies. My qualitative interviews reveal that
one’s current size and level of physical activity was an important variable that affects an individual’s
overall body image. However, although students who were physically active tended to be more confident,
students engaged in physical activities for different reasons. Males who had adhered strongly to

masculinity frequented the gym so that they can transform their present body composition in ways that
would fit the images that were depicted in ads. A quick exposure to objectification had an almost
immediate effect of behavioral changes as indicated by students’ self promises to work out more.
Androgynous males on the other hand, exercised primarily for health reasons. Therefore, future studies
should tap into questions that assess one’s gender ideology, frequency of exposure to objectification, AND
current body size; for it is clear that the three variables can intertwine in unique ways to explain overall
body image.

Results Female
Students with Strong Adherence to Femininity: A Change in the Understanding of Femininity
It appears that female students are strongly aware that gender roles are changing. Students’
opinions of what they consider to be fundamental feminine values provide insight as to why the Bem Sex
Inventory may not be applicable to the students of UCSD. Particularly, feminine and masculine traits no
longer appear to be as disconnected as they once were. Rather, the traits the students associate with males
and females seems to overlap. This point is exemplified by students’ descriptions of feminine traits that
may appear unconventional; for these descriptions succeed in contradicting the gender appropriate roles
as outlined by the Bem Sex Inventory. In particular, independence, assertiveness and career goals
frequently emerged as important themes among female students. Students who labeled themselves as
being more feminine adhered strongly to these values in particular. In addition, this group of female
students adhere strongly to both unconventional (i.e independence) and conventional feminine values (i.e.
caretaker) largely because they feel that these qualities are what our modern society expects from females
today. Thus, for this group, identification of societal expectations was followed up by a strong desire to
fulfill them. Take Angela for example:
Definitely intelligence…I do think that society respects women who are smart.. having
that background in education is important..I think it has a lot to do with the fact that now
having an education and being able to get an education is readily available to women..so
I think it is something that is revered in women I think I would be comfortable in saying
that I’m more feminine.. because I’m a firm believer in getting an education..especially
for girls because once you have it you have it and it can’t be taken away from you so that
at the end of the day and you’re like stripped of everything, it’s the one thing that you can
fall back on.. I also want to be caretaking and be loving and patient as I can…people
look highly of the girls who are liked educated..it’s becoming more of a norm..and
obviously they have to still be able to keep a house together ..be on that domestic aspect
too.
Angela provides examples of traditional feminine traits that she values such as the role of nurturer; this
provides partial support for the Bem Sex Inventory. However, she addresses changing societal conditions

that have introduced new values for women. These values in turn, are treated as traits that are becoming
increasingly associated and appreciated in females. Angela adheres to both domestic responsibilities in
addition to her strive for education, largely because she feels that she can competently claim her
membership in society by possessing these virtues.
Similarly, an awareness of societal expectations and a desire to meet them is also revealed in Sara’s
description of feminine gender roles as she goes on to elaborate on the importance of adhering to this
unconventional concept of femininity:
I think I have more feminine traits..they’re important because American society doesn’t
seem to have a place for women, yet, they’re expected to be as good as man..and I think
all those qualities helps..like jobs today need a certain level of networking which requires
social skills…and I do value the characteristics of a strong-willed woman, and I think
that is, to me at least, is a positive way to be female..and independence is a valuable
feminine trait. You want to be a go getter in the work force, especially when promotions
and stuff are on the line and you’re competing with other people, you want to stand out,
which means you have to be able to do all the things that they want you to do plus more.
Sara reasons that in order for a female to be able to secure her position in society, she must be able to
fulfill what society largely expects from women. In this case, societal expectations for women parallel
that of men. For Sarah, then, in order to be viewed as a competent woman in society, it is necessarily to
possess some of the virtues that are associated with men.
Tamara echoes the other female students as she points to the importance of meeting what she and other
students perceive as social obligations:
being intuitive, sensible, empathetic and being pretty, I think those are all expectations
for females and I would say that I have a bit more feminine traits..it sounds kind of
shallow to say but it is pretty important. I mean you definitely want to fit in or be as close
to the norm as possible..especially when it comes to looks..it’s complex, as a woman,
there is internal beauty, external beauty, and the two modes of beauty complement each
other but sometimes I feel like I’m overvaluing external beauty because I try really hard
to look decent..i know that the idea of what other people think of me or how they might
look at me really affects me.
Similarly Kim claims:
it’s (femininity) about being strong willed..being independent...like before, a while ago,
years ago, people would think that women relied on men you know so now it’s more like
oh it’s a good thing when women are independent and not always falling back on a guy
for support. So I like to see myself as being more feminine in that way.. because people

