Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

WomenWomen
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

15 October 2026

24 Pages

Self-Objectification, Intimate Partner Violence Victimization, Sexting and Mental Health in Spanish Women

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristobal de La Laguna, Spain
2
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristobal de La Laguna, Spain
3
Department of Communication Sciences and Social Work, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristobal de La Laguna, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Women2026, 6(4), 69;https://doi.org/10.3390/women6040069
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the associations of self-objectification with intimate partner violence victimization and sexting, assessing the contribution of these variables to women’s mental health across the life course. The study included 6124 Spanish women aged 16 to 85, who were assessed using self-report measures of self-objectification, mental distress, well-being, intimate partner violence victimization, sexting and self-esteem. The results showed that self-objectification decreased with age. However, no differences were found between adolescent and emerging adult women. Self-objectification was positively associated with sexting and intimate partner violence victimization, though the effect sizes of the associations were larger for sexting. Some differences in the effect sizes were also found depending on the self-objectification dimension and life cycle stage. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that greater importance attributed to physical attractiveness was associated with higher mental distress and lower well-being. However, among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood, its association with well-being was no longer statistically significant after self-esteem was entered into the regression model. Intimate partner violence victimization was also associated with higher mental distress and lower well-being, though the association with well-being was no longer statistically significant among adolescents after self-esteem was entered into the regression model. These findings suggest that greater importance attributed to physical attractiveness and intimate partner violence victimization represent risk factors for women’s mental health.

