Objectification theory (B. L. Fredrickson & T. Roberts, 1997) posits that American culture socializes women to adopt observers' perspectives on their physical selves. This self-objectification is hypothesized to (a) produce body shame, which in turn leads to restrained eating, and (b) consume attentional resources, which is manifested in diminished mental performance. Two experiments manipulated self-objectification by having participants try on a swimsuit or a sweater. Experiment 1 tested 72 women and found that self-objectification increased body shame, which in turn predicted restrained eating. Experiment 2 tested 42 women and 40 men and found that these effects on body shame and restrained eating replicated for women only. Additionally, self-objectification diminished math performance for women only. Discussion centers on the causes and consequences of objectifying women's bodies.

According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people's affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) instructed participants to rate the funniness of cartoons using a pen that they held in their mouth. In line with the facial feedback hypothesis, when participants held the pen with their teeth (inducing a "smile"), they rated the cartoons as funnier than when they held the pen with their lips (inducing a "pout"). This seminal study of the facial feedback hypothesis has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 17 independent direct replications of Study 1 from Strack et al. (1988), all of which followed the same vetted protocol. A meta-analysis of these studies examined the difference in funniness ratings between the "smile" and "pout" conditions. The original Strack et al. (1988) study reported a rating difference of 0.82 units on a 10-point Likert scale. Our meta-analysis revealed a rating difference of 0.03 units with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -0.11 to 0.16.

This article reviews evidence for a gender difference in responsiveness to others' evaluations in achievement situations. Studies show that women's self-evaluations are more responsive to the valence of the evaluative feedback they receive than are men's. A number of possible explanations for this effect are then discussed, with the best evidence pointing to men's and women's differing construals of the informational value of others' evaluations in such situations. Research on the behavioral consequences of women's lower status as well as on children's experiences with evaluative feedback provides potential explanations for this effect. A more proximal explanation, however, lies in men's and women's different approaches to evaluative achievement situations. Men may be particularly likely to respond to the competitive nature of evaluative achievement and hence to adopt a self-confident approach that leads them to deny the informational value of others' evaluations. Women may be particularly likely to approach such situations as opportunities to gain information about their abilities.

An experiment tested the hypothesis that reminders of a woman's menstrual status lead to more negative reactions to her and increased objectification of women in general. Participants interacted with a female confederate who ostensibly accidentally dropped either a tampon or hair clip out of her handbag. Dropping the tampon led to lower evaluations of the confederate's competence, decreased liking for her, and a marginal tendency to avoid sitting close to her. Furthermore, gender schematic participants responded to the reminder of menstruation with increased objectification of women in general, an effect we view as an effort to "protect" culturally sanitized views of the feminine. These findings are discussed from the perspective of feminist theory and a terror management perspective on the role of ambivalence about the human body in the objectification of women.

Strong cultural messages are sent to women that their bodies are unacceptable as they are, thus encouraging engagement in a variety of body‐altering practices. It seems that one of the obligations that women have in a culture that sexually objectifies their bodies is to conceal their bodies' more physical functions, such as menstruation. A new scale was constructed to measure women's attitudes and emotions toward menstruation. A study was conducted to test the relationship between self‐objectification and women's menstrual self‐evaluations. Results showed that women who internalize a more sexually objectified view of their physical selves have more negative attitudes and emotions, including disgust and shame, toward their own menstrual cycles.