value independence in a woman…just being a woman..it’s about achieving beyond what
they’re expected..like..you have to have a job but you also have to take care of your
family..and that’s something I want to do…
Similarly, Christina views professionalism and domestic responsibilities as compatible feminine traits:
it’s expected for females to be more attentive to things..specifically emotions or things like
that..but there’s a general quality of attentiveness..women are suppose to fulfill more
caregiver roles..I guess I define myself as having more of those feminine values..and in
my terms..they’re important to me because I want to be a dentist one day..and it’s
expected that you like helping people..if you don’t like helping people then of course you
can’t be in those fields..I know that I’m going to want to start a family..not so much right
now..maybe later..but you can be more independent as a dentist..because you can run
your own practice..or you can also just be an associate under somebody and just work
alongside as a partner but yeah..because you can be your own boss..you can set your
own hours and stuff so that you can do your job and take care of your kids too. Pursuing
these types of job..makes it easier..when you have kids..to take care of them.”
Note that Christina appears somewhat unsure on whether or not she would want children in the future.
Yet, because a maternal instinct is generally associated with women, Christina feels that such a desire will
come in time. Thus, she is taking cautious steps in terms of her career choices so that she may better
fulfill the nurturing role that society expects from women.
A strong desire to meet societal expectations, although the definitions of these expectations are no longer
as gender distinct as they used to be, reveal that this particular group of students feel a sense of social
obligation as result of being women. To the extent that they feel obliged into possessing certain traits as
result of being a woman in a changing society, they also feel that meeting these requirements would
advantage them, particularly in securing their position in society as competent members.
Students with Strong Adherence to Femininity: Personal Investment with Images of Female
Objectification
Students’ strong adherence to their given understandings of femininity succeeds in shaping their
interpretation regarding advertisements’ messages of feminine beauty. This group is more personally
invested when they view sexualized images of women, often in negative ways. To the degree that students

adhere to feminine values as result of perceiving them as social obligations, they strive to uphold
feminine beauty standards as well. Take Angela for example:
yeah, I do, I want to fit in. I’ve been going to the gym regularly since I moved to San
Diego and I feel better about myself and I would love to sit here and tell you it’s because
it (working out) makes me feel healthy and blah blah blah but in all reality, I can
definitely tell you that and I’m sure you’ve heard if from people, but it all has to with
what everybody else thinks. There are other girls out there, trying to fit the image and
men are looking at girls who fit the image and so granted yeah I would feel better about
myself and it may be a matter of self confidence and self maintenance but it all stems
back to the fact that the images that we revere are all constructed through what everyone
else thinks”
Angela’s desire to possess a body that matches the ideal standard for females causes Angela to
engage in a compare and contrast discourse with the images:
It’s definitely easy to get caught up in the expectations and there’s a certain sense of
pressure seeing images like that, it makes me super appearance conscious even if the
women are not necessarily naked such as these…like..if they just have a certain body
type, it makes me appearance conscious instead of intellectually and socially conscious.
Similarly, Tamara also engages in a compare and contrast with advertisements depicting female
objectification:
I think that when most women look at these ads, there’s always a thought in their head,
sort of like a mirror reflection..to what level do they mirror these women’s bodies kind of
thing..and sometimes I find myself trapped in that mindset like oh my god body looks
nowhere as good.
The act of judging one’s own body in relation to those who possess the ideal is also revealed in
Christina‘s following claim:
you see these ads..and you see all these beautiful people walking around you wonder how
they achieve and it and really they achieve it by working really hard on it by sacrificing a
lot of things that maybe I’m not willing to take the time to do. The first impression is, this
person has it all together..you know..somehow they are better..and you always want to
reach that or you feel..like when you sit next to someone like that, you think to yourself,
I’m letting myself down or I could be better and I could be more successful if I had this
kind of determination..or discipline.
To the extent that this group of students strives to meet certain societal expectations of women, such as
being an independent career driven woman or a nurturing caretaker, they also hold a strong desire to meet
society’s standard of feminine beauty as well. Pressure to fit society’s expectations is revealed by their