1. Introduction

There is consistent evidence of differences in mental health between women and men. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) [1], the overall prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders is the same for men and women. However, there are significant differences in the patterns and symptoms of these disorders, which vary by age group. Adolescent girls are more likely to experience depression and eating disorders than boys, with internalizing disorders being more common in girls and externalizing disorders being more common in boys. During adulthood, women have a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression than men [1]. Among older adults, women are more likely than men to experience common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, though the gender gap is smaller than among younger people [2]. Epidemiological studies have consistently found a higher prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders among women and a higher prevalence of externalizing disorders among men [3,4,5].
Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain these differences, ranging from biological to structural and psychosocial explanations, and a wide variety of factors have been analyzed, including violence victimization [1,4,5,6,7,8]. For instance, gender role norms have been proposed to explain differences in internalizing and externalizing behaviors between women and men. Masculine/instrumental attributes are said to reduce internalized distress, while feminine/expressive attributes are said to reduce externalizing behavior problems [7]. The Huselid and Cooper [7] study suggested that the differential socialization of young women and men explains, at least in part, specific gender-linked vulnerabilities related to the expression and/or experience of symptoms. Although biological explanations emphasize factors related to women’s reproductive health, Stewart [9] (p. 225) noted: “The impact of social factors, culture, religion, and policy across women’s reproductive mental health is enormous”. Despite women bearing a disproportionate burden of common mental disorders, women’s health has historically been an understudied field. Women are underrepresented in clinical trials, and sex-disaggregated analyses are not consistently conducted. Differences in pharmacokinetics, hormonal modulation, and treatment responses are rarely integrated into practice. The increasingly recognized adverse consequences include the normalization or dismissal of women’s pain and psychological distress. This results in delayed diagnoses and suboptimal care [6]. Feminist perspectives and other sociocultural theories argue that many gender differences may be explained less by biological factors than by the different ways in which boys and girls are socialized and, more fundamentally, by the different social status and power that men and women hold in society [8].
One theory that has sought to explain the disproportionate mental health risks affecting women is Objectification Theory. This theory aims to create a framework for understanding the effects of being a woman in a culture that sexually objectifies the female body [8]. Numerous social, cultural, and media contexts, including social networking sites [10,11] and artificial intelligence products [12], continue to reinforce the tendency to value women based on their physical appearance and sexual attractiveness, with their bodies being constantly evaluated and sexualized [13]. This leads to women being perceived and treated as objects of observation and evaluation [8,14]. The sexualization of women occurs in many ways, ranging from sexual violence to sexualized evaluation, and the potential for sexual objectification is always present in contexts of sexualized gazing [8,11,14]. Sexual objectification implies that culture prioritizes women’s sexual appearance and appeal over other attributes [15] and the appearance of women’s bodies over their physical functioning and well-being [16].
Although not all women experience or respond to sexual objectification in the identical manner—and the heterogeneity is evident among women—Fredrickson and Roberts [8] propose that having a reproductively mature female body may create a shared social vulnerability to sexual objectification, which in turn may generate a shared set of psychological experiences. The sexual objectification of women occurs in interpersonal and social encounters and in any setting but is particularly prevalent in the media, where sexualized images of the female body are common, virtually ensuring exposure to such images in most cultures [8,11,15]. Thus, the sexual objectification of the female body has clearly permeated our cultural milieu, affecting most girls and women to some extent, regardless of their social contacts. One of the most profound effects of objectifying treatment is that it coerces girls and women into adopting a particular view of themselves, and the cultural milieu of objectification functions to socialize women and girls to treat themselves, to some extent, as objects to be looked at and evaluated [8]. Fredrickson and Roberts term this internalized observer’s perspective on the self “self-objectification”, which they conceive as an individual difference variable [8]. This process involves women learning to view and value themselves through the eyes of others and to prioritize physical appearance over other personal attributes [8,17]. According to Liu et al. [18] (p. 1), “self-objectification refers to a self-schema that prioritizes appearance over other aspects of the self, leading individuals to assess their worth based on looks rather than abilities or inner qualities”.
Correlational and experimental studies have linked self-objectification to a range of negative outcomes for women, including increased body surveillance, body shame, impaired cognitive performance, eating disorders, depressive symptoms, anxiety about one’s appearance, low self-esteem, sexual behavior, sexual victimization and lower well-being [8,10,15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, findings have been inconsistent [26], and the associations between self-objectification and negative outcomes appear to be moderated by certain variables, most notably self-esteem [20,22,24]. Some researchers have suggested that self-objectification is a process closely linked to the search for interpersonal validation and the internalization of gender norms that prioritize physical appearance as a source of social recognition for women [8,25,28]. Therefore, self-objectification should not be understood solely as a concern with physical appearance, but rather as a relational phenomenon that develops in contexts where femininity continues to be associated with bodily and sexual desirability. Physical appearance may also shape women’s social and economic opportunities, suggesting that attractiveness can function as a source of social advantage in some contexts [8]. It has been suggested that self-objectification may be an adaptive strategy through which women cope with economic insecurity and status anxiety in professional and romantic settings that are characterized by gender inequality [29]. In a study by Koval et al. [30], the momentary emotional consequences of self-objectification were not exclusively negative. The authors found that higher levels of state self-objectification predicted within-person increases in positive emotions. This suggests that paying attention to one’s physical appearance may increase women’s feelings of confidence and happiness. However, at the between-person level, women with higher mean levels of self-objectification experienced lower mean levels of positive emotions in daily life. Therefore, while state self-objectification may be accompanied by brief surges of positive feelings, habitual self-objectification appears to be associated with lower tonic levels of positive emotions [30].
Technological advances in communication have significantly impacted people’s lives, changing the social context in which interpersonal relationships are formed and maintained. The internet and digital technologies have been recognized as tools for socialization [31]. The widespread adoption of digital technologies has profoundly changed the ways people express their sexuality and form intimate relationships. One notable new form of interaction is sexting. Though several definitions of sexting are found in the literature [31], sexting generally refers to “the sharing of sexually explicit images, videos, and/or messages via electronic devices” [32] (p. 1103). Although sexting was initially considered a risky behavior, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that it is common in contemporary romantic and sexual relationships [33]. It is increasingly understood as an online extension of offline sexuality, with both positive and potentially harmful implications depending on the context in which it occurs.
From the perspective of Objectification Theory, sexting may be particularly relevant because it often involves highly visual and, at times, “fragmented” representation of the body [34]. Feelings and thoughts about one’s own body and appearance have been suggested as important drivers of sexting behavior [34,35]. Satisfaction with one’s physical appearance and self-objectification may encourage greater engagement in sexting by promoting self-presentation strategies based on physical appearance and sexual attractiveness [34,36]. However, the interplay between self-objectification and sexting appears to be complex. A study with adolescents found that dysfunctional appearance beliefs were more important for adolescents’ sexting than body surveillance and appearance esteem [35]. In a study of young women, only those with high levels of self-objectification reported that their sexts had been disseminated without their consent by an ex-partner [36]. Sexting has been suggested to be a way of manifesting trait self-objectification and the internalization of gender-specific ideals of attractiveness promoted by the media, and may be viewed as a performative expression of self-objectification [37]. Speno and Aubrey [37] found that self-objectification was associated with more favorable attitudes toward and greater intentions to engage in sexting among adolescent women. These findings are consistent with the view that sexting may reflect processes involving the sexualized presentation of the self and the pursuit of interpersonal validation [37].
According to Gervais and Eagan [11], the objectification of women contributes to a cultural context that not only makes violence against women possible but also probable. Behaviors by acquaintances or strangers that emphasize appearance and sexuality reduce individuals to sexual objects due to the absence of humanizing information [38]. Interpersonal sexual objectification is a form of violence [11,39,40]. It ranges from harassment and leering to sexual assault [39]. Globally, one of the most common forms of violence against women is intimate partner violence [41]. Intimate partner violence refers to aggression or abuse perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner and may include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, psychological aggression, and coercive tactics [42]. Overall, 24.7% of women aged 15 and older who have ever been married or partnered have been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate male partner at least once in their lifetime [41].
Despite the limited research directly examining the association between objectification and violence perpetrated by an intimate partner [38,43], evidence suggests a link between women’s objectification and intimate partner violence victimization [40,43,44,45,46,47]. An association has also been found between partner-objectification and women’s sexual pressure and coercion in heterosexual romantic relationships [28,48]. In addition, a preoccupation with a partner’s appearance has been linked to control and violence within couples [38]. Research on sexual objectification in intimate relationships has revealed damaging effects on partners and the relationship [38,48]. Furthermore, the findings of Pecini et al. [49] suggest that women’s self-objectification and men’s partner-sexual objectification in heterosexual romantic relationships are associated with increased acceptance of dating violence. Although men’s objectification of their partners has been associated with women’s self-objectification [28,48,49,50], the link between women’s self-objectification and intimate partner violence victimization is unclear and has not been sufficiently studied. Most studies have been conducted with undergraduate students, and the association between self-objectification and intimate partner violence victimization is weak [45,46]. Furthermore, this association appears to depend on the type of violence analyzed. For example, Gervais and Davidson [46] found that the association was statistically significant for psychological intimate partner violence but not for physical violence.
Previous research on women’s objectification and intimate partner violence victimization has primarily examined external objectification rather than self-objectification. It is important to distinguish between external sexual objectification and self-objectification. External sexual objectification refers to being perceived, evaluated, treated, or represented by others, partners, media, or the sociocultural environment primarily in terms of one’s physical appearance, whereas self-objectification involves adopting an observer’s perspective toward oneself, prioritizing physical appearance over other aspects of the self [8,17,18]. Although these processes are related, they are not interchangeable.
Despite advances, many issues regarding the link between self-objectification, sexting, and intimate partner violence victimization remain to be addressed. Furthermore, most studies on sexual objectification and its associations with sexting and intimate partner violence have been conducted with adolescents or college students. Studies of sexual objectification have largely overlooked middle-aged and older women [26], which limits our understanding of whether these associations persist into adulthood.
To our knowledge, no research has examined the associations of self-objectification with intimate partner violence victimization and sexting across different life stages. Additionally, no previous studies have examined the relevance of these variables to women’s mental health from adolescence onwards. The present study adopts the dual model of mental health, which conceptualizes mental health as comprising two interrelated but distinct dimensions: psychopathology and well-being [51,52,53]. This model emphasizes the importance of measuring both dimensions when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and assessing mental health. Therefore, in the present study, we included measures of mental distress and well-being. In the regression models that we propose to assess the relevance of the study variables to women’s mental health, we will include self-esteem because it has been shown to be a relevant variable in the associations between self-objectification and negative outcomes [20,22,24]. Additionally, evidence suggests that sexual experiences and self-esteem are meaningfully intertwined over time [54], and that social relationships and self-esteem are reciprocally related across the lifespan [55].
Across cultures, women continue to experience disproportionate social pressure to appear physically attractive and sexually desirable [27]. Although the sexualization of young men is increasing, sexualized images—predominantly of women—remain prevalent in the media [56]. Numerous external pressures encourage women’s preoccupation with their physical appearance [8], all of which pose a threat to their health and well-being. Building on this evidence, the main aim of the present study was to examine the associations of self-objectification with intimate partner violence victimization and sexting, and to assess the contribution of these variables to women’s mental distress and well-being across the life course.

