In psychology, objectification theory refers to the framework developed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) to explain the mental health consequences of sexual objectification, whereby individuals—most often women—internalize an observer’s perspective on their bodies, leading to self-objectification, body surveillance, shame, anxiety, and related risks such as depression and disordered eating. Rooted in broader philosophical accounts of objectification, such as Nussbaum’s (1995) seven dimensions that describe how people may be dehumanized as they are reduced to things (e.g., instrumentality, denial of autonomy, fungibility), the theory highlights how cultural practices of sexual objectification—through interpersonal encounters, media portrayals, and systemic norms—shape lived experience. Subsequent research has extended the framework to include transgender and nonbinary individuals, who often encounter fetishization as a form of objectification (Anzani et al., 2021), and to men, who experience self-objectification in relation to muscularity and appearance ideals (Daniel et al., 2014). The theory has led to a range of informative studies of the sexual objectification of women (e.g., see Kahalon & Klein, 2025). Considering Nussbaum's seven dimensions and the research generated by Fredrickson and Roberts theory, more research is needed to expand our understanding of objectification beyond sexual objectification and our understanding of self-identity as part of our core functioning as in the SCOPES model (Sutton, 2025, October 5).
Cite this post
Sutton, G. W. (2025, October 5). Objectification theory in psychology. Psychology Concepts and Theories. https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2025/10/objectification-theory-in-psychology.html
 |
| Objectification 2025 AI image |
NUSSBAUM'S ON OBJECTIFICATION
Martha Nussbaum’s (1995) influential essay Objectification provides a philosophical foundation for understanding how individuals are reduced to things. She identifies objectification as a cluster concept that can manifest through seven dimensions: instrumentality (treating a person as a tool), denial of autonomy (ignoring their self-determination), inertness (treating them as passive), fungibility (interchangeability), violability (ignoring boundary integrity), ownership (treating them as property), and denial of subjectivity (disregarding their feelings and experiences). Importantly, Nussbaum argues that objectification is not always inherently harmful; its moral weight depends on context, consent, and reciprocity. This nuanced framework has shaped feminist philosophy, law, and ethics by offering a vocabulary to analyze how objectification operates across sexuality, labor, and media.
FREDRICKSON & ROBERTS THEORY
Building on this philosophical groundwork, Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) developed objectification theory to explain the psychological consequences of sexual objectification in patriarchal cultures. They argue that women are socialized to internalize an observer’s perspective on their bodies, a process termed self-objectification. This leads to habitual body monitoring, body shame, anxiety, and diminished cognitive and physical performance. These processes contribute to disproportionate risks for depression, eating disorders, and sexual dysfunction. Recent scholarship affirms and extends the theory, showing how digital and social media environments amplify self-objectification and broaden its impact across cultural contexts (Szymanski et al., 2021).
Sexual Objectification
Sexual objectification, a central focus of Fredrickson and Roberts’ (1997) theory, refers to reducing a person to their body parts or sexual functions, treating them as instruments for others’ use rather than as whole persons. Empirical studies demonstrate that sexual objectification occurs through direct interpersonal encounters (e.g., unsolicited comments), vicarious experiences (e.g., witnessing others objectified), and media portrayals that fragment or commodify bodies (Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr, 2011). These experiences foster self-objectification, which in turn is linked to negative outcomes such as body shame, disordered eating, and vulnerability to harassment and assault.
Fetishization
Fetishization intersects with objectification in unique ways for transgender and nonbinary individuals. Anzani et al. (2021) found that fetishization was often experienced as a form of sexual objectification, where transgender identities and bodies were reduced to sources of erotic novelty or consumption. While some participants described ambiguous or even positive experiences of fetishization when reframed as consensual kink, the majority reported it as dehumanizing and tied to minority stress. This highlights how fetishization reflects broader patterns of objectification and dehumanization, underscoring the need for clinical, cultural, and advocacy responses that validate transgender identities beyond sexualized framings.
Recent scholarship has expanded objectification theory beyond its original focus on women and sexualization. Research demonstrates that men also experience self-objectification, particularly in relation to muscularity ideals and appearance pressures (Daniel et al., 2014). Szymanski, Feltman, and Dunn (2021) argue for a more inclusive framework that accounts for how objectification processes affect diverse populations, including men, sexual minorities, and people of color. These studies show that while the mechanisms of self-objectification are similar, the cultural scripts and embodied ideals differ, broadening the theory’s relevance and highlighting its intersectional dimensions.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, Nussbaum’s philosophical account and Fredrickson and Roberts’ psychological theory provide complementary lenses for understanding objectification. Nussbaum offers a conceptual map of the ways people can be reduced to things, while Fredrickson and Roberts explain the lived psychological consequences of sexual objectification. Subsequent research, including studies on transgender fetishization and male self-objectification, demonstrates that objectification is not confined to women’s experiences but is a broader cultural phenomenon with diverse manifestations. Recognizing these intersections is essential for developing inclusive theories and interventions that address the harms of objectification across gendered and marginalized identities.
Note
This page is for education and not personal advice. Consult health care providers for the most recent information and personal concerns.
Post Author
SHORT THOUGHTS
“What happens when people are treated as things? From Nussbaum’s philosophy to Fredrickson & Roberts’ psychology, objectification theory traces the costs of being reduced to a body.”
• “Is objectification always harmful—or can context and consent change the story?
• “Why do women, men, and transgender people all experience objectification differently? The answer lies in theory, history, and lived experience.”
• “Objectification isn’t just about sex. It’s about power, identity, and the ways culture teaches us to see ourselves through someone else’s eyes.”
• “From Nussbaum’s seven dimensions to self-objectification in the age of Instagram, here’s how theory explains our everyday lives.”
• “Fetishization of transgender people isn’t just a private issue—it’s part of a larger pattern of objectification. Here’s why that matters.”
• “Objectification theory shows how looking becomes living: when the gaze turns inward, it shapes mental health.”
• “Bodies are not commodities. Yet culture often treats them that way—
• “Objectification is not one story but many: women, men, and trans communities all navigate its weight differently.”
REFERENCES
Anzani, A., Sacchi, S., Prunas, A., & Todorov, A. (2021). “Being talked to like I was a sex toy, like being transgender was simply for the enjoyment of someone else”: Fetishization and sexualization of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(8), 3569–3584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01935-8
Daniel, S., Bridges, S. K., & Martens, M. P. (2014). The development and validation of the Male Assessment of Self-Objectification (MASO). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031518
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Kahalon, R., & Klein, V. (2025). Self-Objectification and Sexuality: A Systematic Scoping Review. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2552910
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291.
Strelan, P., Hargreaves, D. Women Who Objectify Other Women: The Vicious Circle of Objectification?. Sex Roles 52, 707–712 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3
Szymanski, D. M., Feltman, C. E., & Dunn, T. L. (2021). Objectification theory: Toward a more inclusive understanding. The Counseling Psychologist, 49(2), 230–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020962730
Szymanski, D. M., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378402
Comments