tendency to engage in a compare and contrast discourse with images of idealized feminine beauty. It may
be that these students believe their competency as members in society will be further enhanced by looking
as close to the ideal of feminine beauty as well. Thus, body appearances matters most strongly for this
group.
Androgynous Females: Desire for Flexibility in Exercising Gender Roles
The group that identify themselves as androgynous are also strongly aware of the expectations that
society holds for women; revealing once again that traits uncommonly associated with females are
considered a norm. For example, these students also listed independence and ambition as defining
characteristics of women today and which are largely expected. Others cited traits that provide support for
the Bem Sex Inventory such as emphasis on the role of caretaker. However, when asked to elaborate why
they consider themselves to be androgynous, they claimed that adhering strictly to feminine values can be
inhibiting. Take, for example, Mayra, who claims that feminine traits can be advantageous or
disadvantageous depending on the context:
I’d like to say I’m equally both.. there are two very different aspects of life in terms of my
future. I would say I’m pretty goal oriented but in terms of personal life and things like
that I’m there for my friends and my family a lot…you know what I think it is…I think it’s
that people associate themselves with one sex or the other..but life is not like that..like I’m
in tuned to people’s feelings and but there are times when you should just focus on
you..there are different aspects of my life so that’s why I think I embody both.
Mayra refers to a feminine trait that is commonly associated with females, particularly sensitivity towards
other people’s needs. Yet, although it is clear that she finds this value to be important, she does not limit
herself to this behavior across all circumstances. Instead she finds it more important that she exercises
flexibility in performing both gender roles in order to perform well in a society that contains varying
demands.
Ester refers to relationships as an example on why flexibility in gender roles may be advantageous for
both partners involved in the affair:

I would say I’m equally both. I think it’s very important to possess both because I am
currently in a relationship and I found out that the best relationships…are ones… they
tend to have a balance..I’m understanding, I’m a good listener and I expect the same
from guys.. and I know guys are independent and wants girls that aren’t clingy so I like I
to do my own thing and have a separate life..separate group of friends..and that’s what
makes relationships work.
Thus, Ester emphasizes a need for balance when it comes to one’s ability to perform a particular gender
role.
Serena also describes the importance of feminine values as being conditional to a particular circumstance:
I would say I’m equally both..just because there’s a place and time and that they
shouldn’t be expected all the time. like putting other people’s needs ahead of my own .I
think that sometimes I thought to myself that that would have gotten me further along if I
wasn’t so strong minded..you know what I mean? but it’s not necessarily a good thing to
be always caring and always flexible and putting everyone’s needs ahead of your own, it’s
just kind of expected. I think they are all very important but I think though that there’s a
time and place for it.”
The group of androgynous students views one’s flexibility in performing a given gender role
as particularly important; for it enhances their ability to adapt to society’s varying circumstances.
Androgynous Females: Views of Objectification from a Detached Perspective
The androgynous groups of students are less personally invested when interacting with images of female
objectification. For example, they often analyze women depicted in the advertisements in a detached
manner, admiring the bodies displayed without comparing their own body to that of the ideal. Take Mayra
for example:
I do admire it. but I wouldn’t think that I was jealous that these girls look the way they
are. I mean, it would be nice to have perfect skin, nice curves, be thin but you got to
flaunt what God gave you.
Similarly Ester claims:
I mean it doesn’t make me feel bad.. I don’t know how to describe it. I mean just as a guy
would think Adralina or whoever is gorgeous, I feel the same way. I mean I think she’s
very beautiful and I do appreciate the fact that she’s pretty but it doesn’t make me feel bad
about myself.

bufferingeffectshonorsthesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to bufferingeffectshonorsthesis

Similar to bufferingeffectshonorsthesis (20)

More from Ga-young Yoo

More from Ga-young Yoo (12)

bufferingeffectshonorsthesis