2. Results

2.1. Women’s Self-Objectification Across the Life Course

Table 1 presents the minimum, maximum, median, skewness, and kurtosis for the total self-objectification scale and its three dimensions. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and comparisons of self-objectification dimensions across life stages. There was considerable variability, particularly in the “self-sexualized on social media” and “importance of physical attractiveness” dimensions. Scores spanned the full possible range for two dimensions, from 2 to 14 for “self-sexualized on social media” and from 3 to 21 for “importance of physical attractiveness”. None of the groups reached the maximum possible score of 35 for the dimension “self-sexualization”, though the emerging adulthood group scored a maximum of 32. The maximum possible score on the 10-item scale is 70. The emerging adulthood and adolescent groups had the highest observed maximum scores, at 63 and 62, respectively. Among women aged 50 and older, the maximum score was 46.
Table 1. Minimum, maximum, median, skewness, and kurtosis for self-objectification dimensions.
Table 2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and comparisons of women’s self-objectification by life stage.
In all age groups, some women reported no self-objectification. Specifically, 10.1% of adolescents and emerging adults, 16.5% of adult women, and 28.3% of women aged 50 or older obtained the minimum possible score for self-sexualization. The minimum possible score for self-sexualized on social media was obtained by 34.2% of adolescents, 38.1% of emerging adult women, 61.3% of adult women, and 77.5% of women aged 50 or older. Only a small proportion obtained the minimum possible score for importance of physical attractiveness: 1.4% of adolescents, 1.6% of emerging adult women, 4.1% of adult women, and 9.6% of women aged 50 or older. Only 1.2% of adolescents and emerging adults, 3.7% of adult women, and 8.8% of women aged 50 or older obtained the minimum possible score on the total self-objectification scale.
As shown in Table 2, there were no statistically significant differences between adolescent girls and emerging adult women in any of the assessed dimensions or on the total self-objectification scale. However, both groups scored significantly higher than the other two groups of women on “Self-sexualization,” “Self-sexualized on social media,” “Importance of physical attractiveness,” and the total scale score. Additionally, adult women had higher scores than women aged 50 or older on all measures.

2.2. Association Between Self-Objectification and Intimate Partner Violence and Sexting Behavior

Table 3 presents the Spearman correlation coefficients between the self-objectification measures (the three dimensions and the total score) and intimate partner violence victimization and sexting scores. As can be seen, all correlation coefficients were statistically significant, except two: those between the importance of physical attractiveness and cyberviolence among adolescents, and between self-sexualized on social media and sexual violence among women aged 50 or older. Higher scores on the self-objectification measures were associated with higher scores on total intimate partner violence victimization and its specific forms: cyberviolence, offline psychological violence, physical violence, and sexual violence. However, the effect sizes of these associations were small and negligible for sexual violence among emerging adult women. Among adolescents, the importance of physical attractiveness was the dimension least strongly associated with intimate partner violence victimization, whereas among women aged 50 or older, it was the dimension most strongly associated. In this age group, self-sexualized on social media was not associated with sexual violence, and the effect sizes of its association with the other forms of intimate partner violence victimization were very small.
Table 3. Spearman correlations between self-objectification, intimate partner violence victimization, and sexting behavior.
Across all age groups, the four measures of self-objectification were statistically significantly associated with sexting scores, including the total score and the two subfactors: active sexting disposition and actual sexting participation. The effect sizes were generally moderate.

2.3. Predictors of Mental Distress and Well-Being Among Women Throughout the Different Stages of the Life Cycle

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the contribution of self-objectification, intimate partner violence victimization, sexting, women’s sociodemographic characteristics, and self-esteem to mental distress and well-being throughout the life cycle. The first step (Model 1) included the sociodemographic variables of number of children and age as quantitative variables, educational level as an ordinal variable with seven levels, ranging from incomplete basic education (scored as 0) to postgraduate university education (scored as 6), and marital/cohabitation status as a dichotomous variable with two levels: unmarried or in a relationship but not living with a partner (scored as 0) and married or living with a partner (scored as 1). The second step (Model 2) added the three dimensions of self-objectification: self-sexualization, self-sexualized on social media, and the importance of physical attractiveness. The third step (Model 3) added the total intimate partner violence victimization score. The fourth step (Model 4) added the total sexting score. The final step (Model 5) added the self-esteem score. Table 4 shows the main results of the models predicting mental distress at each stage of the life cycle, while Table 5 shows the results predicting well-being.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression results for mental distress across the different stages of the life cycle.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression results for well-being across the different stages of the life cycle.
As can be seen in Table 4, the sociodemographic variables included in Model 1 did not result in a statistically significant increase in R2 in any group except the adult group. For this group, higher mental distress was associated with younger age, not being married or cohabiting with a partner, and lower education levels. Adding the three self-objectification scores in Model 2 resulted in a statistically significant increase in R2 across all groups. However, the change in R2 was smaller among emerging adult women (R2 change = 0.06) than in the other groups: adolescents and women aged 50 or older (R2 change = 0.10) and adult women (R2 change = 0.09). Adding the intimate partner violence victimization score produced a statistically significant increase in R2 across all groups, though the increase was small, especially among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood. Adding the sexting score to the regression equation in Model 4 did not result in a significant increase in R2. Adding self-esteem in the final step (Model 5) resulted in a large, statistically significant change in R2 in all groups: R2 change = 0.31 among emerging adult women, R2 change = 0.27 among adult women and women aged 50 or older, and R2 change = 0.24 among adolescents. In the final model, which included all predictors in the regression equation, self-esteem was the strongest predictor of mental distress across all groups. Lower self-esteem was associated with higher levels of mental distress among women. The second strongest predictor of higher mental distress among adolescent girls and women aged 50 or older was placing greater importance on physical attractiveness, followed by higher levels of intimate partner violence victimization. The final model accounted for 40% of the variance in mental distress in women aged 50 or older and 34% among adolescent girls. For emerging adult women, the second predictor of higher mental distress was higher levels of intimate partner violence victimization, followed by placing greater importance on physical attractiveness. The total percentage of variance explained was 38% for this group. Among adult women, higher levels of intimate partner violence victimization and placing greater importance on physical attractiveness were significant predictors of higher mental distress. These were followed by lower levels of self-sexualization and a greater number of children. The total percentage of variance explained was 44%.
As can be seen in Table 5, which presents the key findings from the regression analyses predicting women’s well-being, the sociodemographic variables included in Model 1 resulted in statistically significant increases in R2 for both women in emerging adulthood and adult women. In both groups, greater well-being was associated with a higher level of education and being married or living with a partner. Furthermore, among women in emerging adulthood, greater well-being was associated with younger age. Adding the three self-objectification scores (Model 2) resulted in a statistically significant increase in R2 across all groups. However, the largest increase in explained variance was observed among women aged 50 or older (R2 change = 0.15), whereas the smallest was observed among women in emerging adulthood (R2 change = 0.05). Adding the intimate partner violence victimization score in Model 3 resulted in a statistically significant increase in R2 across all groups, though the increase in explained variance was small among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood. Adding the sexting score to the regression equation in Model 4 did not change R2. Adding self-esteem in Model 5 resulted in a large, statistically significant increase in R2 across all age groups, particularly among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood (R2 change = 0.40). The increase was smaller among women aged 50 or older (R2 change = 0.25).
In the final model, which included all predictors, higher self-esteem emerged as the strongest predictor of greater well-being across all age groups. Among adolescents, a higher level of education was another statistically significant predictor of greater well-being. The final model explained 49% of the variance in well-being in this group. Among women in emerging adulthood, younger age was the second strongest predictor of greater well-being, followed by higher educational attainment and lower levels of intimate partner violence victimization. As shown in Table 5, being married or living with a partner, self-sexualized on social media and lower sexting were also statistically significant predictors, though their beta coefficients were very low. The percentage of total variance explained was 49%.
Among adult women and women aged 50 or older, lower importance attributed to physical attractiveness was the second strongest predictor of greater well-being. Among adult women, the next strongest predictor was being married or living with a partner, followed by lower levels of intimate partner violence victimization and higher educational attainment. The final model explained 51% of the variance. For women aged 50 or older, the third strongest predictor of greater well-being was lower intimate partner violence victimization, followed by being married or living with a partner. The final model explained 44% of the variance in well-being.

3. Discussion

This study analyzed women’s self-objectification across different life stages, beginning with adolescence, and examined its associations with intimate partner violence victimization and sexting behavior. It also examined the associations of these variables with women’s mental distress and well-being across different life stages. The results indicated that self-objectification is a multidimensional phenomenon. Although the three dimensions examined in this study—self-sexualization, self-sexualized on social media, and the importance of physical attractiveness—showed a broadly similar pattern throughout the life course, decreasing from adulthood onward, their relevance to mental health and their associations with sexting and with intimate partner violence victimization vary depending on the dimension and on the life cycle period analyzed.
Of all the dimensions of self-objectification, the importance attributed to physical attractiveness was most closely linked to women’s mental health. Across all life-stage groups, greater importance attributed to physical attractiveness was consistently associated with higher levels of mental distress. Although its association with mental distress was attenuated after self-esteem was entered into the regression equation, importance attributed to physical attractiveness remained a significant predictor of mental distress in the final model, which included all predictors. Attributing greater importance to physical attractiveness was also a predictor of lower well-being among women. However, among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood, this association was no longer statistically significant after self-esteem was included in the regression model. These results align with those of other studies that have revealed self-objectification to be detrimental to women’s mental health and well-being [8,15,20,21,23,24,26]. However, the findings of this study suggest that the effects vary depending on which aspect of self-objectification is considered.
In the regression analyses predicting mental distress, neither self-sexualization nor self-sexualized on social media was generally a statistically significant predictor. However, lower self-sexualization was associated with greater mental distress among adult women and women in emerging adulthood. Among women in emerging adulthood, this association was no longer statistically significant after self-esteem was entered into the regression model. However, among adult women, this association became statistically significant when self-esteem was added to the regression equation. Among adolescents, both self-sexualization and self-sexualized on social media were statistically significant predictors of well-being. However, the effect of self-sexualization was negative and, therefore, associated with lower well-being, while the effect of self-sexualized on social media was positive and associated with higher well-being. Nevertheless, both dimensions ceased to be statistically significant in the final model once self-esteem was added to the regression equation. Self-sexualized on social media was associated with greater well-being among women in emerging adulthood, and this association remained statistically significant when self-esteem was entered into the regression model. However, the effect size was very small, suggesting limited practical relevance despite its statistical significance; the large sample size of this group may have contributed to the significance of this small association. Among women aged 50 and older, self-sexualization was associated with lower well-being, although this association ceased to be significant when self-esteem was added to the regression equation. These results align with prior studies that have identified the intricate nature of the connection between self-objectification and women’s emotions and well-being [20,30] and the significant role of self-esteem in this relationship [20,22,24]. It has been suggested that self-sexualization may be experienced as empowering in some contexts [30,57], although it has also been associated with negative outcomes among girls and women [30]. Sexual objectification theory proposes that physical attractiveness can function as a source of social advantage in some contexts [8]. This may help explain why the self-sexualization and self-sexualized on social media dimensions did not emerge as consistent predictors of women’s mental distress or well-being in the present study. These are important issues that should be studied in depth in future research. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, although the effect sizes were generally small or very small, all dimensions of self-objectification showed statistically significant positive associations with most forms of intimate partner violence victimization across the life-stage groups examined, and intimate partner violence victimization was consistently associated with poorer mental health.
The findings of this study are consistent with Objectification Theory’s emphasis on individual differences and heterogeneity in women’s experiences and responses to sexual objectification [8]. Many variables may influence self-objectification processes and their correlates, including agency, prior experience, developmental history, psychological vulnerability, stress, personality, and relationship experiences. While individual, relational, and contextual factors that could explain this heterogeneity were not assessed in this study, the findings showed that the degree of self-objectification heterogeneity among women appears to vary depending on the dimension of self-objectification considered, as well as the stage of the life cycle. The dimension with the greatest variability was importance of physical attractiveness. Although there were substantial individual differences, almost all women considered physical attractiveness important, as only 3.1% of the total sample reported strongly disagreed with it. Strong disagreement with the importance of physical attractiveness was more common among women aged 50 or older (9.6%) and less common among adolescents (1.4%) and women in emerging adulthood (1.6%). Overall, 13.8% of the sample obtained the minimum possible score on self-sexualization. This proportion was higher among women aged 50 or older (28.3%) and lower among adolescents and women in emerging adulthood (10.1%). These results may reflect the social and media pressure that women face to appear physically attractive and sexually desirable [8,27,56]. Findings suggest that this pressure is difficult to escape, especially among younger women. While nearly half of the sample obtained the minimum possible score on self-sexualized on social media, this was more common among those aged 50 or older (77.5%) and less common among adolescents (34.2%) and women in emerging adulthood (38.1%). Self-objectification scores were generally lower in the older age groups, with women aged 50 or older scoring significantly lower than women in the younger age groups. This finding may reflect the fact that women experience physical, biological, psychological, and social changes throughout their adult lives [58]. It is also consistent with the findings of other studies, which have shown that older women report lower levels of self-objectification [26].
Correlational analyses showed that the effect sizes of the associations of self-objectification with intimate partner violence victimization and sexting varied according to the specific dimension of self-objectification considered, the type of intimate partner violence examined, and the life stage examined. Although the effect sizes were generally small or very small, except for two, all self-objectification scores were significantly and positively associated with all forms of intimate partner violence victimization assessed. These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting small effect sizes for the association between intimate partner violence victimization and self-objectification [45,46].
The associations between sexting behavior and all self-objectification scores were significant and positive across all age groups, with generally moderate effect sizes. However, these associations were weaker among women aged 50 and older than among the younger age groups. These results are consistent with existing evidence linking self-objectification to sexting behavior [37], although the association appeared to be weaker among women aged 50 or older. Nevertheless, the results of this study do not suggest that sexting significantly impacts women’s mental health, once the effects of other variables were considered. The findings revealed that, after controlling for sociodemographic variables, the three dimensions of self-objectification, intimate partner violence victimization, and sexting behaviors were not significant predictors of mental distress or well-being at any stage of the life cycle except for emerging adulthood. Emerging adult women who engage in frequent sexting experience lower well-being, although the effect size was very small and perhaps only statistically significant because of the large sample size in this group. Overall, the findings reinforce the view that the effects of sexting on mental health are not relevant or uniform, at least among women.
Although the effect size of the association between intimate partner violence victimization and self-objectification was small, regression analyses showed that such victimization significantly increased the models’ ability to predict mental distress and well-being after controlling for the effects of sociodemographic variables and the three dimensions of self-objectification. This victimization consistently predicted greater mental distress at all stages of the life cycle. Intimate partner violence victimization was also consistently associated with lower well-being. However, in the adolescent group, this association ceased to be significant when self-esteem was added to the regression equation. One possible explanation is that adolescent girls may perceive romantic relationships as less stable. In this context, self-esteem may help explain why the association between intimate partner violence victimization and well-being was attenuated after self-esteem was included in the regression model. This hypothesis should be examined in future research. The threat that intimate partner violence poses to women’s mental health is well documented [59,60]. In contrast, high self-esteem has been identified as an important protective factor for women’s mental health. These findings are in line with those of other recent Spanish studies conducted with women at different life stages [61,62].
From an applied perspective, recognizing self-objectification as a multidimensional phenomenon can inform the development of more effective interventions to promote women’s mental health and well-being. Preventive strategies should aim to strengthen women’s self-esteem and promote critical reflection on messages that sexualize women and pressure them to conform to specific beauty ideals. The observed associations between the dimensions of self-objectification and intimate partner violence victimization underscore the importance of considering self-objectification in affective-sexual education and gender-based violence prevention programs. These programs should explicitly address the processes of objectification and self-objectification as potential barriers to the development of egalitarian relationships.
It is important to consider the study’s limitations when interpreting the results. Due to its cross-sectional design, causal relationships between the analyzed variables cannot be established. Although the present study found associations between self-objectification and intimate partner violence victimization, the findings do not allow us to determine whether self-objectification precedes intimate partner violence victimization, whether experiences of victimization contribute to subsequent self-objectification, or whether both processes may influence each other. It is also possible that other individual, partner, or relationship factors contribute to this association. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as evidence of an association rather than as evidence of a specific causal pathway. Furthermore, differences in women’s experiences and responses to sexualization may also reflect individual, relational, or contextual factors that were not assessed in the present study. Since age and cohort are confounding variables in cross-sectional studies, the results cannot be explained solely based on age. Additionally, the group of women aged 50 and older encompasses a wide age range and includes two distinct cohorts—middle adulthood and older adulthood—so the observed results may differ between these subgroups. Nevertheless, since objectification theory proposes that women are most targeted for objectification during their reproductive potential years [8], we deemed it pertinent to categorize all women aged 50 or older into a single category. Differences in sample size across groups may also have affected the statistical power to detect significant associations. However, this limitation can be addressed by considering the effect size. Another limitation was the exclusive use of self-report measures, which may have introduced social desirability bias and other forms of response bias related to participants’ subjective perceptions. Although the sample was large, participants were not randomly selected, and all resided in Spain, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. These limitations highlight the need for future studies using longitudinal designs to examine the temporal and potentially reciprocal associations among self-objectification, intimate partner violence victimization, sexting, and mental health. Additionally, research using randomly selected samples with equal-sized groups from each life cycle, participants from various countries and cultures, and multiple assessment methods would help address limitations related to sample representativeness and reliance on self-report measures.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants

In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from 6124 women aged 16 to 85 years. Participants had diverse educational backgrounds; however, only 1.5% (n = 93) had not completed basic education. Just over one-third (35.3%) had completed or were pursuing a university degree, while 10.7% were pursuing postgraduate studies. Nearly one-quarter (23.9%) had completed high school; 20.5% had received vocational training; and 8.1% had only completed basic education. Nearly half of the participants (49.3%) were students, 40.1% were employed, 8.1% were unemployed, 1.7% were retired, and 0.5% reported being homemakers. The remaining participants had other occupations. Regarding marital status, 66.2% had never been married, 28.2% were married or living with a partner, 4.9% were separated or divorced, and 0.7% were widowed. Most participants (74.9%) had no children, 9.4% had one child, and the maximum number of children reported was nine, with only one participant reporting this number. The most frequent number of children was two. This was reported by 12.6% of the participants. More than half of the women (62%) currently had a partner, even if they did not live with them.
Of the women who participated, 14.6% (n = 897) were between the ages of 16 and 19 and constituted the adolescent group; 53.4% (n = 3271) were between the ages of 20 and 29 and constituted the emerging adult group; 18.2% (n = 1112) were between the ages of 30 and 49 and constituted the adult group; and 13.8% (n = 844) were between the ages of 50 and 85 and constituted the women aged 50 or older group.

4.2. Measures

Women’s self-objectification was assessed using the ten items of the Sexual Objectification Scale that measure self-objectification [63]. The Sexual Objectification Scale is an instrument developed and validated by Matud et al. [63] to assess sexual objectification among women in the Spanish context. After reviewing the main scales used to assess the sexual objectification of women, a group of experts in gender, gender-based violence, psychological assessment, and media studies developed the scale items. The group included two psychologists with over 15 years of clinical experience in psychological assessment and intervention with women. Items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to examine the factor structure of these items. For this purpose, the study sample was randomly divided into two subsamples. EFA was performed on the first subsample and CFA on the second. The EFA was conducted using principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation. Prior to the EFA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.83 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a p-value of less than 0.001. These results indicate the data are suitable [64]. The Scree test determined that the optimal number of factors was three. The first factor, “Self-sexualization”, included five items and explained 19.1% of the total variance. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) in the present sample was 0.75. The items with the highest factor loadings were: “I love that people stare at me on the street because of my physical appearance and sex appeal”, “I feel happy when people look at me with desire or compliment me”, “I enjoy being regarded as a beautiful sex object and/or being treated as such”. The second factor was labelled “Self-sexualized on Social Media”. It explained 17.8% of the variance, had an internal consistency of 0.90, and consisted of two items: “I post photos and/or videos of myself looking sexy on social media (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, …)”, “I like to share, send and/or upload photos and/or videos in which I look sexy on social media (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, …) and I like being told that people like them”. The third factor was labelled “Importance of Physical Attractiveness”. This factor consisted of three items and accounted for 13% of the total variance; Cronbach’s α was 0.70. The items with the highest factor loadings were “I feel bad when I don’t look as good as I’d like” and “I feel bad when I think about getting older and my body losing its physical appeal”. The internal consistency of the scale’s 10 items was 0.84. CFA was performed on the second subsample to test the three-factor structure identified in the EFA. The results supported the adequacy of the tested model: The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.931, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.943, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.084, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.004. The correlations between the factors were as follows: first and second, 0.56; first and third, 0.53; and second and third, 0.39.
Mental distress was assessed using the 12-item Goldberg General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [65]. The GHQ-12 is a widely used instrument for assessing mental distress [66,67]. Items were scored using the Likert method. This method assigns a value from 0 to 3 to each response; higher scores indicate greater mental distress. For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.90.
Well-being was assessed by summing the scores from two scales. The first scale was the Life Satisfaction Scale [68], which is a five-item scale developed to assess an individual’s overall life satisfaction. Items were scored on a 7-point scale. The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.88. The second scale was the Flourishing Scale [69], an eight-item scale that assesses feelings of competence, optimism, contribution to the well-being of others, supportive and comforting social relationships, and meaning and purpose in life [70]. Items were scored on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.89. The internal consistency of the 13 items from both scales was 0.90.
The victimization version of the Cyber and Offline Intimate Partner Violence Questionnaire (COIPVQ) [71] was used to assess intimate partner violence victimization. The COIPVQ is a 23-item questionnaire assessing violent, abusive, and controlling behaviors perpetrated by an intimate partner either in person (offline) or through digital technologies and social networks (cyberviolence). The questionnaire is structured into four scales: (1) offline psychological violence (six items); (2) cyberviolence (eight items); (3) physical violence (seven items); and (4) sexual violence (two items). Respondents rated the items on a six-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater intensity and frequency of violence. For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.94 for the total questionnaire, 0.88 for the 6 items that measure offline psychological violence, 0.84 for the 8 items that assess cyberviolence, 0.91 for the 7 items that assess physical violence, and 0.82 for the 2 items that assess sexual violence.
The Spanish version [72] of the Sexting Behavior Scale [73] was used to assess sexting behaviors. The scale comprises 29 items structured into three factors: (1) Actual sexting participation, consisting of nine items assessing the frequency of sending and receiving sexually provocative images or text messages via mobile phone, email, or social networking sites; (2) Active sexting disposition, consisting of 16 items assessing the number of people with whom respondents engage in sexting, the type of relationship, the situations in which sexting occurs, and motivations; and (3) Emotional expression in sexting, consisting of four items that gathered information about the emotions and feelings that sexting provokes in respondents. For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.83 for actual sexting participation, 0.90 for active sexting disposition, and 0.53 for emotional expression in sexting. The internal consistency of the total scale consisting of all 29 items was 0.93.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [74] was used to assess self-esteem. The scale consists of 10 items assessing overall self-esteem. Items were rated on a four-point scale. The scale ranged from 0 for “strongly agree” to 3 for “strongly disagree”. For the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.88.
Participants were also asked to report their age, education level, marital status, partnership status, number of children, and occupation.

4.3. Procedure

The data were collected through an online survey. All participants were volunteers. They did not receive monetary compensation for taking part in the study. Eligibility criteria required participants to be women aged 16 years or older. Participants were free to withdraw at any time, and no names or other identifying information were recorded. All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. First, the general characteristics and procedures of the study were explained to the participants, who were then asked to provide informed consent. Those who agreed to participate were first asked about their sociodemographic characteristics. Then, they were administered the questionnaires and scales described in the previous section. Participants were recruited between 2022 and 2025 through personal contacts and social media. Recruitment was supported by undergraduate and postgraduate students from the University of La Laguna and other Spanish universities who had received training in psychological assessment and test administration. Students were instructed that they could distribute the questionnaire link to family and friends via WhatsApp, email, or other channels and could also post it on their social media accounts. Students received course credit for participating in the data collection. Participants were also recruited through the personal network of members of the research team. Research team members sent the questionnaire link to their contacts via WhatsApp or email and asked them to forward it to friends and family. The link was also shared on the social media accounts of research group members. This study is part of a larger research project, which was approved by the Research Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee of the University of La Laguna (registration number CEIBA-2022-3130).

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, the distribution of the study variables, and the frequency of self-objectification-related thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with post hoc comparisons were performed to determine if there were differences in self-sexualization, self-sexualized on social media, importance of physical attractiveness, and total self-objectification scale score across the life cycle stages analyzed. Because intimate partner violence victimization and sexting variables were clearly not normally distributed, their bivariate associations with the self-objectification dimensions were examined using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient. The emotional expression in sexting factor was excluded from the analyses because of its low internal consistency (α = 0.53); however, its four items were retained when calculating the total sexting score. As described in Section 2, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the contribution of the study variables, women’s sociodemographic characteristics, and self-esteem to the prediction of mental distress and well-being at each life cycle stage. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 29, and jamovi, version 2.7.37, were used to perform the statistical analyses.

5. Conclusions

Findings suggest that women’s self-objectification is not limited to adolescence or young adulthood but is present across all life-stage groups examined. However, there was individual heterogeneity and its levels declined beginning in adulthood and were significantly lower among women aged 50 or older. Although effect sizes varied according to the self-objectification dimension examined—self-sexualization, self-sexualized on social media, or importance of physical attractiveness—self-objectification was associated with sexting behavior and, to a lesser extent, with intimate partner violence victimization.
Greater importance attributed to physical attractiveness was consistently associated with higher mental distress across all life-stage groups and with lower well-being among adult women and women aged 50 or older. Intimate partner violence victimization was associated with higher mental distress and lower well-being, whereas higher self-esteem was associated with more favorable mental health outcomes.
These findings may inform the design of policies, programs, and strategies aimed at promoting women’s mental health and well-being and supporting the prevention of mental health problems across different life stages.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P.M., S.P.-C., L.M., C.R.-W. and A.H.; methodology, M.P.M. and S.P.-C.; formal analysis, M.P.M. and C.R.-W.; data curation, M.P.M., A.H., L.M. and C.R.-W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.M., S.P.-C. and L.M.; writing—review and editing, M.P.M., S.P.-C., L.M., A.H. and C.R.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of La Laguna (protocol code CEIBA 2022-3130, 7 February 2022).

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the reported results are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
WHOWorld Health Organization
EFAExploratory factor analysis
CFAConfirmatory factor analysis

References

  1. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Gender and Mental Health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. WHO-EM/WHD/020/E. 2005. Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/116470 (accessed on 22 May 2026).
  2. Kiely, K.M.; Brady, B.; Byles, J. Gender, mental health and ageing. Maturitas 2019, 129, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Seedat, S.; Scott, K.M.; Angermeyer, M.C.; Berglund, P.; Bromet, E.J.; Brugha, T.S.; Demyttenaere, K.; de Girolamo, G.; Haro, J.M.; Jin, R.; et al. Cross-national associations between gender and mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2009, 66, 785–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. Eaton, N.R.; Keyes, K.M.; Krueger, R.F.; Balsis, S.; Skodol, A.E.; Markon, K.E.; Grant, B.F.; Hasin, D.S. An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental disorder prevalence: Evidence from a national sample. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2012, 121, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Bacigalupe, A.; Cabezas, A.; Bueno, M.B.; Martín, U. El género como determinante de la salud mental y su medicalización. Informe SESPAS 2020 [Gender as a determinant of mental health and its medicalization. SESPAS Report 2020]. Gac. Sanit. 2020, 34, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Casanova Dias, M.; Van Den Noortgate, M.; Høgsted, E.S.; Womersley, K.; Spicer, A.; Chandra, P.S.; Leboyer, M.; De Picker, L. Announcing the Lancet Psychiatry Commission on Women’s Mental Health: A new era for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry 2026, 13, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Huselid, R.F.; Cooper, M.L. Gender roles as mediators of sex differences in expressions of pathology. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1994, 103, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Fredrickson, B.L.; Roberts, T.A. Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks. Psychol. Women Q. 1997, 21, 173–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Stewart, D.E. A comprehensive vision for women’s mental health. World Psychiatry 2025, 24, 225–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Winn, L.; Cornelius, R. Self-Objectification and Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Gervais, S.; Eagan, S. Sexual objectification: The common thread connecting myriad forms of sexual violence against women. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2017, 87, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Wu, W.; Wang, Y. Artificial intelligence products and their influence on individuals’ objectification: A narrative review. Curr. Psychol. 2025, 44, 7978–7990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. da Silva Kasprowicz, G.; Choma, B.L. Self-objectification and sexual wellbeing among women: Exploring the roles of femininity, heteronormativity, and internalized heterosexism. Body Image 2026, 57, 102078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Gervais, S.J.; Vescio, T.K.; Allen, J. When What You See Is What You Get: The Consequences of the Objectifying Gaze for Women and Men. Psychol. Women Q. 2011, 35, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ward, L.M.; Daniels, E.A.; Zurbriggen, E.L.; Rosenscruggs, D. The sources and consequences of sexual objectification. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2023, 2, 496–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Lamont, J.M. The Association Between Self-Surveillance and Self-Rated Health in College Women: A Mechanistic Approach. J. Prev. Health Promot. 2024, 5, 35–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Di Bernardo, G.A.; Pecini, C.; Tallone, B.; Raguso, G.; Andrighetto, L. No Hard Feelings: The Role of Self-Objectification and Self-Dehumanization in Understanding Emotions and Mental States in Cisgender Heterosexual Women. Psychol. Women Q. 2025, 49, 365–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Liu, Z.; Fu, M.; Shi, J.; Hu, Y.; Gao, X. The psychological mechanism of Self-objectification: The interaction between sociocultural pressures and the self-system. Front. Psychol. 2025, 16, 1531222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Adams, K.E.; Tyler, J.M.; Calogero, R.; Lee, J. Exploring the relationship between appearance-contingent self-worth and self-esteem: The roles of self-objectification and appearance anxiety. Body Image 2017, 23, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Breines, J.G.; Crocker, J.; Garcia, J.A. Self-objectification and well-being in women’s daily lives. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 583–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Choma, B.L.; Shove, C.; Busseri, M.A.; Sadava, S.W.; Hosker, A. Assessing the role of body image coping strategies as mediators or moderators of the links between self-objectification, body shame, and well-being. Sex Roles 2009, 61, 699–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Guo, Q.; Wu, M. The relationship between self-objectification and social avoidance among Chinese middle adolescent girls: The mediating role of appearance comparison and self-esteem. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 3489–3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Jones, B.A.; Griffiths, K.M. Self-objectification and depression: An integrative systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2015, 171, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Mercurio, A.E.; Landry, L.J. Self-objectification and Well-being: The Impact of Self-objectification on Women’s Overall Sense of Self-worth and Life Satisfaction. Sex Roles 2008, 58, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Moradi, B.; Huang, Y.P. Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychol. Women Q. 2008, 32, 377–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Sherman, A.M.; Tran, S.; Sy, J. Objectification and body esteem: Age group patterns in women’s psychological functioning. Aging Ment. Health 2024, 28, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Kahalon, R.; Klein, V. Self-Objectification and Sexuality: A Systematic Scoping Review. J. Sex Res. 2025, 62, 1722–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Ramsey, L.R.; Hoyt, T. The Object of Desire: How Being Objectified Creates Sexual Pressure for Women in Heterosexual Relationships. Psychol. Women Q. 2015, 39, 151–170. [Google Scholar]
  29. Xiao, L.; Cheng, L.; Wang, F.; Loughnan, S. Using Beauty as Currency: Role of Gender Earnings Inequality on Women’s Self-Objectification. Int. J. Psychol. 2025, 60, e70120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Koval, P.; Holland, E.; Zyphur, M.J.; Stratemeyer, M.; Knight, J.M.; Bailen, N.H.; Thompson, R.J.; Roberts, T.-A.; Haslam, N. How does it feel to be treated like an object? Direct and indirect effects of exposure to sexual objectification on women’s emotions in daily life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 116, 885–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Barrense-Dias, Y.; Berchtold, A.; Surís, J.C.; Akre, C. Sexting and the Definition Issue. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 61, 544–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Mori, C.; Cooke, J.E.; Temple, J.R.; Ly, A.; Lu, Y.; Anderson, N.; Rash, C.; Madigan, S. The prevalence of sexting behaviors among emerging adults: A meta-analysis. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 1103–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Van Dijck, S.; Van den Eynde, S.; Enzlin, P. The bright side of sexting: A scoping review on its benefits. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2025, 164, 108499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Howard, D.; Klettke, B.; Clancy, E.; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. What are you looking at? Body image esteem and sexting behaviors among emerging Australian adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 124, 106915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Burén, J.; Gattario, K.H.; Lunde, C. The Role of Body Image Factors in Swedish Adolescents’ Sexting Behaviors. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2025, 54, 1441–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Crapolicchio, E.; Pecini, C.; Di Bernardo, G.A.; Regalia, C.; Andrighetto, L.; Vezzali, L. Sexting and the experience of non-consensual dissemination of sexts. The moderator role of self-objectification. Psicol. Soc. 2022, 17, 207–224. [Google Scholar]
  37. Speno, A.G.; Aubrey, J.S. Adolescent Sexting: The Roles of Self-Objectification and Internalization of Media Ideals. Psychol. Women Q. 2019, 43, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Brock, R.L.; Gervais, S.J.; Checkalski, O.R.; Finkelstein, S.D.; Sparpana, A.M. A Multidimensional Measure of Sexual Objectification in Intimate Relationships: The Inventory of Partner Sexual Objectification (IPSO). Psychol. Assess. 2025, 37, 720–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Slodecki, E.; Buzwell, S.; Randazzo, L.; Mackelprang, J.L. Objects of Trauma: A Systematic Review of Self-Objectification and Posttraumatic Stress. Trauma Violence Abus. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Sáez, G.; Riemer, A.R.; Brock, R.L.; Gervais, S.J. The Role of Interpersonal Sexual Objectification in Heterosexual Intimate Partner Violence from Perspectives of Perceivers and Targets. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, 1430–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. World Health Organization. Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2023: Global, Regional and National Prevalence Estimates for Intimate Partner Violence Against Women and Non-Partner Sexual Violence Against Women; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  42. Breiding, M.J.; Basile, K.C.; Smith, S.G.; Black, M.C.; Mahendra, R.R. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sáenz, A.V.; Haslam, N. The role of objectification in young men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0313016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Weaver, T.L.; Elrod, N.M.; Kelton, K. Intimate Partner Violence and Body Shame: An Examination of the Associations Between Abuse Components and Body-Focused Processes. Violence Against Women 2020, 26, 1538–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Davidson, M.M.; Gervais, S.J. Violence against women through the lens of objectification theory. Violence Against Women 2015, 21, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Gervais, S.J.; Davidson, M.M. Objectification among college women in the context of intimate partner violence. Violence Vict. 2013, 28, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. Jonnson, M.R.; Langille, J.I.; Walsh, Z. The Role of Objectification in the Victimization and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence. Violence Vict. 2018, 33, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ramsey, L.R.; Marotta, J.A.; Hoyt, T. Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied: Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived partner-objectification. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2017, 34, 258–278. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pecini, C.; Ruzzante, D.; Valtorta, R.R.; Crapolicchio, E.; Cocco, V.M.; Andrighetto, L.; Di Bernardo, G.A. Why Might Women Justify Dating Violence? The Role of Men’s Sexual Objectification of Their Romantic Partners Within Heterosexual Relationships. J. Interpers. Violence 2023, 38, 10664–10685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Pecini, C.; Di Bernardo, G.A.; Crapolicchio, E.; Stathi, S.; Vezzali, L.; Andrighetto, L. Stop looking at me! associations between men’s partner-objectification and women’s self-objectification, body shame and life satisfaction in romantic relationships. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 32, 1047–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Greenspoon, P.J.; Saklofske, D.H. Toward an Integration of Subjective Well-Being and Psychopathology. Soc. Indic. Res. 2001, 54, 81–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Iasiello, M.; van Agteren, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Mental Health and/or Mental Illness: A Scoping Review of the Evidence and Implications of the Dual-Continua Model of Mental Health. Evid. Base 2020, 1, 1–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Magalhães, E. Dual-factor Models of Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence. Psychosoc. Interv. 2024, 33, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  54. Weber, E.; Hopwood, C.J.; Denissen, J.J.A.; Bleidorn, W. Self-Esteem and Sexual Experiences. Peronal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2026, 52, 293–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  55. Harris, M.A.; Orth, U. The link between self-esteem and social relationships: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 119, 1459–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Hine, R. In the Margins: The Impact of Sexualised Images on the Mental Health of Ageing Women. Sex Roles 2011, 65, 632–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Johnson, K.K.P.; Yu, U.-J.A. Narrative Critical Review of Research on Self-Sexualization. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2023, 41, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Lee, M.; Damhorst, M.L. Women’s Body Image Throughout the Adult Life Span: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2020, 91, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. GBD 2023 Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence against Children Collaborators. Disease burden attributable to intimate partner violence against females and sexual violence against children in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2023: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023. Lancet 2026, 407, 31–52. [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Oram, S.; Fisher, H.L.; Minnis, H.; Seedat, S.; Walby, S.; Hegarty, K.; Rouf, K.; Angénieux, C.; Callard, F.; Chandra, P.S.; et al. The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on intimate partner violence and mental health: Advancing mental health services, research, and policy. Lancet Psychiatry 2022, 9, 487–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Matud, M.P.; Ibáñez, I.; Fortes, D.; Bethencourt, J.M. Adolescent stress, psychological distress and well-being: A gender analysis. Child. Youth Serv. 2024, 45, 300–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Matud, M.P.; Medina, L.; Ibañez, I.; Pino, M.D. Mental Health Among Spanish Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic and in the Post-Pandemic Period: A Gender Analysis. Medicina 2025, 61, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  63. Matud, M.P.; Medina, L.; Rodríguez-Wangüemert, C.; Ibáñez, I. Sexual Objectification, Health and Well-Being in Spanish Women. Sexes 2026, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Shrestha, N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. Am. J. Appl. Math. Stat. 2021, 9, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Goldberg, D.; Williams, P.; Lobo, A.; Muñoz, P.E. Cuestionario de Salud General GHQ (General Health Questionnaire). Guía Para el Usuario de las Distintas Versiones; Masson: Barcelona, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pierce, M.; McManus, S.; Hope, H.; Hotopf, M.; Ford, T.; Hatch, S.L.; John, A.; Kontopantelis, E.; Webb, R.T.; Wessely, S.; et al. Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent class trajectory analysis using longitudinal UK data. Lancet Psychiatry 2021, 8, 610–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Daly, M.; Robinson, E. Psychological distress associated with the second COVID-19 wave: Prospective evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 310, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  68. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Sumi, K. Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 118, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Matud, M.P. Cyber and Offline Intimate Partner Violence Questionnaire (COIPVQ); [Unpublished Questionnaire]; Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, University of La Laguna: Tenerife, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  72. Chacón-López, H.; Romero-Barriga, J.F.; Aragón-Carretero, Y.; Caurcel-Cara, M.J. Construcción y validación de la Escala de Conductas sobre Sexting (ECS). REOP 2016, 27, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Dir, A.L.; Cyders, M.A.; Coskunpinar, A. From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Comput. Human. Behav. 2013, 29, 1664–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Women’s Health Research During Ramadan: A Narrative Review
Previous
Women’s Empowerment and Physical Intimate Partner Violence in Jordan: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey
Next